Today at the BC Legislature I had the distinct honour to witness more than a thousand youth support Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Greta Thunberg and the school climate strike. Below I reproduce the press release that the BC Green Party released in support of this event that I attended. As you might imagine, the incredible youth participating in this student strike are a wonderful inspiration for me and they certainly serve as hope for the future.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus statement on the School Strike for Climate
For immediate release
March 15, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – Inspired by the school strikes of Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Greta Thunberg, hundreds of thousands of children and youth around the world are striking today for climate action.

“Our children are telling us that it is time to treat this crisis as a crisis, and they are right,” said Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Greens. “I am humbled and honoured to stand with the world’s children and youth as they demand political action on climate change.

“All of the science is pointing to the fact that we are fast running out of time to avoid global catastrophe, and yet around the world political leaders are failing to consider the existential threat that we face. To quote Greta Thunberg, we need to focus on what needs to be done rather than what is politically possible.”

“The decisions we make today have lasting impacts,” said Sonia Furstenau, B.C. Green MLA for Cowichan Valley. “Our young people may not be able to vote, but their voices are strong and we have a moral, ethical, and political responsibility to listen to them.

“We are incredibly proud of the CleanBC plan and how it will shape our province in the years to come. But as our children are pointing out today, we need to do much, much more. I was grateful to join today’s climate strike, these kids and young people inspire me to keep fighting for a just future.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

Budget estimate debates for the Ministry of Advanced Education were held yesterday. I took the opportunity to ask the Minister about government’s progress towards creating the promised 2,900 additional tech-related spaces in public post-secondary institutions. This was supposed to result in 1,000 additional grads per year by 2023.

Below I reproduce the text and video of the exchange. As you will see from the response, I am  pleased that the government appears to be on track to reach this target.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: Thank you. I appreciate that.

The next question is with respect to the government announcements regarding the tech industry and the 2,900 additional tech-related spaces that the minister announced would be made available through public post-secondary institutions. This was supposed to result in 1,000 additional grads per year by 2023. Start-up funding was $4.4 million last year, but was expected to increase to $42 million.

I have two questions on this particular aspect. Is this plan still on track, number one? Two, how many spaces were added at B.C. post-secondary institutions last year?

Hon. M. Mark: Yes, the plan is on track. We began with 380 full-time-equivalent student spaces. We have a multi-year plan, to the member’s question. It started with an investment, as he noted, of $4.4 million to post-secondary institutions in 2017-2018. It increased to a total of $7 million in 2018-2019, and it continues to increase over the course of the new three-year fiscal plan. In 2019-2020, we plan to provide $24.9 million in funding, with further increases to come in subsequent years.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the answer. According to the CEO of the B.C. Tech Association, access to talent is the single greatest barrier to growth for B.C. tech companies and the industry as a whole. In fact, it’s got to such a state in British Columbia that there are companies acquiring other companies solely for the talent that the company actually holds.

I’m wondering whether or not government believes that the investments they’re making are adequate — what metrics are they using to determine whether or not they are adequate? — and whether or not they believe their goals are being reached.

Hon. M. Mark: I want to acknowledge the work of B.C. Tech. We’ve got the third annual tech summit coming up next week. We’ve got a huge delegation of young people that are going to come from across the province to participate in that forum.

It’s a continuation of previous work that was done by the former government. But we’re talking about three years. So when the member asks, “is this significant…?” It’s a start; 2,900 seats is a lot for this system. It’s the first lift in a decade.

We’re very, very proud of that. We also have to look at the system and their capacity — the availability of facilities, equipment and instructors. So we will continue to invest in tech spaces, and we’re going to continue to work with industry. For right now, we’re just very proud of this first step. There will be more.

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 5: Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2019 at second reading. This bill amends several pieces of legislation in order to implement a number of the tax measures proposed in the BC Government’s budget. As one might expect from my earlier detailed remarks on the overall budget, I spoke in favour of this bill.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my remarks.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on second reading on Bill 5, 2019: Budget Measures Implementation Act.

As we know, this bill implements a number of the tax changes that were outlined in the budget. I won’t go into rather gory detail on this. Of course, I did speak quite a long time to the original budget, and we’re seeing a few of the items there reflected in the implementation act here.

There’s, obviously, a number of initiatives — major new initiatives — like the new B.C. child opportunity benefit, as well as things like expanding existing programs, like the small business venture capital tax credit. I’ll come to some others shortly. There’s a number of other minor changes that we’ve been told clarify administrative aspects of existing taxes. By and large, I and my colleagues are supportive of the overall direction of this budget, as we articulated in our budget speech.

The first one I want to address, though, is section 1 of Bill 5, 2019. This is a proposed change to the Carbon Tax Act. Now, it’s been suggested to us that the legislative change here just clarifies that the existing penalty already exists for selling natural gas without a certificate, and the legislation wasn’t clear enough previously. I must admit. A flag was raised by this section, and I look forward to a briefing on this section, in approximately 45 minutes, to ask a few questions directly about what was intended here.

Other sections in the bill are not particularly controversial, from our perspective.

I want to address the flow-through mining tax credit. This is a key piece of ongoing legislation, or now becoming permanent, that we’ve seen in budget implementation act after budget implementation act — at least every year since I’ve been here. It’s either done for one year or a couple of years, sometimes three years. We know that certainty is critical to the industry. One of the reasons why this is, essentially, being made permanent is to provide said certainty for the mining sector.

In that aspect, I’m very pleased to see this become a permanent feature of legislation, because we know — I mean, pun intended — mining, literally, is the bedrock industry of our economy. It’s the foundation of much of what we have — that and forestry. We build a foundation with mining and the house with wood from our forestry sector, so it’s critical that we continue to support these industries.

I recognize that the mining sector would have approached the government and suggested that this would be something that they’d like to see. Government has already announced this. In January, they announced that they were going to be doing this and that the tax credit would continue to flow directly from a company through to investors.

My one caveat in all of this is not that I’m opposed to the notion of flow-through tax credits to the mining sector. The problem I have, of course, with this is that we need to ensure that there’s government oversight. The flow-through program is important in terms of attracting investment, particularly into venture capital. But without proper regulatory oversight, it can be exploited.

It is very difficult for the average investor to get access to this flow-through tax credit. You have to be part of private placements. You have to, sometimes, know the right person who is issuing it. So it’s not really a tool that’s open to the average retail investor, and that’s one of the caveats and flags I have. It allows so-called in-the-know investors or investment corporations to get the flow-through tax credits. If there’s no hold on them…. And the holds vary. These can actually be dumped on the market, as soon as they become tradeable, at a discount to the market. In essence, it can be an unfair advantage that certain people in the know get when they have access to the flow-through.

So the notion and concept — very much support. I hope government ensures that there’s regulatory oversight and that we ensure that, in fact, the average retail investor is not put at disadvantage, as only a select few have access to these programs for private placements and so forth.

The child opportunity benefit, I would argue, is a flagship change in this government’s budget. It’s a flagship change that we’re very pleased to support.

Actually, what’s fascinating about this is you can view this as an important transition credit. As we start to worry more and more about gig economies, as we start to worry more and more about artificial intelligence replacing certain jobs in our society, this really is looking like a form of basic income. But it’s really a form of basic income that applies to people with children. I suspect, both in the province of British Columbia and federally, we’re going to see more and more of these kinds of initiatives take place as the gig economy continues.

This change aligns very nicely with the fundamental core values of our party, which is the notion of intergenerational equity. This is a benefit that’s being applied for people with children, who are struggling now with affordability issues. They’re going to be given a little bit of a leg up, and that is something we’re very proud to support — an initiative that we think is a very timely initiative that government has brought in.

Child poverty in British Columbia is stubbornly high. One in five children in B.C. has been growing up in poverty. Honestly, when you think about it, this is not Zambia. This is not some Southeast Asian country that’s struggling with a dictator. This is British Columbia. Twenty percent of children living in poverty in British Columbia? This is unacceptable. I think most British Columbians would argue that this is an unacceptable situation, particularly as our province is so wealthy and as we have so many opportunities before us.

We believe that supporting children in their earliest years…. Whether it be through education by ensuring that kids get the services they need when they need them in the school system, those critical developmental years; whether it be through support to ensure that parents struggling to make ends meet have access to early childhood education provisions and services; whether they have access to child benefits — these are all critical for income security for struggling families in British Columbia. So good on government for doing this.

We understand that it can’t go until 2020. I’m a little…. I understand that the critic from the official opposition was troubled that it’s going to take a year to get in, and government has argued that the revenue agency needs this lead time.

I’m not so sure, knowing the way governments work, that in fact it would be possible for the federal government to do the necessary changes in the time frame that the member opposite wants in light of the fact that they can’t even still get their payroll system done federally. I don’t know how many years they’ve been working on that. They can’t even fix the T4 slips for their own employees who are filing tax returns this year.

With the greatest respect to the member opposite, I’m going to go….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Yeah, benefit of the… And I look forward to the question at committee stage, because I agree it’s a very legitimate question. But I am quite troubled, federally, when I hear that people are getting T4 slips that don’t reflect the income they actually made.

This credit. One of the good things about this, of course, is it’s being extended to children who are 18. You know, hon. Speaker, it seems that I always miss out on these. My children have just passed the 18 threshold yet again. When you are born right at the boundary of the baby boom era, you get nothing. When you graduated from university…. We always look at the millennials, and we always look at the baby boomers, but there are those people who were born in the early 1960s, those transition people. They didn’t reap the benefits of the boomers. They didn’t have the people coming to the universities when they graduated, interviewing for jobs.

Back in the day, you had a degree? You got a job. Back in the 1980s, we didn’t have that. So yet again, had I been born a few years later — my generation; those transitional boomers, let’s call them — there would have been a benefit. But no, we don’t get a benefit.

So I feel no conflict at all in resoundingly voting for this, for the extending of this tax credit, given that my children have all aged out of this benefit.

I’m not sure that families with higher-end incomes, at the higher end, will be better off. In fact, they might even be worse off than under the existing credit. However, I think most people would reflect upon the fact that we have a society where it’s difficult to make ends meet if you’re earning below, say, $80,000 as a net income of your family. That’s really tough in places like Victoria and Vancouver to make ends meet.

If you have a couple of children living in a two-bedroom house, you’re maybe spending $1,500 to $2,000 a month of after-tax income. That’s a lot of money. Groceries aren’t going down, transportation costs. Hydro — heaven forbid, you get a hydro bill. It’s going up dramatically. I think people understand that it is important to target those families that need it, particularly families that are on the lower income stage.

We’ve got some changes to the motor fuel tax. This is an important change, the one allowing for an additional 1½ cents per litre of gas to be collected in Metro Vancouver. Of course, this is the power that the mayors wanted to fund their phase 2 transit projects. Again, they’re responsible for 20 percent of the cost, and they have a $30 million shortfall.

I suspect people in Vancouver will be concerned, but in fact, I suggest that with the transitioning to…. If you view this in the context of the ZEV mandate that’s been introduced, we’re going to find more and more people, particularly in Metro Vancouver and on Vancouver Island, switching to electric vehicles in a timely fashion. The one danger is that if you become overly reliant on fuel taxes, at some point, with the adoption of electric vehicles, you’re going to be in a shortfall down the road — which is a good problem to have, I would suggest, a good problem to find alternate sources.

Let’s continue on moving forward with this. TransLink’s estimate was that this small 1½ cents is going to cost the average vehicle $24 a year. I think most people in Metro Vancouver would be pretty okay with a much revamped and upgraded transit system. One of the things, I think, we need to look at is getting transit out into the Fraser Valley in a very efficient manner. It troubles me that TransLink stops and B.C. Transit picks up. There are transitional issues that they have to deal with, and hopefully, that will get dealt with in the months ahead.

The small business venture capital tax credit. A small change here but an important change: effective 2019, the annual tax credit limit that an individual can claim for an investment will increase from $60,000 to $120,000 a year. Again, it’s a small change but a very important change, particularly for the innovation community in British Columbia.

So I take exception with the notion from members opposite that said there’s nothing in here for business. It’s actually not true. This change, while small, is actually critical for the innovation industry: technology companies, start-up companies, companies that are looking to make investments in themselves. This is a very welcome change. It assists companies in scaling up from being stuck perpetually in the bottom echelons of corporate hierarchy. With an ability, through this tax credit, to do some reinvesting in themselves, it allows for a more efficient a scaling up of programs — again, something that we’re delighted to support.

Government’s expanding support at the commercialization stage to businesses outside of Vancouver and Victoria only. This is important. You know, it’s a good place to start. But businesses in Victoria and Vancouver, I would suggest, also need to get some benefits as well.

Speculation tax. We have a slight change in this bill too. Another exemption to the speculation tax has been added for an owner of a residential property, for a calendar year, if a residence that is part of the residential property becomes uninhabitable fewer than 60 days before the end of the immediately preceding calendar year.

You can imagine a house burning down, for example. It would be pretty rough to be nailed with a speculation tax if your house is uninhabitable, because it happened to be habitable, you had a house fire, and it’s no longer inhabitable. So I’m obviously supportive of this approach to add this commonsense exemption for people who are being burdened. That would be another…. There are other commonsense exemptions that we might talk about at some point in the future, but now is not the day for that. I’m sure in question period in the weeks ahead, I’ll hear some other examples.

There are a number of other minor changes to existing taxes. For example, section 33 “authorizes the use and disclosure of personal information for the purpose of administering and enforcing the Income Tax Act,” if collected under…. Which is why that’s important because we’re now getting a linking there between Home Owner Grant Act and the Land Tax Deferment Act and Income Tax Act and this allows for sharing. Gone are the days that you can actually buy and sell properties and try to avoid, through nefarious activity, paying the taxes that you’re supposed to pay.

The bill also prevents local governments from averaging or phasing in the additional school tax that was announced. I found that interesting that they did this, because I wasn’t aware that there were municipalities planning to do so. Clearly, if the minister is bringing it forward, there must have been. It’ll be interesting to find out more details there.

In conclusion, as promised, not a long second reading address to this. Obviously, my colleagues and I will be supporting this bill. They’re not all, again, as I say, the things we would do, but we are not government. We are but three MLAs who spend a lot of time going through the documents we have to ensure that the essence of the values that are reflected in our confidence and supply agreement are in bills like this. We’re delighted to see that they are.

We’re very pleased, as I said, with the government for funding CleanBC to the extent that they did. As well, we’re very pleased with the professional reliance reform, increasing affordability for students. I could make a cheap shot here, but I’m going to resist the temptation. One of the things I think is…. Oh, no, I don’t think it’s appropriate.

One of the things that is really, really…. I can’t emphasize enough how important it was to get the interest removed from student loans. One of the things I hope to see further is, as our province continues to benefit from a growing, clean economy, that we start to think about needs-based grants system for certain post-secondary education students. We’re one of the few — I’m not sure if there are any others that don’t — provinces that doesn’t have a needs-based grant system. To me, if I look at the progressive northern European nations and I look at some of the more progressive societies in our world, public education, post-secondary education and education in general is deemed to be a right as opposed to a privilege.

I would suggest that no student in British Columbia should have availability of resources be a barrier to them attending a post-secondary institution. As a society, it’s critical that we need to nurture our next generation. If they don’t, the ability to actually go to post-secondary institutions…. I think it’s imperative that we actually create some resources to allow them to do so, in a manner that doesn’t burden them for the rest of their life.

If you’re a student who, perhaps, comes from a poorer family, you don’t have the financial wherewithal to pay for the post-secondary education. You may be working part-time as you do it. It’s tough working part-time. You may be working in a restaurant. You may be being paid $13 an hour. You may be getting even $15, even $20. Even with tips, it’s tough to make ends meet while paying tuition fees and living full time in a province. So I think a needs-based grant system is the direction that our society here in British Columbia needs to go, something we’re committed to continuing to work towards advocating for. It is ultimately one of our most important jobs — to preserve our education system for future generations and to not make it one that only the elite can actually attend.

I will have note across that I did not take that opportunity to make any cheap shots about any comments that anyone made about the importance of the grant system.

As I said, we would have made different choices. We are very grateful to the minister and her staff for the process that was put in place here. We do commend the minister for actually listening to the Finance Committee. When I saw some of the inclusions of support for the Foundry services across B.C….I was on the Finance Committee last year. The cases being made by Foundry have been so compelling and their successes so great that I was very pleased to see that the minister listened to the report from the Finance Committee. Both two years ago and I suspect…. I didn’t read the full thing this year — but I know two years ago, we were all in on the Foundry and their presentation. It’s good to see that that process led to it.

Also, we provided a submission, like others, and we were pleased that CleanBC was funded. Obviously, one of the things that we would have liked to see more of…. We would have liked to see more investment in terms of, say, riparian habitat preservation; and more investment in terms of protecting species at risk. We recognize the problems with federal and provincial jurisdiction.

We would have liked to have seen, perhaps, more investment in terms of forestry, but again, I recognize government is starting the process to build and take a look at the forest system. Some of the low-hanging fruit that we can actually deal with and that don’t cost that much money are regulatory.

I’m quite excited to take a look at government, despite what question period said — taking a look at our tenure lot licensing system here in B.C. I can tell you that these are Crown trees on Crown land. When we give Crown trees on Crown land to multinationals that don’t actually report to the people of British Columbia but have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profits, those said Crown trees on Crown land are shipped south of the border as raw logs because (a) you can avoid softwood lumber tariffs, and (b) why have a mill in Burns Lake if you could have one south of the border and mill it up there?

We really need to take a look at this. I’m not advocating for reintroducing the appurtenancy requirement, but we’ve got to do better than this tenure lot licensing system.

We could also stop spraying glyphosate on our forests. Why on earth do we think it’s okay? Well, the reason why we do it is not because the forest companies actually want to go into our pine forests and spray glyphosate. It costs money. They have a requirement to allow the stands to come back, and this is part of what they believe they need to do in order to meet requirements.

However, we would suggest that if you eliminated that use of glyphosate, you actually get a double benefit. Number 1, you get the broadleaf undergrowth — the aspens, for example, and other broadleaf undergrowth, which are critical food sources for ungulates. These are depleting in our province, partly because of predator management but also inappropriate forest management practices which have led to predators having more take-in on our ungulates — and food sources going away. Co-benefit right there.

Secondly, if you allow the aspens and the birches to start to grow up, you provide a natural fire retardancy. We’re spending money after the fact, in terms of fighting fires. We’re spending money rebuilding devastated areas. We’re spending money going into forests and trying to deal with things after the fact.

Perhaps we could take a little proactive approach and say: “You know what? A little bit of forestry policy change. Let’s stop spraying glyphosate. Let’s allow that broadleaf undergrowth. We’re not going to have a monoculture stand. We recognize it may take longer for the pines to come back and compete, etc., but we’re going to have healthy ungulate populations and we’re going to provide a natural fire redardant. And guess what. We’re going to save money in the process.” It seems to me a win-win-win there. Hopefully, the Forests Minister and budgetary measures moving forward will deal with this.

Finally, moving forward, we’ll continue to work to ensure that government continues to deliver on the promises it has made. It has offered British Columbia as putting people first — the health and wellbeing of people first — while, at the same time, ensuring that the innovation agenda that this government has adopted in partnership with our party continues to thrive.

And it is thriving. Next week is the B.C. Tech Summit in Vancouver. I hope to see members there. I can tell you the community in B.C. is excited. The innovation community feels reinvigorated, and I’m very much looking to see the fruition of this good hard work that’s been going on for the last 18 months or so play out in the next couple of years.

I thank you for your time. With that, I’ll take my place

Today in the legislature I rose during Question Period to ask the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction about WorkBC‘s new procurement process, a process that has undermined the work of numerous community-based non-profit organizations that help British Columbians find work.

This year’s bidding rounds for Work B.C. contracts no longer require bidders to demonstrate a flow-through to community organizations. Previously, at least 25 percent of the public money was required to flow out to other local organizations. The removal of that requirement has shattered the collaborative networks that provided multiple social care services, some of which have been in place for 30 years or more.

Below I reproduced the text and video of the exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: It sure sounds like there are some fun and wacky times happening down there at the end of the opposition bench. I suspect this must be some kind of rite of passage for MLAs to their second term.

Work B.C. awards contracts for a number of services across B.C. and has a long relationship with non-profit organizations that help British Columbians find work. However, Work B.C.’s procurement process lacks rigour and transparency.

Last year major regions were amalgamated to larger catchment areas for services. The change came with little warning to the service providers and resulted in many local organizes no longer being able to compete. The RFPs that went out were heavily biased towards bigger organizations, often for-profit companies based outside of B.C. with no connection to the local communities, and no points awarded for community connection or knowledge.

Consolidating major services like this means that local non-profits cannot compete and more multinational companies are hired to do the same work, and so public dollars don’t stay in B.C.

My question is to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. Why was such a substantial change sprung on B.C. non-profit service providers, with no public consultation, when nothing in previous evaluations indicated that the change was necessary?

Answer

Hon. S. Simpson: I thank the member for the question. In fact, the changes that we’ve made around Work B.C. are changes that will put more money than ever into this system. We’ve had, over the last number of years, about $230 million annually that’s been invested in Work B.C. Under this model, $249 million will go into Work B.C. centres. We will increase the number of centres from 84 to 103 across the province. In addition to that, there are two new provincial programs around assistive technology and apprenticeship services that are now supporting initiatives across the province.

In terms of how those contracts were let, you’ll know the procurement process is one that, as a minister, I don’t get involved directly in. I would say to the member, though, that in terms of how the resources got allocated…. Under the previous program, the one we’re under now, 49 percent of the money went to the profit-making companies and 49 percent went to non-profits. Under the new system, 57 percent of the dollars will go to non-profits, 39 percent to the profit sector and 4 percent to a public institution. We’ll be watching this moving forward, but we think we’ve found the balance.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: In fact, I’m interested to hear that the minister suggests that the balance has been found. You know, it’s ironic that this government is actually increasing unemployment through its Work B.C. contracts as communities across B.C. lose their non-profits. So to think that the balance has been found…. If the balance that has been found is increasing unemployment and money going to multinationals, I would suggest that the minister may want to have a look at his file a little closer.

This year’s bidding rounds for Work B.C. contracts no longer require bidders to demonstrate a flow-through to community organizations. Previously, at least 25 percent of the public money was required to flow out to other local organizations. The removal of that requirement has shattered the collaborative networks that provided multiple social care services, some of which have been in place for 30 years or more. The statistics we heard from the minister are simply not accurate, because they do not reflect the 25 percent of money that is no longer required to flow through.

Local non-profits have community connections and must reinvest any profit they achieve. Major for-profit multinationals lack community connections and do not have to locally reinvest profits. Government is now using public dollars to connect international companies that have no on-the-ground service to the local communities in our province to provide those services.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. What was the justification for a process that has no requirement anymore for bidders to demonstrate any flow-through to local community organizations?

Answer

Hon. S. Simpson: I thank the member again for the question. In fact, this was a two-step process. It was required, under the request for qualifications, where bidders qualified to go forward to the proposal stage…. There was, in fact, a request for information regarding their connection to community. From that qualification process, up to four bidders were able to go forward in the RFP process for each of the catchment areas. So in fact, what the member has talked about did occur there.

The reality is that what we got told in this process…. I spoke to service providers who said: “We are seeing less people, but the people we’re seeing need more of our time.” So we’ve structured a program here that very much allows those service providers now to deliver extended services so that the people who really need the support, the people who aren’t seeing employment now, have a greater opportunity for that.

It fits in as a critical piece of the poverty reduction strategy that we’ll be moving forward. We’re looking for the opportunity to give persons with disabilities, to support women escaping violence, to support recent immigrants, so that they get opportunities at employment they’re not seeing today.

I’m confident this program will give us those opportunities. I’m looking forward to its success.

Today I rose during Question Period to call on the BC Government to initiate a full scale public inquiry into Money Laundering in British Columbia. The purpose of such an inquiry is to remove the investigation from partisan influence, protect the public interest and restore public trust. The B.C. Green Caucus does not ask for this lightly. However the financial impact money laundering has had — and that it continues to have — on the province is staggering: the federal Ministry of Finance estimates the problem at least $1 billion annually.

Over the past two weeks, my colleagues Adam Olsen, Sonia Furstenau and I have been using Question Period to explore what government is doing to deal with British Columbia’s money laundering scandal. The responses to our questions suggest that while the government has been doing a good job on a variety of fronts, we should bring the investigation into one, independent public inquiry.

We believe that there is enough evidence now to warrant the provincial government starting down this path, without waiting for more reports. Future reports still outstanding can feed directly into an inquiry. We further believe that the terms of reference for the inquiry must be broad enough to address money laundering, organized crime networks, the real estate market, the opioid crisis, and the links between them.

An independent public inquiry is the best course of action because inquiry commissioners can have the power to subpoena witnesses and compel testimony. Furthermore, it can run parallel to any criminal investigation as was done in Quebéc with the Charbonneau Commission.

We are joined in the call for a public inquiry by the cities of Victoria, Richmond, and Vancouver, more than 76% of British Columbians, Port Coquitlam Mayor Brad West, the BC Government Service Employees Union, and several petitions signed by thousands of British Columbians.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my question period exchange with the Attorney General. I also append a copy of our media release.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Please let me start by thanking members of opposition and the minister for canvassing such an important issue and having the dialogue that led to some very informative answers that we can take back to our constituency. I thank you for the questioning there.

A recent article from the Vancouver Sun pointed out that the scale of money laundering happening here in British Columbia is still unclear. A report last year from the Paris-based financial action task force indicated that $1 billion a year was laundered through a “massive” underground bank in British Columbia that served Mexican cartels, Asian gangs and Middle Eastern crime groups.

Illegal gambling money, drug money and money derived from extortion was laundered in British Columbia to supply cash to Chinese gamblers. Yet, our government continues to take a reactive approach to money laundering. There is a deficit of public trust in our province, and the people of British Columbia deserve a government that will take a more proactive approach to this issue.

My question to the Attorney General is this: will the minister introduce the public inquiry into money laundering in British Columbia?

Answer

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question and all members for the tone of the Legislature today. I think it’s great.

In terms of the member’s question about the approach that the government is taking, we were clear from the very beginning about why we have taken the approach of doing reviews into money laundering versus a public inquiry. We can move faster. We can get the information we need, and we can stop the activity that is actually taking place in British Columbia. We saw that in the casino file. We were able to stop the activity of bringing bulk cash into the casinos very quickly as a result of a review. A public inquiry takes longer to get to those kinds of results.

But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have the same questions that the member has about who knew what when, what kind of accountable should there be and the kinds of questions that can be answered through a public inquiry. What it does mean is that we need to take action to stop the activity as quickly as we can. The member knows that Dr. German is currently working on questions related to horse racing, luxury cars and real estate. I can tell the member that Dr. German is already uncovering some very disturbing information that’s causing government to take action and enabling us to take quick action. I’m very grateful for Dr. German doing that kind of work for us. But that does not exclude the possibility of a public inquiry.

I thank the member for making his party’s position very clear on this issue and all British Columbians, frankly, who have written to me about this issue to express their interest in a public inquiry as well.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I thank the minister for the answer to the previous question.

While I do appreciate the response I received, the question I’m left with is: how many reports and news stories do we need to be written to convince this government that more resources are required to solve the problem? This government needs to develop solutions, not wait for them to arrive on their doorstep and waiting for other reports to articulate them.

Last week the Attorney General made reference to the fact that one of the top five transnational criminal organizations in the world was getting tax credits from Advantage B.C. A criminal organization getting tax credits in British Columbia to launder money is absolutely unbelievable. It’s an unbelievable allegation. It’s clear that government doesn’t yet understand the scope of this issue and that one or two reports is not enough.

In order to get to the root of this problem, we need an independent approach that can address the broad scope of money laundering in our province.

Previously, the Premier stated that he prefers prosecution over public inquiry. However, transparency watchdogs and lawyers who are experts on transnational crime have called for a public inquiry. That’s the only way to effectively deal with this problem. A public inquiry along the lines of what occurred in the Charbonneau Commission can run in parallel to criminal investigations that may or may not be ongoing.

Again, my question is to the Attorney General: when will the minister institute a public inquiry on the issue of money laundering in our province?

Answer

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of pieces about the member’s question. One is in relation to prosecutions. The member knows that the federal prosecution fell apart. It was expected to go to trial. It didn’t. It was ultimately stayed just before it was going to go to trial. Those materials are being reviewed by provincial prosecutors right now to determine whether or not our independent prosecution service will be bringing charges in relation to those materials. That’s ongoing.

A public inquiry, itself, will not result in criminal charges. It provides accountability. It provides the public with transparency into what took place — who knew what and when. It is a political accountability tool, but it is not a prosecution tool. So just to draw that important distinction. Now, that’s not to say it doesn’t have an important place in the tools of accountability of government. It’s just to say that it has that limitation.

The work that we’re doing right now is not reactive. We’re out there. We have experts on this issue. The Minister of Finance — I mean, she cancelled Advantage B.C., right? That is the program that gave the tax credits to Pacman. I mean, we are taking the steps that are needed. We’re getting the experts to provide advice. We’re actually taking steps — the Ministry of Finance on the beneficial ownership registry, so we actually know who owns property, an important tool for police and for tax authorities. We have Peter German out there, working on important issues so that we can take action in relation to those other areas that I told the member about. We’re taking a lot of action on this.

As I said to the member and as I would say to all British Columbians, that does not mean — and the Premier has been very clear — that we have ruled out a public inquiry on this issue. It just means that we’re taking these steps and these necessary steps first.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus Calls for Public Inquiry into Money Laundering Scandal
For immediate release
February 26, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. –The B.C. Green Caucus calls on its fellow MLAs to stand united in calling for an independent public inquiry into the issue of money laundering, which has strong ties to the province’s housing affordability and opioid crises.

“We are calling for an immediate public inquiry into money laundering in BC so to remove the investigation from partisan influence, protect the public interest and restore public trust,” said MLA Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green party. “The B.C. Green Caucus does not ask for this lightly. However the financial impact money laundering has had- and that it continues to have- on the province is staggering: the federal Ministry of Finance estimates the problem at $1 billion annually.”

The province made international headlines last year when a report by the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force, a body of G7 member countries fighting money laundering, terrorist financing and threats to the international financial system, was leaked to the press. The report highlighted B.C. money laundering activities, of which the province admitted it was not fully aware.

“An independent public inquiry is appropriate as it can have a broad scope, functioning outside of partisan influences or criminal jurisdictions and extensive enough to include all senior public officials and elected members of the Legislature. Public inquiry investigations can involve interviews and oral testimony, and commissioners can have the power to subpoena witnesses. These investigations get to the heart of the complexity of what exactly happened and how it was allowed to happen.

“Although inquiries are not courts, they often exist alongside criminal investigations-such as the Charbonneau Commission in 2011- supplementing those criminal charges with real, actionable recommendations to identify, reduce and prevent such events from happening again. This is something purely punitive criminal charges do not address.

“The BC Green Caucus is not alone in its call for an independent public inquiry into the issue of money laundering  in BC. We are joined by cities of Victoria, Richmond and Vancouver, and more than 76 percent of British Columbians polled last year support an inquiry. The chorus grows daily.

“An inquiry of this nature will take time, but so too did this money laundering scheme with evidence going back at least a decade. And the financial repercussions of a skyrocketing housing market and the devastating impacts the of opioid epidemic on the health and wellbeing of British Columbians will possibly span many years into the future. We owe it to ourselves and our children to investigate the links between money laundering, real estate, drug trafficking, and organized crime.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
250-882-6187, macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca