The BC Government today released two new reports outlining the scale of money laundering that has been rampant in British Columbia over the last few years.

The first report was coauthored by Professor Maureen Maloney (SFU School of Public Policy), Professor Tsur Somerville (UBC Sauder School of Business), and Professor Brigitte Unger (School of Economics, Utrecht University). It painted an extraordinarily grim picture of widespread money laundering through British Columbia’s real estate sector totalling upwards of $7.3 billion in 2018 alone. In making 29 recommendations this expert panel noted that “a strong government response is urgently required.”

The second report comprised Part 2 of Peter German’s comprehensive three-part analysis into money laundering in BC. Part 2, entitled Dirty Money — Part 2.  Turning the Tide – An Independent Review of Money Laundering in B.C. Real Estate, Luxury Vehicle Sales & Horse Racing, expanded upon his initial analysis into money laundering in BC casinos released on March 31, 2018. The release of Part 2 followed on the heels of government releasing Part 3 of German’s analysis (on Tuesday) into money laundering in luxury cars.

Money laundering through the purchase and sale of luxury automobiles formed the basis of my questions to the Attorney General today during Question Period today. Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange. I also reproduce copies of the media statement we issued in response to government’s release of today’s reports and my statement delivered at today’s press conference.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Earlier this week the Attorney General confirmed that money laundering goes beyond our casinos. Our biggest city is not just known for the dubious criminal distinction as the Vancouver model for money laundering, it’s also known as the luxury car capital of North America, fuelled, in part, by suspected criminal activity. Indeed, provincial employees identified numerous red flags connecting money laundering to the luxury vehicle export market, and despite these flags, the province issued over $85 million in PST refunds since 2013 to many suspicious individuals.

My question is to the Attorney General. He has said he has taken action on this finding, but why was this suspicious activity allowed to persist for so long? And why did it take this special report to highlight what government officials have known for many years?

Answer

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. This is obviously a very serious issue, and I’m very grateful to Dr. German and his team. Former chief LePard was a key part of this report that uncovered this troubling information: among other things, car dealers saying they’re in the middle of money laundering; uncovering the use of straw buyers to purchase luxury cars; thousands of straw buyers acting on behalf of exporters who are the true purchasers, claiming PST rebates; people with extensive criminal backgrounds running resale operations of luxury cars, people who wouldn’t qualify for a liquor licence or other government licences but allowed to operate and run these businesses — obviously, major issues.

The member asked why it has taken so long to uncover these things. One of the major reasons that has been a theme throughout Dr. German’s reports is a lack of oversight, a lack of enforcement. We are moving quickly to address those issues. The Finance Minister is, obviously, reviewing this program, making sure that criminals don’t get PST rebates, for a starter, which seems like a pretty good start. The second piece is we’re working with RCMP, with police and with the Solicitor General’s office to ensure that the provincial government can do everything we can in terms of enforcement. We’re working with regulators in terms of their mandates.

There is a lot going on in this file to respond, and I’m very grateful that Dr. German’s bringing this stuff to our attention so that we can take action on it. And I agree with the member about: why did it take so long?

Supplementary Question

Thank you to the Attorney General for the answer. One quote in the German report on luxury cars, the section released earlier this week, stood out for me. A car dealer said: “I’m right in the thick of money laundering here.” He also said: “It’s unequivocally money laundering.”

It’s not surprising he came to that conclusion when it appears to be a regular occurrence for cars to be bought with bags of cash, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, with zero reporting requirements in the industry. It’s absolutely crazy, what’s happening in B.C., not just in casinos but in the luxury car sector. We know the next chapter of the German report will tell us the extent of money laundering in our real estate sector.

To the Attorney General: the more we learn about this, the more we know how important it is now to have a public inquiry. The B.C. Green caucus has been calling for one for months now. Thousands upon thousands of British Columbians have been calling for a public inquiry, and just last week I introduced a petition from a federal EDA of the NDP calling on this government to bring forward a public inquiry.

My question to the Attorney General is: will this government launch a public inquiry, and if so, when?

Answer

Thank you very much to the member for the question. The member knows — and I’ve outlined for him and for the Legislature — our government’s approach on this, which has been to identify what’s happening right now and move as quickly as we can to stop it. We’ve had some success in the casino sector, stopping the bulk cash transactions. We will have success in the luxury car sector, addressing the issues that have been raised here.

The issue around public inquiry is really more aimed at: who knew what when, and are there any issues related to corruption? People want to know the answers to those questions. I understand why people want to know that. I mean, this went on for a long time. It’s the decision that is in front of cabinet, and cabinet will have a decision, and government will have a decision for British Columbians very shortly.

I thank the member for that.

Media Statement

Most recent money laundering reports support BC Green call for public inquiry
For immediate release
May 9, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – The two reports into money laundering in B.C. directly support the value of a public inquiry, reinforcing the B.C. Green caucus’ call for government to act.

“We saw in German’s report a direct rationale for a public inquiry. Namely, that it would improve public awareness, play a crucial role in fault finding, and would help to develop full recommendations,” said B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. “The B.C. Green caucus has been calling for a public inquiry for months, as have thousands of British Columbians. It is time for this government to start a public inquiry so that the public can get the answers it deserves and B.C. can move forward.

“Today, we discovered a much fuller picture of money laundering going on in our province. It is no surprise, but we can now be confident that illicit money has been influencing Vancouver’s housing market.

“One of the key findings of both reports was the issue of beneficial ownership. This is something I have been raising in the legislature under both the BC Liberal and BC NDP governments as a huge loophole in our system that should have been fixed long ago. Recent steps by government to address beneficial ownership through establishing a registry are encouraging, but we need to go further and end the use of beneficial ownership as a tax avoidance tool.

“We also saw that there are many sectors of our economy that have lax financial regulation, leaving them vulnerable to money laundering: from bags of cash being used to buy luxury vehicles, pianos and even to pay post-secondary fees. To deal with all of this the report recommended a ‘system-wide reset’ in criminal prosecution.

“With each new finding and each new report, we learn more about how our province has been exploited by criminals and how the systems and people charged with protecting us have failed over and over again. It is time to remove this investigation from any possible political influence, to get to the bottom of what happened, and to ensure this assault never happens again. British Columbians deserve to have their public interests protected and their trust in government restored.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
B.C. Green Third Party Caucus
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

Speaking notes

Today we discovered a much fuller picture of money laundering in BC –  it is clear that illicit money has been influencing our real estate market as British Columbians struggle with the impacts of the housing crisis.

One of the key findings of this report was the issue of beneficial ownership. This is something I have been raising in the legislature under both the BC Liberal and BC NDP governments as a huge loophole in our system that should have been fixed long ago.

Aside from real estate, the German report showed that there are many sectors of our economy that have lax financial regulation, leaving them vulnerable to money laundering: from bags of cash being used to buy luxury vehicles, pianos and even used to pay post-secondary fees. To deal with all of this Germans report recommended a ‘ system-wide reset’ in criminal prosecution.

With each new finding and each new report, we learn more about how our province has been exploited by criminals and how the systems and people charged with protecting us have failed over and over again. It is time to remove this investigation from any possible political influence, to get to the bottom of what happened, and to ensure that this assault never happens again. British Columbians deserve to have their public interests protected and their trust in government restored.

We have a clear rationale for a public inquiry. German himself referenced a positive change that came out of the Charbonneau Commission in Quebec. Clearly public inquiries can be useful and result in real change.

My colleagues and I have been calling for a public inquiry for months, as have thousands of British Columbians. The housing and opioid crises have impacted every single community and it is unacceptable that criminals have been profiting from these very personal, heartbreaking challenges. We need to work together. It’s time for a meaningful, independent explanation – we need a public inquiry.

Thank you.

Yesterday in the BC Legislature we debated Bill 23: Land Owner Transparency Act, 2019 at second reading. This is an important bill that is aimed at increasing transparency in property ownership. The bill requires beneficial owners of corporations, partnerships and trusts to file a transparency declaration when there is a transfer of legal title of property or a change in beneficial ownership. It further requires pre-existing beneficial owners  to file a declaration. However, the bill will not affect individual property owners who are listed on title at the Land Title Office.

Transparency International Canada, the Canadian Chapter of Transparency International, is an anti-corruption NGO that recently published an extensive analysis of the scale of anonymous ownership of Canadian companies and Trusts. Their 2016 report states:

“Analysis of land title records by TI Canada found that nearly half of the 100 most valuable residential properties in Greater Vancouver are held through structures that hide their beneficial owners. Nearly one-third of the properties are owned through shell companies, while at least 11 percent have a nominee listed on title. The use of nominees appears to be on the rise; more than a quarter of the high-end homes bought in the last five years are owned by students or homemakers with no clear source of income. Trusts are also common ownership structures for luxury properties; titles for six of the 100 properties disclose that they are held through trusts, but the actual number may be much higher as there is no need to register a trust’s existence.“

For over five years I have been calling on government to plug a loophole that lets corporations and wealthy individuals avoid paying BC’s property transfer tax. Plugging this loophole would bring tens of millions of dollars into provincial coffers and correct an injustice that unduly penalizes ordinary BC families. While Bill 23 does not close the loophole, it does provide government with important information about beneficial property ownership in British Columbia. This will allow government  to get a sense of the scale of the problem without actually solving it. I am hopeful that once the data starts rolling in, government will quickly recognize that the bare trust loophole must be closed to ensure that property transfer tax is applied on a transfer of beneficial ownership not on a transfer of title.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my second reading speech in support of this important bill.

Video of Speech

Forthcoming

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: That took me a little bit by surprise, as it was so succinct, the previous speaker. She was so timely in her words that she was speaking in, I think, support — caveated support — to this bill, but I’m not quite sure. I was indeed listening.

It gives me pleasure to rise and stand in very strong — let me be very clear — unequivocal support of Bill 23, Land Owner Transparency Act, at second reading. This is something that is long overdue in British Columbia. I am absolutely delighted that the government is stepping up to create the important registry required to ensure that partnerships, trusts and corporations that own property in British Columbia have beneficial ownership registered in such a registry.

This legislation will require owners of such corporations and partnerships and trusts to file a transparency declaration when there is a transfer of legal title of property or change in beneficial ownership. Pre-existing beneficial owners will also be required to file a declaration. It doesn’t apply to individual owners. The ownership information of individuals is already publicly available through the land title office, as we know. You and I have to do that whenever we buy a property.

Therein lies the problem. This is an issue that I’ve been raising in this Legislature since not long after I got elected in 2013, within the context of what was going on, when I asked question after question after question to the then B.C. Liberal government about what they were going to do to close the so-called bare trust loophole, which is continuing to this day to be used to avoid paying property transfer tax and to avoid disclosure of who is buying or is not buying property in British Columbia.

This is a first step there. This is a requirement that beneficial ownership now be declared in the registry.

Let me give you an example about why that’s important. Let’s suppose I want to speculate in the Victoria or Vancouver real estate market. I assign somebody to go and buy a property — to buy that property and put it in a trust. I’m going to put it in a trust. There may be a corporation that owns that trust. The beneficial owners of that corporation may be some people who were there initially to buy that property and develop the corporation. Those individuals have no need to disclose the owners of the shares of the corporation that owns the trust. The trust is on title. The trust is all that’s on title. No matter how many times those shares in that corporation change, no matter how many times not only the beneficial but the majority ownership of that corporation changes, there is no change of the registered owner at the land title office. It is the trust, the bare trust.

We had examples of properties being flipped, typically high-end properties being flipped from owner to owner to owner, not through the sale and change of land title, but through the change of the transfer of the shares of the corporations that owned the trust that owned the land title. All the time avoiding property transfer tax, because you only pay transfer tax on transfer of title, not on transfer of beneficial ownership, which is an area that I hope government, at some point in the future, will move towards closing.

I understand the rationale that they’re bringing forward now. They want to gather the data first to see how the scale of the problem is, in order to deal with the problem rather than going straight to deal with the problem. I have some sympathy from that argument. It’s taken some time to get here, but we are here, and I’m absolutely delighted that we are here. The registry that will be here will be publicly searchable, but with some information only accessible by government and law enforcement for reasons that were articulated by the minister in her opening remarks.

The bill also allows individuals to apply to omit information if their health or, as the minister alluded to, safety is at risk from public disclosure. You might imagine, for example, the issue of someone fleeing domestic violence or someone in the witness protection program. It would be kind of odd to have the beneficial ownership of a property of someone in witness protection to be actually in their original name. So there are reasons that we have that.

Coming back to the background for this article, the confidence and supply agreement the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens signed back in 2017 states as follows: we will collectively focus on shared values to “make housing more affordable by increasing supply of affordable housing and take action to deal with the speculation and fraud that is driving up prices.” The B.C. Green caucus has been calling for this for I don’t know how long. We know we’ve been calling on government to eliminate the ability of buyers to hide their identities through shell companies, numbered companies and trusts.

We’ve been calling on them to improve transparency in the land title registry — not only this government, but the previous government before that — and to improve the land title and corporate registry by requiring the disclosure of beneficial ownership. Disclosure is critical to actually dealing with any issues that may be out there. We also have been, for quite some time, pleading with government to make existing and new data more regularly and freely accessible to researchers and the public. We hope that as the registry is created, and was promised in Budget 2018, that this will be the case.

This registry is, without a doubt, a significant step forward for transparency that ends hidden ownership. As we know, hidden ownership is intricately tied into speculation tax avoidance and money laundering in our housing market. One of the issues raised by the minister, and prior to that, by the member from Point Grey when in opposition, was the notion of shadow flipping, a notion where I put in a contract to purchase a property, but it’s me or my assignee who purchases that property. So I might, with the member for West Vancouver–Capilano…. I may buy his property. I may put an offer on his property with “the MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, or assignee.” The member for West Vancouver–Capilano might say: “That’s a great offer. I want it.” But my “or assignee” clause is such that I could actually start assigning this contract to whoever I want, who can reassign it to whoever they want, who can reassign it to whoever they want, and they can jack up the price as we go along.

Now, steps have been taken. I think it was the previous government, or was it this government? I can’t remember. This place becomes a blur after a while. But certainly, we now have legislation that requires that any profits realized after the shadow flipping goes on actually go back to the original seller of the property.

So the member for West Vancouver–Capilano would not lose out if I were shadow flipping. Nevertheless, the transfer of the properties in between those stages would not be required even today to be disclosed.

This registry is critical. All stages of the process — transparency. The use of shell companies, as I mentioned, and trust and proxy ownership structures has obscured who has owned property in this province, undermining efforts at gathering and analyzing and allowing for an analysis of large-scale tax evasion and the data used to support this.

A report by Transparency International found that government can’t identify the owners — now get this — of almost half of Metro Vancouver’s most expensive homes. Government, whether it be Metro Vancouver or the city of Vancouver or the province or the federal government…. No government knows who more than half of the high-end properties in Vancouver…. We don’t know who owns them.

What a recipe for abuse. It’s just unbelievable this has been allowed to go on for so long. It’s absolutely unacceptable. This bill will close that. It will ensure that transparency is there.

We know that wise accountants, who know full well about the existence of the bare trust loophole, have been advising clients to avoid paying the property transfer tax by buying their property in a trust. If I, for example, were to buy a property in a trust…. Any house that I wanted to live in I buy in a trust instead of me. As soon as I buy it in a trust…. The very first time it happens, you will pay the property transfer tax. But every single time that that house is traded from thereon in, you will never pay any property transfer tax as you transfer the shares of the corporation that owns the trust from one to another.

This is one of the reasons why the higher-end homes, so many of them, have been put into trusts. When they flip, there is no property transfer tax, and the property transfer tax can be expensive.

There are also means and ways of hiding foreign ownership behind…. Some of that was indeed closed, again, by the previous government after much pestering.

We know that some of the money laundering has taken advantage of this, too, in Metro Vancouver. We still await Peter German’s report. We still await at least another chapter. We got one chapter. There’s got to be more coming. It’s clear…. We continue to push, and I will be doing so in the weeks ahead, for a public inquiry. We need a full-scale public inquiry into money laundering in this province. It is inexcusable that we have had as much as $5 billion laundered through Vancouver’s real estate market since 2012, distorting housing prices, particularly in the high-end markets.

We know…. I forget how many thousand homes are empty in the member’s riding, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. I met with the council and mayor of West Vancouver–Capilano, who were at odds, not knowing what to do to actually go after the owners of these vacant homes that they simply are leaving there, not paying the social cost that has been historically developing by these homes being left vacant and distorting a market that would otherwise not be where it is, if it weren’t for someone laundering and nefarious activities going on.

We know, for example, just in 2016, over $1 billion of Vancouver’s property transactions have links to Chinese organized crime. Over $1 billion in one year alone had links to Chinese organized crime. That’s not counting any Russian organized crime, any Canadian organized crime, any American organized crime. Just one. It’s rampant in Vancouver, and we’ve sadly got a reputation internationally for being the home to the so-called Vancouver model of money laundering. Not a nice thing to be known for.

The president of the Law Society of B.C. stated: “This groundbreaking move by the B.C. government will increase the transparency of land ownership in B.C. and make it more difficult to use arrangements for tax evasion, fraud and money laundering. British Columbians will benefit from a fairer and more transparent real estate market.” Those are pretty powerful words of support from the president of the Law Society of British Columbia. I think that’s a strong independent endorsement of this legislation.

Transparency International has applauded the establishment of this registry — another pretty strong endorsement from an international organization. And a former director of FINTRAC has said that the province is now leading the country with this legislation. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that if there is one thing I want British Columbia to be, it is a leader. We’re seeing, finally, leadership and transparency in the real estate sector in our province, and for that, the minister deserves a great deal of credit. I thank her, and I thank this government for bringing this forward.

You know, if ever there was a moment that we have second-guessed our decision in 2017 as to whether or not we support this side or that side in terms of a minority government, let me tell you that legislation like this makes us not question for a second that we did the right thing. The Liberals opposite had many, many years to deal with this, but they ignored it. I can’t remember how many times I stood up in this Legislature and posed questions to the then Finance Minister, asking him when he would take steps to deal with the transparency and beneficial ownership and close the bare trust loophole that was being used to avoid paying property transfer tax and also being used to launder money. The public record of this is available on my blog site. You can see it there, going back years. The answers I was getting were platitudes, because, to be honest, the members opposite simply had no idea. They had been in government too long. They’d lost ability to determine what the issues were. And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this issue is before us.

S. Bond: Relevance.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Prince George–Valemount for calling for relevance. Thank you. And the reason why I called it to your colleague — because every time anybody in our caucus stands up, you have the audacity to stand up and call relevance, yet you’re not willing to accept others calling relevance to the other side. So it’s part of the hypocrisy that we see. I enjoy the conversation, and I will make this relevant, hon. Speaker, before you must tell me to make this relevant.

Coming back to the bare trust loophole, as I noted, I’ve been calling on government for years to deal with this, and frankly, this is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, government will move forward to closing this. I know that the market had discounted this, both the real estate market and the accounting market. They had both already discounted that government was going to close the bare trust loophole. They didn’t, but now they’re collecting data and that probably will lead it up to move for it.

Looking at this, we also need to expand this progressive approach to transparency, also to the corporate registry. Right now, the corporate registry is not searchable by director name, and as it’s hampering transparency and accountability, hopefully we’ll be able to see this transparency that we’re seeing here with respect to land-ownership move into the corporate registry as well. The Attorney General has called this issue a deliberate or grossly negligent decision that limits transparency, a benefit to firms and individuals who wish to evade accountability. I urge government as well to move beyond this and to change the corporate registry to fix this problem, in line with the spirit of the legislation before us today.

In conclusion, this legislation is an important step forward for opening up hidden ownership in real estate in British Columbia. And it’s timely. I’m very pleased the government has done it. And it’s just a shame that we’ve got to get to the position we’re in after so many years of neglect in this sector. We need to go further and crack down on tax avoidance, using the ownership structures that the data will be collected, and I’m looking forward to government stepping in to close that bare trust loophole, which many use to avoid paying property tax. I look forward to seeing information in the registry and will continue to push for action on this file and get to the root of the housing crisis.

With that, I do note the time. I would like to move adjournment of the debate and reserve my right to continue at the next sitting of the House after today.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Today during question period I rose once more to ask about the issue of money laundering in British Columbia casinos. As you’ll see from the responses to my question, the Attorney General was quick to point fingers at the BC Liberal Member from Langley East.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: I must say, it feels like I’m rising midway through an episode of the Twilight Zone here today in this Legislature. Frankly, while last night I was busy trying to prep up on the money laundering going on, it seems like far too many members of this chamber were enjoying casino night a little bit too much and probably are a little grumpy as they lost far too much money there last night.

Over the past eight months, we’ve learned that senior officials at the B.C. Lottery Corporation repeatedly demonstrated wilful blindness to the problem of money laundering in B.C. casinos. But now we know they went further. In fact, they went directly against the regulators’ recommendations and increased betting limits, per hand, to over 1,000 times the maximum betting amount allowed in Ontario. I’ll say that again — 1,000 times larger than you can bet in Ontario.

Now, I can only assume that senior officials and people perhaps in the minister’s or former minister’s office were blinded by the revenue stream. They appear to be singularly focused on hitting revenue targets and bringing in more government revenue with little, if any, concern as to whether the law was being broken or if it was fuelling an opioid or housing crisis.

My question to the Attorney General is this: what controls has he put in place within the B.C. Lottery Corporation to ensure that meeting revenue targets does not come at a price of condoning suspected illegal activity?

Answer

Hon. D. Eby: We’ve made a number of significant changes in the just over a year that we’ve been in government to address the issues that the member has been talking about. Some of the most important, I think, are around separating the revenue-generation functions, the revenue-generation piece at B.C. Lottery Corporation, from the regulator piece. Having those under the same roof is obviously an issue. So we have given the gaming policy and enforcement branch authority to regulate and oversee the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Giving them this authority and this power is a really important piece and something that was obviously missing. Why was the regulator not overseeing the conduct of the B.C. Lottery Corporation?

Beyond that, the member knows about basic things we’ve done — telling the casinos you’re not allowed to accept bulk cash anymore, that revolutionary idea that immediately ended the practice of bringing duffle bags full of cash into our casinos — after we formed government.

Now, I know the member for Langley East doesn’t like to hear about this. But he was there….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. D. Eby: If there is a public inquiry, he’ll have his chance.

Now, these are very serious issues. We’ve taken very serious steps. I thank the member for the serious question, and I wonder when the member for Langley East will rise and ask a question about this.

Mr. Speaker: Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: We have no shortage of questions to ask on this file, and we will continue to do so until we start to get answers through the calling from public inquiry.

Here’s the next question. In February 2015, after finally contacting the RCMP organized crime unit about possible money laundering going on in their casinos, the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corporation continued to strategically focus on attracting players willing to pay $100,000 per hand. When questioned about his decision, he said this: “We know them very well. We know their source of wealth. We know all their personal information. They need to share that with us for regulatory reasons.” That’s a quote from the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

What we found out through the e-pirate investigation, is that it eventually became clear that these VIPs, the same ones that the CEO apparently knew so well, were part of an organized crime scheme linked to the fentanyl crisis. Yet the CEO Of the B.C. Lottery Corporation still is there.

My question is to the Attorney General. How can British Columbians have any confidence that those involved in perpetrating money laundering in B.C. are being held accountable for their actions, particularly given the reluctance of this government to launch an independent public inquiry?

Answer

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows why we have not yet called a public inquiry. That’s because we have been acting quickly to address the issues that the previous government left for us, the giant, gaping loopholes in our casino industry that allowed this activity to continue up until the point that we actually formed government.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, we will hear the response.

Hon. D. Eby: Now, I hear the member for Langley East saying that there’s an issue with the police. I would say there was an issue with the police when the member for Langley East called the RCMP to criticize a member for going on the news and saying we had a money-laundering problem and causing him to be disciplined. Now, that was a problem.

We’ve taken a number of steps to ensure….

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: He also disassembled the policing team that was dedicated to investigating casinos.

But regardless, we’ve replaced the board at B.C. Lottery Corp entirely. We have confidence in the team at B.C. Lottery Corp. to be a good partner in addressing these issues. We’ve given oversight to the gaming policy and enforcement branch to oversee what’s happening at the B.C. Lottery Corp. to ensure that the public can have confidence. And we’re all trying to move forward on this — well, with some notable exceptions.

Yesterday the Attorney General received the second Peter German report on the state of money laundering in British Columbia. In addition, the Minister of Finance received a report from the Expert Panel on Money Laundering. Both of these much awaited reports will provide information with which to inform a potential public inquiry into money laundering in BC.

This was the subject of my Question during Question Period today (see video and text reproduced below). As you will see from the responses, the government has stated that it will review the reports before they are eventually made public. A public inquiry is still being considered.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: We learned last week that a controversial senior-level intervention was made by officials in the Finance Ministry in order to maximize casino revenue. Incredibly, the intervention to increase betting limits to $100,000 per hand, despite repeated warnings from the regulator, was deemed to be “in the public interest” by the former Minister of Finance.

Let me reiterate. Allowing $100,000 betting limits to be played at casinos, despite clear warning signs from the regulator, was deemed to be “in the public interest.” I don’t know how many of you have played blackjack or poker with $100,000 stakes. I’d suggest not an awful lot. Shocking, it is.

My question is to the Attorney General. Each week more and more information is brought to light. An ever-growing list of questions is emerging. Pressure for an independent public inquiry continues to grow. The federal Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction has indicated he is open to a request from the province for supporting an inquiry. He now has two special reports in front of him. Does he think he has enough evidence to call for a public inquiry?

Answer

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. Yes, this is an important day. The Minister of Finance has received a report from her team, from Maureen Maloney, and has received Dr. German’s report, which, as the member knows, looks at issues around luxury cars, issues around horse racing and issues around real estate.

Dr. German’s report alone is more than 300 pages. We’ve just received it. We’ll be going through it to do a couple of things — to make sure that the public release doesn’t compromise any law enforcement investigations and doesn’t unfairly impugn the reputation of any individuals. Then we’ll be releasing it to the public. The reason for that is exactly the reason that the member has identified. The people deserve to know what’s been going on in British Columbia, what happened under the previous government and why we need to take the measures that we’re taking to get things under control.

They made a number of serious errors in judgment. We don’t know whether it was wilful blindness or negligence.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: The member who is shouting at me is one of the key members, obviously. I understand why he’s defensive about it, but the truth will out.

Mr. Speaker: The leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you to the Attorney General for his answer.

Last week the Attorney General said this: “The larger issue that I understand British Columbians are concerned about is really political accountability and to identify if there is rot in the system, to have that rot weeded out through a public inquiry system.” He’s absolutely correct. We need political accountability, which is why the B.C. Green caucus has been calling for an independent inquiry for over a month now. It’s why thousands upon thousands of people have signed petitions calling for one and why several organizations, municipalities and unions have also called for one.

Last week the Attorney General also said: “The Premier has been clear about keeping the option open to a public inquiry.”

My question is to the Attorney General. When will we know if government is serious about launching a public inquiry?

Answer

Hon. D. Eby: The member will know that our emphasis has been on identifying what’s been happening and on stopping that activity from continuing. That’s been the big priority. The member raises the issue of accountability, especially political accountability. I do think that’s a very important issue — not just for the member, not just for me and not just for the government but, certainly, for all British Columbians. We’ll be looking at the reports we’ve received, and the Premier and the government will make a decision about a public inquiry if necessary.

Today in the legislature I introduced Bill M206, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019.

This bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide tenants with the ability to end their fixed-term lease if staying in the rental unit is a threat to their safety or security. It broadens the somewhat constraining family violence provisions introduced by the B.C. Liberal government in 2015 and gives, for example, a tenant exposed to sexualized violence by a roommate or a neighbour the right to break their lease so they can move to a safer home.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the introduction of the bill along with the accompanying press release.

Video of Introduction

Text of Introduction

A. Weaver: I move a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be now read a first time. This bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide tenants with the ability to end their fixed-term lease if staying in the rental unit is a threat to their safety or security. It broadens the somewhat constraining family violence provisions introduced by the B.C. Liberal government in 2015 and gives, for example, a tenant exposed to sexualized violence by a roommate or a neighbour the right to break their lease so they can move to a safer home.

A new term “occupant violence” is defined in the bill and makes it explicit that the regulations listing which professionals and practitioners are authorized to provide a confirmation statement about family violence have the same powers in cases involving occupant violence.

The written third-party verification can be provided by police, listed medical practitioners, counsellors, First Nations support workers, victim support workers, among others. Having regulations that extend verification powers beyond law enforcement is vital, as not all survivors will be able or willing to involve the police.

In cases of domestic violence, risk of injury or death can actually increase if a violent partner learns their spouse has contacted police or is planning on leaving. Having a range of professionals able to vouch for victims will allow them to choose the safest option for their situations.

The previous B.C. Liberal government did a superb job with the development of these regulations. “Sexual abuse” is explicitly listed under occupant violence. “Sexual abuse” is used rather than “sexual assault” for violence because it aligns with and is already defined in existing laws, such as the Adult Guardianship Act and because it is a broader term that includes sexual assault and sexualized violence.

By using the word “including” before the list of crimes covered by occupant violence, the law is kept inclusive of a range of situations that could fit the broader intent, rather than explicitly specifying which situations would be covered.

No one should be forced to live in close proximity to their perpetrator. This bill supports survivors.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M2016, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus tables Residential Tenancy Amendment Act to expand protections, supporting survivors
For immediate release
March 7, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. ‚— The B.C. Green Caucus has introduced an amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act that, if passed, would provide tenants with the ability to end their fix term lease if staying in their rental unit is a threat to their safety or security.

“No one should be forced to live in close proximity to their perpetrator – this bill supports survivors,” said MLA Andrew Weaver, who introduced the bill on the eve of International Women’s Day. “We are building upon the good work of the BC Liberals’ in 2015, when they added the family violence provision with support from the BC NDP. This bill, drafted in consultation with the legislative drafters and stakeholders like West Coast LEAF and Ending Violence Association of BC, expands on existing provisions to insure that all victims have the same rights. It gives, for example, someone who is sexually assaulted by their roommate or neighbour the right to break their lease so they can move somewhere safe.”

West Coast LEAF says the scope of crime against tenants is difficult to gauge given these types of crimes are underreported, but the changes are needed.

“While family violence continues to account for a significant portion of all reported crimes in Canada – approximately 25% – other forms of violence remain prevalent in B.C. and disproportionately impact marginalized communities including sex workers, Indigenous women, and LGBTQIA2S+ individuals,” said Elba Bendo, director of Law Reform, West Coast LEAF. “The proposed amendments are a welcome step towards ensuring that survivors of all forms of violence are able to relocate to keep themselves and their families safe.”

Ending Violence Association of BC executive director Tracy Porteous estimates there are approximately 60,000 incidents of sexual and domestic violence in British Columbia each year.

“That equates to over 1,000 incidents per week,” said Porteous. “Most often, this violence takes place in a home and once that happens, the ‘home’ may not be a safe place any longer. The previous Act allowed for women affected by family violence to be released from the confines of their lease, so they could be free to seek safety, however that provision did not extend to survivors of sexual assault or survivors of other acts of violence. We would like to applaud the B.C. Green Party for introducing this proposed amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act today that will constitute a step forward toward making B.C. a safer place for all citizens. We think a plan that leaves no one behind is the best plan, and we thank Andrew Weaver for his leadership in this regard.”

“B.C. Green Caucus believes updating current legislation or drafting new bills to advance protections for women and other vulnerable groups is simply good governance,” said MLA Weaver, “whether it’s workplace protections like the 2017 bill preventing employers from requiring select employees to wear high-heeled shoes in the workplace, or in 2016 when I brought for the Post-Secondary Sexual Violence Policies Act.”

-30-

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

—