Hansard — Thursday, May 29, 2008 a.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		13083

Committee of the Whole House		13083
	Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 29)
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner

Report and Third Reading of Bills		13086
	Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 29)

Second Reading of Bills		13086
	Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 32) (continued)
	C. Wyse
	B. Lekstrom
	M. Sather
	B. Ralston
	S. Simpson
	D. Chudnovsky

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)		13095
	Hon. P. Bell

Second Reading of Bills		13096
	Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 32) (continued)
	D. Chudnovsky
	C. Puchmayr

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		13098
	Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	H. Lali
	G. Gentner

Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate, Bill 29, Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you for asking, Mr. Speaker. For the information of members, it will be estimates debate in Committee A, Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, on behalf of you, I would like this House to introduce a group of students visiting us this morning from Good Shepherd Christian School in Osoyoos. We are joined by teacher Patricia Pearson, 15 grade 6 students and accompanying adults.

The group visited Mr. Speaker in his office this morning and learned firsthand about some of our traditions and procedures. They have been looking forward to seeing the Legislature in action. I ask all members to join me in sending a very warm welcome to our very special visitors.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 29; S. Hammell in the chair.

S. Simpson: I just want to confirm with the minister that, essentially, these changes around the Environmental Management Act and hazardous waste or waste products…. Would it be fair for me to suggest that this section, these amendments, come as a result of activity we saw in Abbotsford a couple of years back that obviously raised some concerns and required some tightening up around management of hazardous waste by people who act in less than a responsible fashion, to deal with those matters?

I believe I know that that particular episode on Industrial Avenue has continued. I believe it's before the courts now. I believe there has been a charge laid by the government against the individual involved, so we won't talk directly about that. Is it fair to say that this section of the changes introduced in Bill 29 reflects the government's decision, the need to clarify or tighten up some of the areas around hazardous waste and environmental management?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, this amendment would give the Lieutenant-Governor-In-Council authority to require a certain amount of security or deposits to be paid by handlers or would-be handlers of hazardous waste products.

The member is also correct that there was a successful prosecution a number of years ago which led to two specific convictions, or two counts and a $10,000 fine, against the company known as Canadian Petroleum Corp. that was operating, I believe, on the street in question in Abbotsford.

The individual involved in that case, as the member just noted, has been charged, I think, with 52 counts this spring as a result of an investigation led by the conservation officer service. But I believe that those activities related to those charges are at different locations than the particular location that the member referenced. I believe that individual conducted business at a number of other locations, and that's what drew the attention of the ministry.

S. Simpson: I do note that in sections coming…. I guess it falls into section 3, so we'll deal with it here. I notice that in the section there are requirements around securities to be provided for these, or for waste management facilities, by the government in the form and amount specified.

Could the minister tell us: is it the expectation that the ministry will require of any business or enterprise operating this kind of facility that would be captured by this amendment to supply a security in an amount that the ministry would determine as necessary to perform a cleanup if you had an incident like what happened in Abbotsford? It was a fairly significant mess, as I recall, and required a fair amount of investment on the part of the government to clean this up.

Is it the expectation you'd be looking for a full security or some portion of security against that? How would the minister envision that?

Hon. B. Penner: Just a point of clarification. This section pertains to what are known as codes of practice, which are standards of operation that are applied to

lower-risk operations — either low- or medium-risk types of operations, like a landfill, for example, operated by a municipal government.

Section 2 related to amendments for hazardous waste facilities specifically, which we consider to be higher-risk operations and do not operate under a code of practice. They would still require a permit to be issued by the ministry — at least that's my understanding — where section 3 talks about a code of practice.

But you're right. In both cases we're clarifying and giving us authority, or would like to give the government authority, to require a security to be paid. We haven't determined the exact amount of security to be required under either scenario, but this would make it clear that the government could require it, and certainly it is our intention to require a security.

S. Simpson: The reason I ask the question is because if we look at 3(f), it puts in place the condition that if required by government, ownership of a facility would transfer to the government at closure. I assume that's so the government has a free hand to deal with that facility in whatever way they see fit, without having ownership challenges around that.

What I'm looking for is some assurance that we don't end up with a security that's in an amount that is insufficient to deal with that odd bad actor we might find. The vast majority of operators would act in a responsible fashion, but we know from past experience that you're going to find incidences where that's not the case.

In subsection (f.1) it talks about putting some money up, and I agree with that. I think that's the right thing to do — the security.

My concern is that the government takes ownership, the operator walks away without having provided a sufficient enough security to ensure that the cleanup can be complete, and the taxpayer pays the bill, particularly if the government takes ownership as suggested under 3(f).

First of all, is that a scenario that could occur? And if so, how does the government, the minister, deem to deal with that so that it's not the taxpayer paying for somebody else's mess?

Hon. B. Penner: The security provision required would be what the ministry deemed appropriate, considering the size and the nature of the proposed operation. So the ministry will be working on…. It could take the form of a formula or some other criteria to assess what the appropriate security would be for a particular operation.

The different codes of practice are specific to different industries, so there could be different formulas, depending on the type of the industry that would be governed under a code of practice. But again, it's important to note that a hazardous waste facility such as the one the member references in Abbotsford would not be operating under a code of practice. It would be governed under, I believe, a permit such as is contemplated in section 2.

S. Simpson: Maybe this is a bit of a waffle. I appreciate the clarification or the explanation by the minister in regard to the two differences in sections 2 and 3, so I'm going to ask a question here that is in section 3, but it probably relates a little bit more to section 2 in some ways.

When you have a facility of that nature that is of a bit higher risk because of the contents of the facility, what are the requirements, or are there any additional requirements anticipated, around public information to be provided about that facility?

One of the things that we know when we go back…. If we look at the experience that we had with Abbotsford, that really was quite a mess there. I know that people who lived or operated around that facility and had other operations around that expressed some concern that this was happening right beside them. They didn't necessarily have knowledge of that, because there wasn't a requirement for that to occur.

I'm wondering. Is there any requirement in here around some public disclosure or public information so that people operating around what is essentially a hazardous waste facility are given some knowledge of that so they can make their own determination about whether that's where they want to be located — or even just be more aware of it and keep their eyes open as to what's going on, in case you have that odd bad actor?

Hon. G. Hogg: We are honoured this day to have a group of students from Ray Shepherd Elementary School. They're grades 5 and 6 students accompanied by their teachers Ms. Irwin and Ms. Graham. They have brought to us, from Surrey–White Rock, sunshine, goodwill and inquisitive minds. Would the house please make them feel most welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: The public notification issue is a matter that's left to the discretion of the regional manager or the director, during the permitting process. So if the regional manager or the director, as the case me be, determines that the application is such that public notification is warranted, then that's, again, a matter of discretion that's left to the regional manager or the director.

S. Simpson: I think that will end my questions around section 3. In fact, the other two significant components of the bill, around alien species and some matters related to hunting, are not issues that we on this side have significant questions about. So in terms of my questioning, I'm prepared to go right to commencement, in 37, where I have some questions.

S. Simpson: The question I have in relation to this is…. A large portion of this legislation doesn't come into commencement at the date of royal assent, but rather by regulation through cabinet. Could the minister tell us why most of this bill isn't going to come into force, what needs to be done, and when he anticipates it coming into force?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct to note that sections 6, 8, 9, 14 to 28, 30 to 32 and 36 of this proposed legislation will come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. All the remaining sections of the act will come into force on royal assent, assuming that this legislation passes.

The reason for the difference is primarily based around training, information and educational needs, specifically training and education for park rangers, who will be given additional authority under this legislation, and an education component and information exchange with guide-outfitters, because some of these provisions apply to them.

As well, we want to do some consultation, I'm told, with the court system about some of the increased penalties and fines, as well as with the conservation officer service, who have primary responsibility for enforcement of the Wildlife Act. They'll need to be briefed and prepared for what the new fines and penalties are.

S. Simpson: Does the minister have a projected time frame for when that work will be completed and these sections will be enacted?

Hon. B. Penner: I would envision that we would move forward with some of these changes as soon as possible, particularly around the increased penalties and fines. You could expect to see those come into force sooner than some of the other components.

The ones that may take up to a year would include changes affecting the guide-outfitters. There's going to be a requirement for some education and development of some policy around some of the proposed changes there, particularly around establishing qualifications for the assistant guide-outfitters. I imagine the ministry staff will be devising some form of an examination process to make sure that the assistant guides have adequate and sufficient local knowledge in order to operate in a specific area.

That type of work, we expect, will be on the longer end of the range of up to one year. The shorter-range changes will include the fines and penalty provisions and also the extra training and so forth for the park rangers.

S. Simpson: Just a quick comment here. I thought about where to make this comment and decided that the title was the appropriate place, as the title talks about species and public protection.

As the minister will know — we've discussed this before — this side of the House is disappointed that Bill 29, which comes out of the Wildlife Act review, offers nothing in terms of substantive or meaningful protection for species at risk — some 1,300 species that have been identified by the conservation data centre.

To that end, I would note that we had hoped that that would be included. As a result of its not being here, I'm looking forward this afternoon after question period to introducing the wildlife protection act, which would in fact provide stand-alone species-at-risk protection that's habitat-based.

I hope that the minister and the government might choose to pick up that bill when they see it and maybe bring it back in the fall as their own and have it adopted at that time. With that, I'm done.

Hon. B. Penner: I'd just like to respond to that for a moment. As the member knows, when we began the consultation process last year on updating the Wildlife Act, the issue that the member refers to was not part of the consultation process or the scope of the review. We already passed amendments to the Wildlife Act back in 2004, giving us authority to do what the member refers to.

The member knows we've recently established a new framework for assessing activities or actions that are required to help mitigate the threat to endangered species or species generally in British Columbia, and the government is moving forward on that. It is, however, worth noting that a number of the changes in this legislation will in fact provide extra protection to all species in British Columbia, particularly endangered species.

We're dramatically increasing the penalties for people convicted of killing endangered species in British Columbia. Just to put this on the record so people know it clearly, the maximum fine on first conviction for tier 1 — that is, the most serious offences, which include killing endangered species in British Columbia — is being increased from $100,000 on first conviction to $250,000.

The minimum fine — we know the courts often don't feel comfortable about imposing maximums; that's why I gave specific direction to our staff to look at increasing the minimum fines as well — is more than doubling from $1,000 to $2,500 on first conviction. The maximum term of imprisonment is being doubled from one year to two years.

For the tier 2 or moderately serious offences, the maximum fine is going from $50,000 to $100,000, and the maximum term of imprisonment is going from six months to one year. For the least serious offences, tier 3, the maximum fines are being changed from $25,000 to $50,000, and the maximum term of imprisonment is remaining the same at six months.

However, on subsequent convictions for all three of these tiers, or types of offences, the maximum penalty is going up to $500,000 for tier 1. That's the most serious offences, including killing endangered species in British Columbia. Minimum fines are going from $2,000 to $5,000, and maximum imprisonment is changing from 18 months to three years in jail.

Those are some significant increases, which I think will act as at least some kind of added deterrent in order to address those bad actors, as the member has referred to certain people who like to disobey environmental regulations in British Columbia, doing what they otherwise might choose to do.

It's also worth noting that in this session we have passed legislation to establish 70 additional conservancies and 11 new class A provincial parks, which also provide additional protection for species in British Columbia. So there have been a number of initiatives this session to address the concerns of wildlife generally in British Columbia.

Lastly, since this is my only opportunity to do it, I'd just like to make a quick comment on the record pertaining to some of the changes for guide-outfitters. Just to note on the record….

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, and this being my only chance to make this comment, I'll just quickly wrap up.

Nothing, in terms of the amendments to this act, was meant to diminish rights and privileges of a guide certificate as it existed prior to the amendment. I just wanted to make that comment.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill be reported complete without amendment.

Bill 29, Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I call continued second reading debate of Bill 32, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act.

TRADE, INVESTMENT AND
LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION ACT
(continued)

C. Wyse: Once more, it is my pleasure to be here in front of the House to talk about Bill 32, which is the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement implementation bill. I wish to start off and pick up with my address clearly stating that we are not supportive of this particular bill.

We are not supportive of a bill that implements an agreement that was entered into between the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta without adequate public debate, an agreement that in essence was signed in secrecy and then announced, Madam Speaker, to be in support of implementing an act that deals with a bill based upon the Conference Board of Canada report that I established in previous discussion was done quick and dirty.

In actual fact, the facts contained within the Conference Board's report never were substantiated. No one has been able to substantiate them. In actual fact, the report was done in a very, very short period of time, less than 40 days, on a very limited budget and with very limited input, with conclusions contained in it that simply have not stood up to the test.

What fact is very clear underneath TILMA, and why Bill 32 is not supportable, is that anything that is not excluded from the TILMA agreement is covered by the agreement. Therefore, we have an agreement that covers everything that is not in the agreement.

Briefly, I would like to point out a very long list of organizations and provinces and governments that have rejected this agreement as it is written. We have the province of Manitoba, the present Saskatchewan government under Premier Brad Wall, the first ministers, the UBCM, the B.C. School Trustees Association, the University of Victoria Environmental Law Society, Ecojustice, and Ontario and Quebec.

As a matter of fact, on May 24 of this year, an article in the Globe and Mail by Murray Campbell has this observation around TILMA that I would like to put in on the record:

In further speaking against Bill 32's implementation, Gary Mar, Alberta's Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations, made this statement in June 2006 to the Richmond Chamber of Commerce with regards to the TILMA dispute process. He stated that that dispute process is everything Canadian industry asked for.

This government has forgotten its responsibility to look after the interests of and to govern for all British Columbians, not simply one section of it. Therefore, Bill 32 is not supportable.

Now, further, in the dispute mechanism contained within the agreement, the province itself decides what is defended. The ultimate dispute resolution is a three-person panel. The province, underneath TILMA article 2.2, must enforce the agreement, and I quote from that agreement: "Each party is responsible for compliance with this agreement by its government entities."

So the ability to govern has been turned over to a three-person dispute panel. When we look at the Liberal government's agenda from this particular session dealing with the environment, its legislation in actual fact becomes one of greenwashing underneath TILMA and its implementation act.

The Premier's interest in harmonizing provincial standards through the B.C.-Alberta Trade Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement could prove to be a thorn in the government's side, undermining its ability to take necessary measures on the climate change file.

The basic problem is this. Fighting climate change will necessarily involve a lot of regulation, while TILMA is fundamentally a deregulatory initiative. What TILMA really does is create and codify investor rights and provide a mechanism for private enforcement. This has huge consequences for public interest regulation in B.C., as TILMA's dispute panels can award up to $5 million to an investor if a decision made by the B.C. government body restricts or impairs their investment.

Almost every environmental regulation restricts or impairs someone's investment. A restructuring of B.C. into a carbon-neutral economy will almost certainly affect the profits of Alberta's oil patch. This is bad news for the government's climate action strategy. As we know from debate, there is still much detail to come on exactly how B.C. will meet its greenhouse gas emission targets, but regulation will necessarily be part of a meaningful strategy.

TILMA does provide an exemption for promoting renewable and alternative energy. This is helpful but falls far short of what will be required. More contentious policies that impose costs of manufacturers, such as automotive tailpipe emission requirements or mandated use of carbon capture and storage, could easily be open to challenge. In these cases, the government would have to prove that there were legitimate measures to protect the environment and that they were not more restrictive than necessary — a clause that will give investors plenty of wiggle room for challenges.

Recently there has been a legal analysis that has been brought forward on TILMA, another reason to be voting against the implementation of the actual act. This legal analysis points out the difficulties of putting in an implementation act. I will quote from the actual report:

I do know that there are many other people here in the House that would like to have the opportunity to speak on Bill 32, and with that, I would close with this quote from Frank Stanford on CFAX on May 26, '08:

B. Lekstrom: It's my privilege to rise in the House to speak in support of Bill 32, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Implementation Act. It's interesting. I mean, we come here and…. With all due respect to the member for Cariboo South, I'm not sure that he fully understands what he was talking about.

I've lived in the Peace country all of my life. We border Alberta on both sides, out Highway 2 and out Highway 49, and the issue of the implementation of TILMA is one that's welcomed in my area. For over 40 years we have seen this imaginary boundary we call the B.C.-Alberta border hinder both labour mobility and business movement between our provinces, which has been a detriment not only to the business community and the workers but to our entire province as a whole.

I find it interesting — and I guess, with some great concern — the misleading information that was put forward here for the people of British Columbia who are listening to this debate. I will encourage them to go on the government website to look at what's there on the TILMA issue — to review the legislation and judge for themselves whether what they've heard in the debate is factual or not.

I have some grave concerns with what has been said — what's exempt, what isn't exempt, what's going to take place. I think there was a lot of fear that was put into the minds of British Columbians, and human nature is, I believe, that they expect to be told the factual information from this building. Unfortunately, that's not what I heard. That is not what I heard at all.

I want to talk briefly about what is included under TILMA and what isn't. What isn't is the ALR, for one. We have heard people from the opposition speak about: "My God, the agricultural land reserve is now going to be up under TILMA." This is absolutely false — absolutely false. For any member of this House to say any different, I would caution them. I would caution them, because they obviously haven't done their homework.

We've also heard that our environmental policies could be up. You know, the large oil and gas that we hear the opposition rail about is going to be the victor on this. Well, let me tell you, the oil and gas companies that operate on both sides of the province and certainly in the Peace River area…. We're there to welcome them. I think they do a good job in the Peace country, and they do a good job on behalf of all of us. They've come a long way in their environmental policies.

It's interesting. We hear about the tax breaks that are given to big oil — $441 million. We just had a land sale take place in the Peace country — $441 million. Now, it's interesting. When that kind of money comes in, it pays for our education, health care, social programs, but unfortunately, it seems the opposition is opposed to oil and gas. It's unfortunate.

I want to read what is exempt under TILMA so that there is no mistake for the people of British Columbia. These are the facts. They can look at them; they can look at the bill. I encourage them to check it out. What is exempt? Well, provincial measures for water are exempt. We've heard just the opposite from many of the people I've heard that oppose TILMA.

The opposition to TILMA is beyond me, because TILMA really is an extension of the AIT agreement, the agreement on internal trade. I believe it was 1994. I'm pretty close on that. I was a member of council in Dawson Creek. I remember, as a member of the UBCM, concern being expressed to the government of the day because there was no debate on the floor of this Legislature. The government of the day, who's now in opposition…. To stand up and rally against this government for: "My God, you're pushing TILMA through. There was no public debate…." Hypocritical. How hypocritical can it get?

The AIT. I remember…. I know there were members on the other side that were members of local government at the time. There's nothing wrong, I guess, if they stood up and said: "You know, when I rallied against that…. I've changed my mind." I haven't heard that. So it's unfortunate that the information that has been fed by some to the people is so misleading.

What else is exempt? Well, taxation is exempt. Royalties are exempt. Our standards, occupational health and safety are exempt. You wouldn't know that from what we've heard here, though. Certainly from the opposition, you would think all of that was on the table when in fact it isn't. There is nothing wrong with opposing something for the right reasons and for the factual information, but let me tell you, it's a little bit much — certainly for me and, I think, most of the people in this province — to oppose something based on half-truths. That's not what we're elected to do here.

What else is exempt? Well, let's see. We have aboriginal policies and programs. Social policy is exempt from TILMA. It's written right into it — says it's exempt. But again, I encourage people: go to Hansard. Read the Hansard on what you've heard and see if that lines up with what is exempt as I've just said. I don't think it will, and I think you'll raise an eyebrow and wonder: "Gee, what's going on?"

Really, as an enhancement and building on the AIT, I think we've moved in the right direction. I think labour mobility, where we have credentialing that we're trying to make sure we can move between provinces…. We do it under Red Seal now across our country for tradespeople. If you want to go, you can be a tradesperson, and if you want to apply your skill across this great country of ours, you get Red Seal–certified. That's what happens. Then you have labour mobility.

What we're doing is taking that, as two provinces, B.C. and Alberta, and building upon it. We can have early childhood educators that are qualified in Alberta, work in British Columbia and vice versa. I think it's a great thing.

We heard a lot about procurement and what this will mean for procurement of municipalities. Well, I want to relay a story. I was the mayor of Dawson Creek. It was a great privilege. I thought, shortly after I was elected in 1996 as mayor, that I was going to do a wonderful thing for our business community. So I called them all together and said: "You know, I've seen a couple of tenders that we've put out as the city of Dawson Creek go to companies that weren't from Dawson Creek." Some had actually gone, I believe, to Alberta companies. Some had gone to Prince George companies.

I said: "I'm going to come up with a 5 percent break for anybody that's a business located in Dawson Creek. If you're within 5 percent of that tendered price, if you're only 5 percent higher or less, we're going to give it to you."

Thinking, as a new mayor, that this might be the most wonderful thing I've ever done, without question every business that had come to the meeting said: "Blair" — or Member, I guess; I don't know how you refer to yourself in here — "don't do it. Don't do it, and here's why. We don't make our living just in Dawson Creek. We make our living in this region, and this region is not just in British Columbia. It transcends this imaginary boundary between B.C. and Alberta. So if you do that, and everybody takes a protectionist attitude that we're going to give you a break because you're located in our community, it'll kill business."

So as good an idea as I thought it was, we didn't go. We didn't move on it, and I can tell you our businesses are flourishing. We have businesses in Dawson Creek that work on the Alberta side. We have Alberta-side companies that work in the B.C. side. They bring workers. We send workers over there, and it's working. It's working well.

To be able to stand here today and talk about TILMA and the benefits, particularly on an area that is directly affected — we're ten minutes from the Alberta border — I can tell you it's welcome news for us.

The other issues. I mean, when we hear about the environment and what it could mean under TILMA…. Again, misinformation is being spread out there. We look after our own environment in British Columbia. We are not going to be bound under TILMA to accept lesser standards, as some people would have you believe. This is about building two economies into one very sound opportunity for both parties, being Alberta and British Columbia.

I can't, for the life of me, see…. I mean, I understand that opposition is here to oppose the government, but whether we like it or not — and this goes for both sides — there are ideas that are tough to oppose. This is one of them.

To oppose something just for the sake of opposing it doesn't make sense. I haven't heard a good argument yet. I'm always pretty open-minded. If somebody came out and said, "Here's why I'm opposing it," based on the factual information — and it's something I wasn't aware of — I'm pretty open to the ability to say: "I haven't thought of that."

I haven't heard that. I've heard political rhetoric from opposition on this and why they want to oppose it, but no good reasons. I mean, I just don't see the downfall on this bill whatsoever. Labour mobility is a key issue, as I said. Our tradespeople, and I'll go back and speak to this, have that labour mobility if they're Red Seal–certified now. It's a pretty great thing to be able to take your applied trade and go across this country without having to recredential.

We're saying we can do that to a greater degree. I spoke on it earlier. We can look at bringing our credentialing and melding those, whether you're a teacher, whether you're an early childhood educator, on numerous amounts of things. That seems to me like a good thing.

I've heard where people have said that we're going to race that credentialing to the lowest common denominator. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

There's a dispute resolution process that I think is quite straightforward in here. It's nothing earth-shattering about it. It lays out how this dispute resolution works. We've heard people rally on about that. Both governments and individuals can access the dispute resolution process. This is something that I'm not sure I heard clearly from the other side.

I just want to do a little comparison between TILMA and the agreement on internal trade. We eliminate, under TILMA, all the barriers that restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility — again, something I fully support — from this imaginary boundary. Under the AIT, it only requires parties to "reduce and eliminate, to the extent possible." That's kind of an interesting thing. Possibly the opposition, when they were in government, were going to build upon that. They didn't by the time that they were leaving office, but maybe they thought they were going to. If you look at it, we have….

Under the TILMA, one set of general rules apply to all measures of all government entities that relate to trade, investment and labour mobility. There are special provisions that augment the general rules in certain areas to ensure comprehensive coverage.

Under the AIT, the general rules do not apply consistently. It doesn't seem like a favourable position, so to be able to build on that and improve it is one that I think is a good move.

The issue under TILMA. I've had many people in my area talk to me and say: "Blair, we're not sure about TILMA. Tell us what it's about." I encourage them to actually read the information, and most — I would say nine out of ten — say: "Well, we heard the opposition saying this." By the time they're finished getting the factual information, they're quite amazed, too, at how that could actually be said to mislead the public of British Columbia, with a straight face. Maybe they actually believe it. I don't believe that the opposition believes what they're saying. I mean, I can't believe they would on this issue, but there is that remote possibility.

The issue of labour mobility — one that we all, I think, understand as a very important economic driver, not just to British Columbia but to Alberta as well — is one that we're building on. I don't know a negative on that. I can't see a negative. We may hear future speakers, as this debate goes on, talking about: "No, the speaker from Peace River South was wrong. TILMA is going to eliminate the opportunity for workers in British Columbia to carry on their work in a meaningful way. Their credentialing will be driven to the lowest common denominator."

I'm going to look at you today, and if you hear that, pick up your phone, send an e-mail to the member. Tell him to point out where it says that in TILMA, or is it just being made up? I think you'll find that it's just being made up.

I want to go back to the issues with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, of which I sat on their executive as well. We've made a commitment to work with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities on this very issue so that both sides, both B.C. and Alberta, can make sure that the impact of this is a positive impact. There is no doubt in my mind that TILMA will bring positive impacts.

I want to go back, again. We hear about the extension of an AIT, which is the agreement on internal trade. I haven't heard from the opposition, in their railing on about their opposition to TILMA, what they thought about AIT, which is the agreement on internal trade. I can't focus enough on this, because I was there, when that debate was taking place, as an elected municipal member. Again, the government of the day, which was the New Democrats, didn't bring it forward for debate on this floor. They didn't bring it to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities for consultation.

Yet now we have actually…. We're here today debating TILMA. We have met with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. It's unfortunate that we have a group of members of this place…. Rather than looking at good, solid legislation and saying, "You know, we think that's going to benefit the province of British Columbia," they're rallying and playing politics.

I know the election is coming relatively soon, and this goes for everybody. It goes for every member that's elected or wants to be elected. You'll gain a greater deal of respect from the public for telling the factual information than you will for trying to scare them and mislead them. That's the problem with politics in this province and in this country.

I do want to continue to hear some of the further debate on TILMA, but again, Bill 32, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act, is a positive one. I thank the minister for bringing it forward. I think there is an understanding that, as you cross the Alberta-B.C. border — if you had your eyes closed, you wouldn't know, for one; there are no guards; there's not anything there — so much can change. We're going to actually try and build that together.

I think if you want to look at the transportation side of it and the regulatory issues we used to face…. We faced regulatory burdens through the 1990s on transportation. It's interesting.

B. Lekstrom: There used to be a bit of a joke in the Peace country, and that was that we would never have to worry as a country if Russia invaded, because once they hit the B.C.-Alberta border they would be stopped by the regulatory burden on transportation in a heartbeat.

That's how it used to be. No longer is it going to be that way. What they're going to do now is…. We're going to open it up. We live in the best province in the best country in the world. We have the ability to trade freely amongst our provinces. On occasion we can actually trade freer with other countries than we can with our own country, our own provinces. That's ridiculous. That's a sad statement.

To hear people say that this isn't good…. Well, I'm going to respectfully disagree with them. Although we have differences in this House — I still relate back to this, and I try to refer to it — I think we've built friendships as well. We obviously see legislation differently. Particularly in this session, I think virtually every piece of legislation has been seen differently.

B. Lekstrom: Well, 2002 was a good year. I hear the member speaking. Unfortunately, he wasn't here to see the good times happen, but he recognized the transition that took place. We have gone from last place in this country to first place, and we're going to continue to do that.

B. Lekstrom: I kind of enjoy the heckling, because I know that at about five o'clock today we'll hear that the world is about to end and British Columbia's democracy will come to an end because debate will have cut off. I encourage people to go and read Hansard and see what they get out of four days of discussion on sustainability, see what they get out of the rhetoric we've heard, because there's been no waste of time here.

In closing, Bill 32 is a positive step for every British Columbian. It's a positive step for our province. It's a great step for our country, because we have the rest of the country…. I've heard the readings of the others. But for the vast majority, I think, what people are looking at is saying: "How do we get on to this? How can they actually build an economy like that between B.C. and Alberta that we can benefit from?"

It's interesting. I want to encourage every member of the public who's interested at all. I know sometimes reading legislation isn't the most wonderful thing to do, but if you have questions, call us. If you want to for yourself, go on the Internet. Have a look at TILMA. We have every piece of legislation on there as well. But don't, for heaven's sake…. I'm not saying you have to take my words that I'm saying. I'm not saying you have to take the opposition's words. Base it on the factual information, read it, and do your homework. Without question, British Columbians will find Bill 32, the TILMA agreement, one that they'll support.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to address Bill 32, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act. Listeners will have noticed that the member for Peace River South did not mention that the agricultural land reserve is excepted or exempted from TILMA, because it is not.

B. Lekstrom: On a point of order, I just rise to correct the member. I don't mind if he wants to speak to what I've said. But make sure he's got the truth here, because he's dead wrong.

Deputy Speaker: Member, that is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.

M. Sather: The point is that the ALR is not exempted from TILMA. That's my point.

Madam Speaker, in the small amount of time that I have, I want to talk about two provisions in TILMA: article 3, "No obstacles," and article 4, "Non-discrimination." The government says that there is no case under TILMA unless a resident of Alberta is not discriminated against in B.C. and vice versa. That is, in fact, what article 4 says.

However, there are 34 articles in TILMA. The government is saying, in other words, that notwithstanding a contravention of any other article, there must be a contravention of article 4 for there to be a contravention of TILMA. I will show that the government's case around non-discrimination does not hold water.

Another significant article in TILMA is article 3, which is called "No obstacles." It says that each party shall ensure that its measures — that's its laws, etc., — do not operate to restrict or impair trade between or through the territory of the parties or investment or labour mobility between the parties.

Investment is defined in TILMA as an enterprise; financial assets including money, shares, bonds, debentures, partnership rights, receivables, inventories, capital assets, options and wills; the acquisition of financial assets and the establishment, acquisition or expansion of an enterprise.

If we take the ALR…. For example, if an individual has a business next to the ALR and wants to expand that business, he is clearly in contravention of article 3, which says that expansion of an enterprise comes under the restrictions of TILMA. It's very straightforward. I don't think the government would argue that. They try to argue that everything is included under non-discrimination, which it is not.

There is nothing in article 3 that talks about non-discrimination. Nowhere in TILMA does it say that contravention of "no obstacles" must be accompanied by contravention of article 4 for there to be a disputable case under TILMA. Since article 3 is not specifically limited by non-discrimination, to say it is, is essentially to deprive article 3 of its meaning.

There is a provision in international trade law that you cannot empty a provision of its meaning. World Trade Organization panels have ruled that if the drafters intended a provision to have a limited scope, they should have written it that way. For example, the WTO case against U.S. steel policies said: "We as a treaty interpreter are not allowed to read into the text words and concepts which are not there."

Under the WTO, in a challenge that Canada and the U.S. took against European restrictions on hormone-treated beef, the WTO appellate body ruled that even though the European restrictions were not discriminatory — that is, they applied to European beef just as much as to imported beef — they still violated a WTO agreement.

The minister said at a chamber of commerce breakfast last year that he appointed the dispute resolution panel members from B.C., that they know it's about non-discrimination and will rule accordingly.

Madam Speaker, because the government says it does not make it so. If the government wanted to limit the "no obstacle" clause, it would have provided a phrase in that clause such as, "each party shall ensure that its measures do not operate through discriminatory means to restrict or impair trade, etc.," or if the intent is to fetter — that's what it's called — "no obstacles" by non-discrimination, the government should have written: "Subject to article 4, each party shall ensure that its measures do not operate to restrict or impair…."

They did not do that, and they did not do that for a reason — because they want to maintain the investor rights that are encapsulated in the "no obstacles" clause. I would challenge the government to negotiate an amendment to article 3 as provided for under article 21 of TILMA.

The government could also issue a joint decision declaring their interpretation of TILMA as provided for under article 34. That's the least they could do. If they want to clarify what they call misconceptions about TILMA, then they could do that. It's provided for, but they are choosing not to. There's a reason for that. The minister says that "TILMA's all about non-discrimination because I say so." That's not good enough.

I just want to go on to talk a little bit about the panel members from B.C. Three of the five panel members

are lawyers. Arbitration dispute panels are required by international law to interpret agreements in the following way, not according to what the minister thinks they should do.

(1) They look at the ordinary meaning of the words in the agreement. If the ordinary meaning is clear, that's as far as they go. Given that article 3 on "no obstacles" is so clear, it's unlikely they're going to consider what the government says their intent was, and they haven't even said what their intent was.

(2) If they think a clause is ambiguous, they look at other clauses in the agreement. So since article 4 says the government already must not discriminate, then article 3 must say something else.

(3) They would look to see if there are other clauses in the agreement that put restrictions on non-discriminatory measures, and there are. For example, article 5.1: "Parties shall mutually recognize or otherwise reconcile their existing standards and regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility." Mutually recognizing and accepting each other's regulations is about non-discrimination.

(4) If they still couldn't decide on the meaning of an article, they would look at the operating principles laid out in the agreement. Principle 2 is: "Eliminate barriers that restrict…trade, investment and labour mobility."

An agreement that covers investment is far more significant than just a trade agreement. TILMA imposes too many restrictions on the ability of government to steer economic development. That's why the 1998 multilateral agreement on investment failed. "No obstacles" applies only to trade in the AIT, and the member before me said that this was just an extension of the AIT. But "no obstacles" applies to trade, investment and labour mobility in TILMA.

I think I'm just about out of time. The last thing I want to mention is that the Alberta negotiator, Shawn Robbins, said that the investment, with its inclusion of "no obstacles," was put in because it felt this was a big hole in the AIT. Clearly, the government wants "no obstacles" there. They don't want to limit it.

Madam Speaker, this is first and foremost an investors rights bill, even though the government doesn't want to talk about investment any more.

B. Ralston: I rise to speak briefly to this bill that's before the House on legislation that's designed to provide some enforcement mechanisms for the TILMA agreement signed between the governments of Alberta and British Columbia.

It is significant, when one looks at what the minister said on April 17 and on May 13 here in this House, that he didn't refer to what was the initial argument put forward by the government and the supporting document put forward by the government, the Conference Board study.

This was a study that was a single-source study. The Conference Board was the sole bidder on this contract, given 45 days to complete it, completed a very shallow survey of a number of businesses and organizations — relatively few — and then purported to extract from that an economic rationale and a description of economic benefits that would flow from the agreement.

Now, the TILMA agreement, particularly the Conference Board report on the TILMA agreement, was analyzed by Prof. John Helliwell, one of the most distinguished economists in the country. He was asked by the Saskatchewan government to analyze the so-called evidence provided by the Conference Board of Canada. It's no wonder that the minister has totally abandoned this report as a line of defence on this. What Professor Helliwell says is devastating in terms of just completely shredding the report. He says:

So basically, the survey is meaningless, and the benefits that the Conference Board purported to deduce from their survey cannot be treated as evidence.

This is not a New Democrat. This is not a partisan. This is one of the most distinguished economists in the country, commissioned by the Saskatchewan government to look at the TILMA agreement in his report to the Saskatchewan government. It's significant. "Oh, that was commissioned by an NDP government." Premier Wall, the new Premier of Saskatchewan, has not agreed to sign on to TILMA. He has reservations about it, and those are no doubt informed by this report by Professor Helliwell.

So that's the intellectual rigour with which the Conference Board study was put together, and this minister and this government went out into the public.

The member for Peace River South just spoke moments ago about giving the facts to people. Why doesn't the minister come forward and admit that the report from the Conference Board of Canada is a complete sham and an intellectual fraud? That's what Professor Helliwell is saying, somewhat more politely than that, but he's saying that, essentially. "Since there was no research or quantitative basis for this translation, it has no empirical basis and hence cannot be treated as evidence."

That was the major piece of work that the government used to send out and trumpet the so-called economic benefits of the trade agreement. It's significant, as well, what Professor Helliwell said when he was asked to

calculate what increment, what growth there might be by signing on to TILMA and the differences between TILMA and the AIT. This is what he said.

Really what this is, is a political document, no doubt directed out of the Premier's office, like everyone else. The minister has been forced out into the field to defend it with a study that has no evidentiary weight and basically proves nothing, and he has been forced to push this piece of legislation through the Legislature. One might have some sympathy for the minister. That perhaps explains his lack of vigour in defending this particular piece of legislation. It's very clear from the economic rationale that's been put forward by the Conference Board of Canada that it's very, very limited indeed.

What the argument of the government seems to be is that this is a significant enhancement and that one only has to go and look at the agreement itself to notice the benefits. But the fact is and my sense is that the infrastructure for negotiating a trade agreement at the provincial level…. The ability to do so is somewhat limited, and there's not a full understanding of the implications of a trade agreement for Canada's obligations in its own international trade agreements and the implications for those agreements themselves.

Commentators have pointed out that TILMA's reach is much broader than that of the AIT, the Agreement on Internal Trade, broader than NAFTA and broader than the agreements of the World Trade Organization. As a general rule, as my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows pointed out, the constraints imposed by those other trade agreements are much more precisely and narrowly defined than are those in this particular agreement.

In effect, what TILMA does is transform the constitutional landscape for provincial government action, because the constraints are imposed over broad areas of public policy and law that would otherwise be duly enacted and entirely lawful.

Under the constitution, governments have unfettered authority to act so long as they do so lawfully and in accordance with the constitution. However, TILMA, which is an interprovincial agreement, adds an additional and overarching constraint that says that unless exempt, no government action may reduce or impair the commercial interests of those residing in a neighbouring province.

In effect, it also turns Canadian constitutional values on their head by making commercial considerations paramount over all other competing public interests and priorities. This represents an entrenchment of private property rights that Canadian governments explicitly rejected as a feature of the constitution and the constitutional negotiations in recent decades.

So this is a sweeping change, and the rationale that's put forward takes no account of that. The dispute settlement mechanism…. I'm about to conclude because there are a number of speakers here, Madam Speaker. I would have preferred the opportunity to debate this more fully, but naturally the government, in its rush to jam all these pieces of legislation through, has not allocated a great deal of time to discuss it.

B. Ralston: The member might confine his better remarks to the proper authorities that are questioning him rather than bothering me here in the Legislature.

B. Ralston: These dispute procedures represent a radical departure from Canadian legal norms by according private parties a unilateral right to enforce and claim damages under an interprovincial agreement to which they are not party and under which they have no obligation.

So there is much more that can be said. The minister's defence in a number of areas is not accurate. For example, there is no mechanism to prevent multiple claims. The minister claims that there is. In fact, any number of proceedings may be initiated to challenge a particular measure, as long as they proceed sequentially rather than at the same time.

There are a number of other…. The right of judicial review is very limited. Courts generally will defer to tribunals, particularly international commercial arbitrations. There's a body of law that says that they will almost always defer to the decision of such a body so that a court review would be very, very limited.

It's clear that what this is, is a significant departure in Canadian law at the provincial level. The minister

deliberately underplays that and is not being straight with the public about what the implications of this are for future government action. Accordingly, I speak against it.

S. Simpson: I am pleased to have an opportunity to stand and speak to this piece of legislation in relationship to TILMA, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. We have a number of people who want to have an opportunity to voice their concern around this bill, so I plan to just take a couple of minutes here to ensure that my colleagues have that opportunity.

I'm going to limit my comments to some matters related to the environment, particularly to matters related to climate change. To start with, we know that there are some exemptions in TILMA related to the environment. However, those exemptions are far from comprehensive and far from complete. I would quote here from an opinion released by Sierra Legal Defence, now called Ecojustice, where their lawyers looked at TILMA and the environment.

What we're being told — and the government has offered up nothing to suggest that this isn't accurate — is that while there are some exemptions, particularly related to energy matters, there are significant issues that are not covered. These include significant issues related to questions around climate change and around how climate change will be dealt with.

I want to give a couple of examples, because there may be arguments to be made that some protections should be put in place. What we know is that when you look at ways to deal with global warming, we will find that parties will be able to come forward, we believe, and begin to make the case for why certain of these approaches shouldn't be taken.

One of the things that TILMA tells us, of course, is that governments should be looking for options that do the least to impair trade and investment and to not be restrictive. So when the government comes forward, for example, on a matter like carbon capture and storage…. We saw the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy, the other day, make an announcement around that matter with Spectra Energy around trying to develop carbon capture and storage.

Now, that will be an expensive process. It will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, should it be viable at all, to put that carbon capture and storage in place. But what we know is that under TILMA, there is nothing to stop an applicant — somebody coming forward who is in that industry — saying that to require any form of carbon capture and storage impairs their right to do business and, in fact, is not the least restrictive strategy or approach to take.

Our friends in Alberta, for example, who are contemplating nuclear power right now, might come back and say: "Well, if you want to reduce emissions, carbon capture and storage is restrictive for us and prohibitive. What you should do is promote nuclear power instead. It's going to be okay for us in Alberta, so why don't you promote nuclear power in British Columbia? That is more consistent with TILMA than you trying to oblige us to get involved in carbon capture and storage when we don't desire to."

We also know that in terms of some of the energy conservation matters…. If the government, if British Columbia, wants to put limits around renewable energy, wants to try to promote energy conservation, there is nothing here that says that the response to that from industry, or from those who might challenge that position, is to say: "There are a whole variety of other alternatives that don't require us to make any investment, which you should be conducting around changing the way that energy gets used." That's potentially an approach that gets taken.

The other concern is…. We know that the government around the issue of climate change is putting a lot of emphasis on local government and on requiring local governments to take action, whether it's those who have signed climate charters or those that will be required to do it through future legislation. The challenge here is that while the provincial government may be in a place to resist some of the challenges from some of those interests who want to move forward and would want to reject some of those climate change initiatives under the auspices of TILMA, what we do know is that many of our local governments, and especially our smaller communities, do not have the capacity to resist that.

The provincial government, of course, has given no indication at all that they are prepared to defend the interests of those local governments if they're put under pressure under the auspices of TILMA. If we're asking local governments to take the action, to do the work to help deal with emissions, they will potentially take actions that will breach TILMA. They will have these companies or businesses coming down on them saying: "You're outside the box in terms of TILMA. You can't do that." For many of those, the chill will be the issue here.

I suspect what we'll start to see with the introduction of TILMA is city managers, town clerks and advisers to local governments in smaller communities coming

forward and saying: "These are actions that we think maybe should be taken. However, because of the nature of TILMA, we're recommending you consider something else, because the impact on us, the potential for resistance from industry, the potential for legal challenges to us are significant, and we don't suggest that we get ourselves into that circumstance."

So the problem here is both what actually is or isn't allowable under TILMA and that significant impacts on the environment are not covered by TILMA. They will, in fact, be a breach of TILMA. Most climate change initiatives will be a breach of TILMA, and there's a question of whether this government will be able to bring that forward.

Then, on the other hand, you have the chill factor where local governments and others will have a certain fear that they're going to, in fact, be taken on because of the terms of TILMA that will put them in a position where they are very reluctant to do the right thing, because they're concerned about the implications, legal and other, for them in their jurisdictions.

It's wrong for the government to put local communities in that place, and it's certainly wrong for the government to embrace a policy that is totally contradictory to all of the musings of the Premier about climate change. It will help to ensure that the climate change policies of the Premier, if they're real, are in effect in any way, shape or form.

D. Chudnovsky: I am pleased to speak today in opposition to this bill. I think that it is a tremendous error for us to go down this road.

I want to begin by saying I find it tremendously ironic that the TILMA agreement itself was never brought to this House. What the government has deigned to do is to bring the implementation mechanism for the TILMA, to this House. The government enters into a trade agreement with the province of Alberta, doesn't bring that bill to the House for debate, but does bring a bill to the House which would allow individuals and corporations in Alberta to sue the British Columbia government.

I note that there are members opposite who are smiling at the irony. It is a tremendous irony that the substance of the agreement itself doesn't get to the floor, but the implementation, which would put British Columbians and British Columbia governments in jeopardy of being sued, is brought to the floor.

The first question that needs to be asked is: what's the problem that this legislation is going to solve? What is the problem? I didn't notice in the newspapers over the last 15 or 20 years the trade war between Alberta and British Columbia — the vicious trade war that is holding up development in British Columbia and Alberta because of regulations that exist in one jurisdiction or the other that causes harm to people and corporations and entities in the other jurisdiction.

I didn't see the headline that said that the Alberta national guard is massed at Blairmore, and the British Columbia irregulars are in Golden, facing each other across this border, with guns and armoured personnel carriers and that the war just needs a spark to begin. You need….

D. Chudnovsky: The wall fell — right. There's this tremendous wall that's standing on the border there at the continental divide that needs to be knocked down.

If you have legislation like this, which potentially is going to be hurtful to individuals, municipalities and governments in British Columbia, then you better have a good reason for it. I would argue that this government has not put forward any acceptable reason that would justify putting this province in a situation where the negative effects of the TILMA might come into effect.

This is one of a number of initiatives that this government has taken which further intrude and undermine the power and authority of municipal governments in British Columbia. It's one of a series. That's why it's no surprise that at the Union of B.C. Municipalities there was and continues to be tremendous concern about this legislation and its potential impacts.

The argument is made often by those who support this legislation and this kind of legislation that all it's doing is creating a level playing field. That is the last thing that this does. It isn't about creating a level playing field. It's about explicitly…. It's a much narrower test. The test is the removal of obstacles to trade.

What are obstacles to trade? Obstacles to trade are, overwhelmingly, the public policy actions that governments at the provincial and the municipal level take. Those are obstacles to trade, and we are getting into a situation where we're making ourselves vulnerable — at the provincial level, at the municipal level and at the school board level — to charges that legitimate public policy decisions made by democratically elected governments are somehow obstacles to trade.

That is a tremendous, tremendous threat. It potentially undermines the power of government. It potentially undermines the power of municipal governments — all to solve a problem that doesn't exist. There is no trade war between Alberta and British Columbia. I challenge the government to bring us the dozens, the hundreds, the thousands of complaints that have been brought to them by….

Hon. P. Bell: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of privilege regarding the remarks made earlier by the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

D. Chudnovsky: I look forward to continuing just for a few minutes, though I thought for a minute I'd been transported to the U.S. Congress and that Joe McCarthy was sitting across from me. I thought for a minute that that's what happened. Nonetheless, I think we are in British Columbia, and I think it's 2008. It's not McCarthyite United States.

D. Chudnovsky: Now, let me finish with one more comment. There is another tremendous downside to this legislation, and it's this. It allows, at the end of the day…. It calls, at the end of the day, for disputes to be resolved by a trade tribunal.

In effect, what it does is put into private hands public decision-making, which is tremendously important. If there is a dispute between a corporation and the British Columbia government or a municipality in British Columbia, there's an appropriate way to deal with that. The government might be wrong. It might be right.

But if there is a dispute between a corporation and the British Columbia government, there are two appropriate ways to deal with that. One of them is to bring the dispute, the problem, to this House and to pass a law that deals with the problem. The people who are accountable to the population pass a law. The second appropriate way to deal with the dispute between a corporation in Alberta or anywhere else and the British Columbia government or a municipality in British Columbia is to send it to the courts. Those are the two appropriate ways to deal with those kinds of disputes.

What this legislation does is put those disputes in the hands of a private tribunal which is not accountable to the people and is not part of the courts of British Columbia or Canada. That's a mistake. It is a withdrawal from the democratic process. It's something that we shouldn't be doing.

I'll conclude my comments by saying there is no problem. There is no trade war. There are no significant obstacles. If there were, they should be brought to this House. They should be debated. They should be resolved. It's undemocratic. We're against it.

Deputy Speaker: Member, before I recognize you, I'm just going to caution all members of the House to be a bit careful about the choice of language.

C. Puchmayr: I rise here in opposition to this enabling legislation. TILMA is such a crucial and important piece of legislation that can affect so many municipalities and communities that it deserves a full debate, a debate on the actual legislation itself, not only on the enabling legislation.

It's a debate that needs to be looked at, needs to go to committee stage, needs to have an analysis and needs to have input from all the stakeholders in British Columbia. All the stakeholders are communities and municipalities. Municipalities have spoken out almost unanimously against TILMA, and they have done so at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities convention. School boards are greatly affected and can be greatly affected by TILMA.

The fact is that enabling legislation that sets up an arbitrary panel that will look at disputes of TILMA and can issue fines in the millions of dollars for breaches of TILMA could virtually bankrupt a municipality that is engaged in any type of activity that may be giving a local business a priority.

For instance, a local business may be doing regular work for a school board or for a municipality, and then under TILMA, somebody from Alberta can say: "I can come in there and do it for cheaper. You have to allow me to do it. If you don't, I will take a charge against this municipality in the courts, in the new quasi court that TILMA has set up."

C. Puchmayr: The member across, the former Solicitor General, says that it's good for taxpayers. Is it good for taxpayers when you take businesses out of a community? Or when someone has struggled for years to work within a community to contribute to that community, and suddenly, on the basis of a challenge, may not be able to apply for that tender?

Just on the threat of a challenge, a municipality may decide that it is too risky to go forward with the contract and that they will not pursue what they have pursued in the past. That is dangerous for the community.

Then the other proponent can come in there and, once established, can raise the prices and take competition right out of the play. That is the case that has happened so often in trade deals.

Here's what Alberta's Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations, Gary Mar, told the Richmond Chamber of Commerce in June of '06. His quote, with regards to the TILMA dispute process was that everything Canadian businesses have asked for, we have in TILMA. Everything that Canadian businesses have asked for are in TILMA. There wasn't any consultation.

All of the Canadian businesses are happy and elated and pleased with TILMA. The grass roots of a municipality, a school board, the UBCM…. The hundreds of people, the thousands of people that are involved in municipal politics are shocked that this legislation is coming forward — absolutely shocked and concerned. They're absolutely concerned.

The members on the other side sit there, and they just continue to rubber-stamp initiatives that this government brings on that take away the democratic rights of the grass roots of the local communities. They continue to chip away at the democratic rights of communities.

They're taking their powers away from them over and over and over again. They've done it with municipalities with respect to independent power. They're doing it

with TILMA. They're imposing something on municipalities that could put them in a legal position that could cost them significantly in an increase in taxes to pay for a legal ruling against them.

Another group that really likes TILMA is the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. They sent a letter to the Premier and to Ralph Klein saying that they're making an economic agreement that goes further than any other government in Canada to tearing down the barriers that too long have stifled economic growth and competitiveness in the country.

I didn't see any problem with competitiveness across the border. I can still bank in Alberta. I can put my money in Alberta.

You know, over a decade ago, Madam Speaker, the interprovincial boundaries of trade came down. That was over a decade ago. Those boundaries were already removed. Those boundaries were implemented from the federal government, and they were imposed on provinces across Canada. They created the way that we do business across the borders.

To have this legislation come in after the fact — legislation such as this, which is going to put pressure on municipalities and impose a position on municipalities — is absolutely unacceptable. The manner that this side does it over and over again — without proper debate, without looking at it point by point, without going through the policies point by point — is absolutely unacceptable. It is absolutely unacceptable in a democratic society to have this type of legislation imposed on citizens of British Columbia, on municipalities of British Columbia and on school boards of British Columbia.

It's called the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. I don't see any barriers to investment. I don't see them at all, other than the fact that somebody can come in and impose a contract on a municipality. Other than that, there are no barriers on investment.

Alberta companies come here all the time and work. Companies from Germany come here and work. Companies from Italy come here and work. Are there barriers on them? Absolutely not.

Labour mobility. You know, they talk about labour mobility. The other side has to look at why there are certain restrictions with regards to labour mobility. There are colleges in different disciplines that have rules. There is a national college in many disciplines that has rules and regulations that apply nationally, and they apply them to keep an extremely high standard of delivery of service in that field.

It's understandable to have a national college that makes sure we have the delivery of those services, such as doctors and nurses, in the highest degree that is available to the citizens who are the users of that service.

I know people…. As a matter of fact, recently people in Mackenzie were told to go over to Alberta to work because of the destruction of the lumber industry in the Mackenzie region. People from all over British Columbia are leaving in droves right now to go to Alberta and work because this government is destroying jobs through the forest policies — meaningful, value-added jobs in British Columbia.

Is there a restriction now? We haven't even passed this legislation. Is there a restriction now? Are those people being stopped at the border and told: "No, take your millwright ticket and go back to British Columbia"? No, not at all. They are going across the border. They are leaving for Alberta. There's no restriction.

As a matter of fact, Alberta companies are coming here. They were in Nanaimo just recently at the Harmac mill with a job fair trying to get B.C. workers to come to Alberta. Gee, but TILMA…? This is before TILMA. There are no restrictions. There are no labour mobility restrictions with workers who are leaving British Columbia in droves under the watch of this government and going to Alberta. There are no restrictions.

People going to work in Fort McMurray who have worked in our oil and gas industry and are going to the Alberta oil and gas industry — is there a restriction to them? People that are working in banks in British Columbia and want to work in a bank in Alberta where there is maybe some cheaper real estate — is there a restriction to them? No, absolutely not.

It may be that in some accounting fields there are, but that's the national college that deals with that. It doesn't need this type of enabling legislation and this quasi-kangaroo tribunal that is going to be set up, which is exempt from the Supreme Court of Canada. Unless there's a massive error in law, they're able to impose penalties on municipalities, on citizens, on the taxpayers in our community — on the government, which is the taxpayer of British Columbia. Maybe the minister doesn't understand that. There's only one pocket, and it's the taxpayer. This could impose it.

C. Puchmayr: As the member says, they lower taxes, but they raised user fees in almost every capacity. Again, it's the shell game. They take taxes away from here, and then they double your medical premiums, they double your tuition premiums, and they go around boasting that they've lowered taxes. They haven't lowered taxes, Mr. Speaker. Not at all.

This is enabling legislation that is unnecessary. Even in Saskatchewan…. I mean, Saskatchewan just elected a right-wing government. They said that they didn't want to engage in TILMA, because it affects the provincial Crown and municipalities. Well, isn't that something. You would think that the new government in Saskatchewan would just be embracing TILMA right now, but do you know what? They're concerned about their municipalities. They're concerned about the jurisdiction of the provincial Crown.

So if that isn't a signal here that something is wrong with this legislation, that certainly sets it up.

I'll continue on after the debate. But I want to say that I am really concerned with this legislation. I think that it needs to be addressed. I think every stakeholder needs to be brought to the table — not just the business community but labour, municipalities, school boards. All need to come to the table to look at whether or not there really is a need for this type of legislation. If common sense prevailed, it would be seen that there is no need.

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

Hon. J. van Dongen: I understand that the member opposite wants to start with questions about the B.C. Lottery Corporation. I just would like to introduce my staff. On my left is Deputy Minister David Morhart. On my right is the president and CEO of B.C. Lottery Corporation, Michael Graydon. Behind me is Derek Sturko, the director of the gaming policy and enforcement branch, and behind Michael is Tom Williamson, the chief financial officer of B.C. Lottery Corporation.

H. Lali: We know that there's money laundering going on in British Columbia's casinos. My question is to the minister. Does the minister think that four years is a reasonable time to respond to an FOI request?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I do want to correct the record. Derek Sturko is the assistant deputy minister of the gaming policy and enforcement branch.

In answer to the member's question, I want to start out by talking about the legislation. The freedom-of-information and personal privacy legislation sets out a number of requirements for our professional civil service who have the job of vetting applications. That gives them a number of duties that require them, sometimes, to notify third parties. It requires them to remove any information that is considered personal and private under the act.

In this case, the application was a very substantial application — approximately 3,000 pages, as I understand it — and through the process, there was a third party that got involved, expressing their interest in the application. There was a significant amount of mediation and other process through the Office the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Because of a range of issues, certainly, the application took a significant period of time to process. From my point of view, our philosophy is that subject to the requirements of the act, we would like to see applications processed as expeditiously as possible.

H. Lali: I don't think the minister has answered my question. I pose the question to the minister again. Does he believe that four years is a reasonable amount of time to act upon an FOI request? No matter how long it is, it doesn't take four years. I'd like to ask the minister again: does he believe that four years is a reasonable amount of time to act upon an FOI request?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This particular application, as I understand it, is the longest one the ministry has had. It was also the largest request that the ministry has had. It spanned a number of years in terms of the documents — as I've said, very significant documents.

It involved a fair bit of time and process within the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. I think, as the member indicates, it's not ideal to have an application go for four years. As I said, we have many freedom-of-information requests, and all of them are processed quicker than that.

H. Lali: In his first answer the minister stated that third parties had to be notified. Could he tell this committee what third parties had to be notified?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Under the act, staff have an obligation to notify certain types of third parties. In this case, they had an obligation to notify all casino operators. They did that, and they got responses from two casinos that sought to be involved in the process, as I understand it, as interveners. Great Canadian Casinos and Gateway Casinos were the two operators that got involved in the process of this application.

H. Lali: I'd like to ask the Solicitor General: when did the Solicitor General actually first learn that B.C.'s casinos are being used by organized crime to launder money? At the same time, when did the minister first become aware that the request actually took four years to respond to?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In terms of the question about money laundering, there have been allegations around over time about the possibility of money laundering around gaming facilities. The gaming policy and enforcement branch and B.C. Lottery Corporation have been aware of those. They report out on them. They have processes and procedures in place to deal with those possibilities.

In terms of the FOI request, the CBC report and that specific information, I became aware of that about two weeks ago.

H. Lali: How did the minister become aware of this? How was he informed? Who informed him?

H. Lali: Did the ministerial assistant inform the minister before the matter was raised in the media, or was it after it was raised in the media?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I recall, it was a couple of days before it came out in the media.

H. Lali: So the minister was aware a couple of days before it came out in the media. Why did the minister not take any steps to actually make this issue public and have to wait until the media had brought this matter to his attention?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In answer to the member's question, I knew that information had gone out. I did not have any of that information. I assumed that if the CBC had any questions or public comment, they would make those in due course. I didn't have the information. I knew that 3,000 pages of documents had gone out.

H. Lali: The Solicitor General has just admitted on the record that he was made aware that 3,000 pages of documents had gone out, but basically he has implied that he did not know the details of the issue. I find it a little bit difficult to believe that any minister in this government, when they are informed that 3,000 pages of documents have gone out, would not ask for further details as to what was contained in those documents.

I'll give the minister another chance to answer the question. What details did the minister learn about the issue a couple of days prior to it becoming known in the media that this FOI, freedom-of-information request was filled, had gone out? What details did the minister learn at that time, a couple of days…? I find it unimaginable that the minister would not ask the ministerial assistant what was contained in those 3,000 pages of documents. It wasn't just one page or two pages. It was 3,000 pages.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to restate the fact that freedom-of-information requests go through a process through the public service. There are staff whose specific duty it is to process freedom-of-information requests. The minister does not see those. The minister is not involved in those; neither are any staff in the minister's office.

We did not know the details of what went out. We knew that a request went out. When I became aware of that, I certainly got briefings on the role of the B.C. Lottery Corporation in these matters, the role of the gaming policy and enforcement branch and the kinds of procedures and protocols that are in place.

The member should be aware that the request included a very, very wide range of documents, including a lot of broader information. It wasn't just the one specific piece of information that ultimately came into the media.

H. Lali: Could the minister tell us: what's the name of the ministerial assistant?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The name of my ministerial assistant is a matter for the public record. His name is Brian Sims.

H. Lali: Just for the record, I just want to reiterate my question. Was that the first time that the minister received a briefing on this FOI request on the money-laundering issue?

H. Lali: Will the minister table that briefing note that he received from Mr. Sims?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I received a verbal briefing on these issues at the time.

H. Lali: Would the minister tell this committee the explanation given by his ministerial assistant as to the four-year delay?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The briefing that I received at the time really encompassed four areas — the role of the B.C. Lottery Corporation; the role of the gaming policy and enforcement branch; the role of the federal agency known as FINTRAC, an independent federal agency; and the role of the public service staff that deal with freedom-of-information requests within the ministry.

H. Lali: This is the most urgent matter in the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I'd like to again ask the minister…. After a four-year delay for the FOI request that was put forward by the media, obviously, there was some reason why it was delayed for four years, other than the explanation that the minister has given.

The minister says that the only briefing that he got was a verbal one from his ministerial assistant. There was no written briefing. It was a verbal briefing, yet the ministerial assistant does not talk to the minister about the seriousness of the nature of the request for FOI, which is money laundering and fraud going on at the casinos in British Columbia. That's how serious this matter is. It's the most serious matter on the lap of the minister right now, and the minister wants this committee to believe that there were no details discussed.

I'll give the minister a chance again to tell this committee what the details of the request and the briefing were and to inform this House. What were the details, and was he concerned?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to assure the member, with respect, that I've been dealing with many high-priority urgent issues in the ministry. The issue of money laundering is a great concern to our government. Under the Gaming Control Act that was passed by our government in 2002, the integrity of our gaming operations is the highest priority. Money laundering and other similar activities are a concern — a major concern.

But I suggest to the member that if he looks at the 2005-2006 Auditor General's report, which was a routine audit done of our gaming operations — the B.C. Lottery Corporation's gaming policy and enforcement branch — it certainly indicated generally that the government was fulfilling the mandate of the act to properly manage risks within our gaming operations.

The concern that came out of the CBC report is a specific concern about a specific type of transaction known as suspicious currency transactions, involving reports to FINTRAC. Along with all of the other procedures and protocols that are in place, it forms part of a comprehensive anti-money-laundering program that is implemented not only by BCLC, which sets operating policy, but by registered workers in our gaming operations. The casino operators themselves, B.C. Lottery Corporation, the gaming policy and enforcement branch provincially and FINTRAC federally all have regulatory responsibilities in this area.

So this is an issue that we do take seriously in terms of both the general overall concern around money laundering and the potential for that around gaming operations. We did take seriously the specific question that came up about reporting, which came out of the CBC report.

H. Lali: When the minister received his verbal briefing a couple of days before the issue became public, were any of these four gentlemen — the senior staff at B.C. Lottery Corporation or the gaming policy and enforcement branch, or any other official from either BCLC or GPEB — accompanying Mr. Sims, your ministerial assistant? Were they present when you received that briefing?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I recall, it was my ministerial assistant who indicated that a significant freedom-of-information request had gone out to the media. Subsequent to that, I invited ministry staff to brief me on the various roles, as I've said to the member, of BCLC, the gaming policy and enforcement branch and the policy framework that we had in place, and the role of FINTRAC — those sorts of things.

H. Lali: The minister indicates that subsequent to the discussion with Mr. Sims, the MA…. He talked to some of the ministry staff following that. I mean, a gentle nod will be okay. Am I correct? Yes.

How soon after the discussion with Mr. Sims did you talk to ministry staff, and could you name the ministry staff that you talked to, please?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I recall, within one or two days I talked to my deputy minister, David Morhart, and assistant deputy minister Derek Sturko, who is responsible for the gaming policy and enforcement branch.

H. Lali: The minister had indicated in an earlier question that it was a couple of days before the issue became public that the ministerial assistant informed the Solicitor General about the FOI request. In answer to the question, "Which ministry staff did he meet with?" he said that it was one or two days.

Would the minister please inform this committee: did you meet with the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister before the issue became public, or was it after the issue became public?

H. Lali: That is a significant release of information, because during question period, subsequent to the issue becoming public through the media, the minister is on record as stating that he knew nothing about this issue and that he would find out what was necessary to make that information public.

That is a significant development here, because he led the House to believe that there was no discussion, that he did not know about the issue but that he would endeavour to find out whatever he could. The minister just said on record that it was one or two days after the discussion with Mr. Sims. Obviously, it was before the issue became public and also the question period question had taken place.

Could the minister tell me: which one of your senior deputies, assistant deputies — the four gentlemen that are present here today — is actually responsible for either knowing about or dealing with FOI requests that come forward to the Ministry of Solicitor General?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Just to clarify for the member. The briefings I received were very general in nature. They involved the policy framework, the procedures, how things worked and who was responsible for what. Because I did not have specific knowledge of the information, I also at that point had no knowledge of what might come out in the media.

In terms of his question about who is responsible for the freedom-of-information process, the staff — the public servants who process the freedom-of-information request — ultimately report to the deputy minister.

H. Lali: Would the Solicitor General tell this committee if the deputy minister had a chance to look at the 3,000-page report that went out under the FOI request and if the deputy minister was aware of the full details of the request regarding money laundering?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I just want to confirm for the member that I've never seen the documents. The person ultimately responsible for the release of the documents is the deputy minister. He signed off the package for release also without seeing the documents. He relied on staff in the freedom-of-information office. They're the professional staff within the ministry whose duty it is to review any application. He relied on their professional expertise, and he signed off the release of the package.

H. Lali: I find it absolutely incredible that this being the most urgent issue that is before the minister regarding the B.C. Lottery Corporation, there is a four-year delay in releasing the FOI request to the media that had been made four years earlier and contains damaging information to this government and to the B.C. Lottery Corporation. It took four years to develop this because they had to, as the minister said, talk to third parties and had to go through the privacy protection act as well, in terms of protecting the people's personal information.

All of those had been around the ministry for four years. The deputy minister is responsible for this. That the deputy minister would just sign off on a 3,000-page document without having to read it or be informed by anybody else as to what is contained in it and just blindly trust the people working on it, to say: "I'm signing off on something that took four years to release. I'm going to finally release it." That the deputy minister would not know what was contained in there….

Again, I would ask the Solicitor General: what did the deputy minister know at that time in terms of what was contained in this very, very damaging FOI request that went out only two days before it hit the media?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again for the member, under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act the ministry is compelled to release the information that is the subject of the request, subject to legal obligations in terms of personal privacy and various other requirements under the act that professional staff have the obligation to review prior to release.

The deputy minister has no role in reviewing the documents other than to confirm that he believes that staff have appropriately followed the act in the release of the information. He simply signs off the release of the package. As I've said, the minister's office has no role in that process.

H. Lali: I think the hon. minister meant the deputy minister has no role, because the question was directed about the deputy minister.

H. Lali: If the deputy minister has no role to read the report, then who under the deputy minister has the role to actually read that report before it goes to the deputy minister for sign-off or release?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I just want to emphasize for the member that it was not a report that was released. It was a collection of documents based on a request over a time period that spanned from sometime in 1997 to 2004. So it was a very significant compilation of section 86 reports, which are standard reports under the act to the gaming policy and enforcement branch, with copies to B.C. Lottery.

Again, it's the professional freedom-of-information staff in the ministry. It is not their duty to necessarily read the documents. Their duty is to release those documents, to follow the process laid out in the act whereby they find all the documents. They locate all of the documents within government. Sometimes they can be in different places, though in this case they're all section 86 reports.

They have to locate the documents and identify all the documents, and then they have to go through them from the point of view of ensuring that all the requirements of the act are met. That includes certain deletions that are legally required of the staff to identify and process.

H. Lali: It's not the deputy minister's role to read the FOI documents that go out as per request, and it's not the role of anybody underneath the deputy minister to "necessarily read the report." Those are the minister's words. It's not their role necessarily to read that.

I'd like to ask the minister: whose role is it in the Solicitor General's ministry to actually read the FOI request document before it goes to the deputy minister for sign-off for release? There's got to be somebody within the ministry whose role it is to actually read something before it goes out.

Could the minister please provide the answer to this question: whose role is it, and what are the names of those individuals whose role it is to actually read those documents?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to reiterate and clarify for the member that it's the job of the professional staff

in the freedom-of-information and personal privacy section of the ministry to process applications. To do that, they go through each document line by line with a view to ensuring that all of the requirements of the act are met. That is their purpose in going through the documents.

To clarify, they do read the documents. They read them line by line but with the strict purpose of ensuring that their duties under the act are met in terms of protection of private interests and all the requirements of the act.

In terms of the normal course of business of government, it is the role of the gaming policy and enforcement branch to review section 86 reports as they come in from casino operations. That is an important function under the act for the gaming policy and enforcement branch. So there are staff in the ministry that on a day-to-day basis review those reports.

H. Lali: Once the minister became aware of this issue, did the Solicitor General discuss it with anyone in the Premier's office?

H. Lali: Does the minister not recall he did, or did the minister not actually talk to anybody in the Premier's office?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I didn't talk to anybody in the Premier's office. That's my recollection. If the member wants to split hairs, I don't think I did.

H. Lali: I'm not trying to split hairs. First off, the minister says he doesn't recall, and now he says: "I don't think I did."

Did you talk to anybody in the Premier's office, or did you not talk to anybody in the Premier's office after you learned of this issue?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I didn't talk to anyone in the Premier's office. That's my recollection.

H. Lali: Did anybody in the minister's office, his ministerial staff — Mr. Sims or anyone who works for the minister in this minister's office — talk to anyone in the Premier's office after the minister learned of this issue?

H. Lali: Then would the minister like to tell me: was there anybody…? The deputy minister or the president and CEO of BCLC or the assistant deputy minister for GPEB or the chair of the B.C. Lottery Corp — did any one of these four gentlemen talk to anybody in the Premier's office after learning of this information?

H. Lali: Did any one of the gentlemen that I mentioned or Mr. Sims or any ministerial staff who work in the minister's office here in the legislative building…? Did anybody talk to anyone in the Premier's office before the minister was briefed by Mr. Sims and after this whole issue became public in the media?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can't specifically confirm that, but they may have talked to someone in the Premier's office.

H. Lali: Did the Solicitor General actually discuss this issue with anyone in central communications?

H. Lali: Did any one of the individuals whose positions I mentioned earlier, in the last two or three questions…? Did any one of the people I mentioned talk to anyone in central communications regarding this particular issue?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, I can't confirm for the member, but someone may have talked to central communications about the issue.

H. Lali: The minister can't confirm. But would the minister tell the committee who is most likely to actually talk to somebody in central communications about this issue?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Just to confirm for the member, we do have a communications staff within the ministry who report to the public affairs bureau on matters involving the ministry. They serve both the ministry and the minister's office.

H. Lali: Then perhaps the minister would like to confirm: what advice did he or his ministry get from the…? What advice did he get from the communications department on this particular issue?

The Chair: Member, I would advise you that we are on Vote 39. If you can keep your questions relevant to Vote 39 or how they relate towards 39.

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I had indicated to the member, I received briefings from my deputy minister and from the assistant deputy minister responsible for the gaming policy and enforcement branch. That was the kind of information I received prior to the CBC releasing certain information and asking questions publicly.

When the CBC asked specific questions about reporting by B.C. Lottery Corporation to FINTRAC, then we dealt with those issues. That's when I decided to meet with the board of directors. I did have a meeting

with them last Friday, and we received, subsequent to that, the letter that I released yesterday from the board of directors of B.C. Lottery Corporation.

H. Lali: I was wondering. The minister talked about the briefings that he has received from the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister. Would the minister table those briefing documents to this committee or to the House?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said, the briefings I received prior to the CBC reports becoming public were around roles and responsibilities; they were around policies and procedures. All of that information is on both the ministry website and the B.C. Lottery Corp website.

H. Lali: I think the minister may have answered this question. I was reading something, so I kind of lost track. I was wondering if the minister could confirm whether he has met with the lotteries' board yet.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I did meet with the board of directors of B.C. Lottery Corporation last Friday.

H. Lali: In the House the minister had indicated a couple of weeks back — it might have been a little longer — that when he meets with the board of directors he would actually…. After he received the briefing and had the meeting, he would make that information public. I believe he said there was a letter that went out yesterday. Would the minister, if he has a copy, or his staff provide the opposition with one right now so I may have a chance to look at it? I haven't got a copy of it.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The letter from the chair of the board of directors was tabled yesterday in the Legislature, and I'd be happy to provide the member a copy.

H. Lali: In his meeting with the board of directors of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, was the Solicitor General given a brief by anyone from the board regarding why it took four years — four years — to fulfil a freedom-of-information request from his ministry related to money laundering?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In my meeting with the board of directors of B.C. Lottery Corporation, the issue of the freedom-of-information request was not discussed. We discussed the substantive issues around money laundering generally and reporting to FINTRAC specifically.

Again, the freedom-of-information request came to the ministry and was processed by the ministry and, more specifically, by the staff whose particular duty it is to process those requests within the ministry.

H. Lali: So let me get this correct. We have the most urgent matter in the Ministry of the Solicitor General that is going on right now. The minister in the House said that he was going to meet with the board of directors of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, which he did. He's tabled the letter. Thank you very much for actually sending a copy of that over here.

This whole issue comes out of this request that is four years old. It's been sitting there in file 13 or somewhere where it's been passed around back and forth — Lord knows who to and where from. The minister says on the record here today that he did not at that meeting with the board of directors discuss why it took so long, four years, to act upon the freedom-of-information request. Am I correct?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, I want to stress that all of the documents, every single page of documents, came from the ministry, who processed the freedom-of-information request.

What we dealt with at the meeting with the board of directors were the substantive issues, as I said, of money laundering generally and, in particular, the details of the reporting relationship and the substance of the reporting over time to the federal agency known as FINTRAC.

H. Lali: So has the Solicitor General met with or talked to the CEO of B.C. Lottery Corporation regarding why it took four years to fill this freedom-of-information request?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, B.C. Lottery Corporation was not the source of any of the documents. They were involved as a third party, as the two casino operations were. But again, the whole process is handled by professional staff within the ministry. The CEO of Lottery Corporation did attend the meeting with the board of directors that I had last Friday.

H. Lali: Okay. Let me ask the minister another question. Has the Solicitor General met with the chairman or asked the chairman of the board of directors of B.C. Lottery Corporation why it took four years to fulfil a freedom-of-information request from the media?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The chairman of the board of directors did chair the meeting last Friday, and again, B.C. Lottery Corporation had no role in the processing of the freedom-of-information request. It was the ministry staff within my ministry who had the responsibility and have the duty to process all freedom-of-information requests to our ministry under the act.

H. Lali: All right, then. Then has the minister talked to the deputy minister about why it took four years to fill the freedom-of-information request?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I did discuss the issue of the time frame for the freedom-of-information request with my deputy minister and certainly sought to understand why it took as long as it did. I have in previous answers explained to the member why it took the amount of time it did. Certainly, I've emphasized with the deputy minister, and I've said publicly, that subject to the legal

obligations that are imposed on our staff under the act, it's my expectation that we process any freedom-of-information request as expeditiously as possible.

H. Lali: Could the minister tell me, then, when it was that he actually talked to the deputy minister and what advice he gave specifically — not in general terms but specifically — as to why it took so long? And if he didn't, would the minister now ask the deputy minister, who's sitting right beside him, why it took four years to fill that freedom-of-information request and inform this committee.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, as I've explained to the member in earlier answers, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act puts certain legal obligations on the professional staff that we have within the ministry whose duty it is to process freedom-of-information requests. They have significant duties to consider all of the sections of the act.

As I said, in this particular case it involved documents over a very long period of time, about 1997 to 2004. It involved a number of third parties that had to be consulted, that had legal rights under the act, and it involved a very significant quantity of material. That was the explanation that I was given. It also included significant time frames that involved process within the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, such as mediation between the parties involved.

The Chair: Could I remind all members to direct their questions through the Chair.

H. Lali: Hon. Chair, I'm finding this a little incredible here. No wonder British Columbia is going to hell in a handbasket under this Liberal government.

No one in this Liberal government talks to anyone in this Liberal government, and no one knows what the heck is going on in this particular issue or others. Surely the Solicitor General doesn't expect anyone in this room or anyone in British Columbia to believe that no one in this — whether it's in the GPEB, the BCLC, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Premier's office, the communications department and Lord knows who else…. Nobody is talking to anybody about this, the most important and damaging issue that is before the Ministry of the Solicitor General right now.

The Premier has a staff of over 200 people practising damage control on this issue, and the minister wants me and this committee to believe that neither he nor his ministerial assistant nor any one of these senior officials within GPEB, the BCLC and the Ministry of the Solicitor General or anybody else in either one of these organizations has ever talked to anybody in the central communications department or the Premier's office in terms of what is going on. This is what the minister wants us to believe: that in this, the most important issue, no one is talking to anybody.

Again, I would like to ask the minister: would he commit to having his deputy minister do the proper due diligence to find out why it took four years to get this freedom-of-information request filled and to make it public through the media? Why did it take four years, and will he commit to having his deputy minister do the diligence to find out the answers?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, to confirm for the member, I have had that conversation with the deputy minister. In fact, I had that conversation on more than one occasion. I indicated my expectation that we do everything within the ministry in compliance with the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. It imposes significant obligations on professional staff to review documents based on the law, and I indicated to the deputy my expectation that subject to the law, we move all freedom-of-information requests as expeditiously as possible.

H. Lali: The more I delve into this issue, the more I smell a cover-up. That's what's happening here. There's a whole lot of stonewalling that has gone on, foot-dragging and passing the buck and using all sorts of legalese. Even now the law states that it's 30 days to fill out a freedom-of-information request. Okay. Fine. It's a longer request, so it takes a couple of months. Let's say even it's six months to fill this out.

It's four years that a request was made for this information — before the last election, I might add. Before the May 2005 election, four years ago…. It was made almost a year before that. I can't help but wonder if somebody was deliberately delaying the release of this information so it didn't hit the media before the election cycle.

I think that's what's going on here. It's a cover-up by this Liberal government in terms of release of this very, very damaging information in terms of the money laundering and the fraud that is taking place in the casinos that are under the purview of this minister.

Again, I would like to ask the Solicitor: is he saying that the Premier was never made aware of the fraud going on in B.C.'s casinos? Is that what the Solicitor General is saying?

The Chair: Can I remind all members about parliamentary language in the presentation of questions and answers, to be respectful of each other person and how they describe them.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Our goal as a government is to ensure that we have responsibility and integrity in our gaming operations in British Columbia. That is really the foundation of the Gaming Control Act that was passed by our government in the Legislature in 2002.

It is the paramount responsibility of the gaming policy and enforcement branch to carry that out under the act. It is also the expectation that I have set down and our government has set down for the board of directors of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

In terms of when the Premier might have become specifically aware of this recent issue, I couldn't confirm

The fact is that we as a government passed the Gaming Control Act. We expect integrity in our gaming operations. Again, I refer the member to the Auditor General's report of 2005, which did an overall review of the procedures and processes followed by the gaming policy and enforcement branch as the regulator and the B.C. Lottery Corporation as the entity that regulates the day-to-day operations of casino operations. That report sets out, I believe in a balanced way, the fact that the government is meeting the intent of the act.

H. Lali: I specifically heard the minister talking about how it's the ministry's role to make sure that there is responsibility and integrity in gaming in British Columbia. That's what the minister says.

Here we have a situation such as in Ontario. Some of the figures coming out are that some of the money laundering schemes with the criminal elements that are involved in it are laundering up to about $40 million a year through the casinos in Ontario. So our province is about 30 percent of what Ontario is — maybe a little more, 40 percent — in size. Even then we're probably looking at $10 million or $20 million worth of money laundering if you compare straight across figures with what's going on in Ontario.

Three weeks ago a couple of members of the media were able to take wads of $20 bills, brown paper bags of $20 bills, and feed them into the slot machines in British Columbia's casinos. One of them was over $9,000 in $20 bills. So a thousand bucks — that's about 50 bills. So $9,450 — let's say it's about 500 $20 bills.

Hon. Chair, do you know how long it takes for somebody to actually sit there and feed, one by one, $20 bills into a slot machine? Do you know how long that takes? I mean, you can do the math. If it takes about five seconds to do one bill, how long would it take for 500 bills to be fed into a slot machine in British Columbia's casinos.

You would think somebody would notice that somebody is sitting there feeding $20 bills, because that's what it was — $20 bills. And it was done a few times in terms of feeding them into a slot machine in British Columbia's….

The minister talked about responsibility and integrity. Somebody's sitting there feeding $20 bills into a slot machine for dozens of minutes. That's how long it would take to feed just a little less than $10,000. Then to play it for a few minutes to make it look like it's legitimate — not win anything, maybe win something. Who knows? That's per chance. That's the nature of the beast. Then to hit the "betting for credit," and you get a receipt. You take the receipt over to the cashier for $9,990, or whatever it is — it's less than $10,000 — and cash it out.

All of a sudden that dirty money, that black money, is magically transformed into white money. That's why it's called money laundering. You take something dirty, you put it in the washing machine, and presto, on the other side it comes out nice and clean. That's what's going on in British Columbia's casinos. It has been going on for years, and the ministry has known about it for four years, because that's when that request came in.

So when the minister talks about how it is the responsibility of the Solicitor General or of the ministry and senior staff to ensure that there is responsibility and integrity and openness and accountability in our gaming system in British Columbia, I have a difficult time believing that. That this government will allow it to come to this, here today, that we've got money laundering with criminal elements and gangs right now active in British Columbia, who use our casinos to take black money and turn it magically with the flick of their finger into white money….

That's what's going on, and the minister doesn't take that seriously. Because so far, in terms of all of the questions that have been asked, I haven't heard a single answer that would actually back up the claim of the minister that they're acting in a responsible way and that there's integrity involved in the system. It's a real shame.

So I'd like to ask, in the spirit of integrity and responsibility, when did the Solicitor General's immediate predecessors — the MLA for Chilliwack-Sumas or his predecessor the present Minister of Forests — know about the money laundering going on in B.C.'s casinos and the subsequent freedom-of-information request from the media related to money laundering?

The Chair: Member, the minister is not responsible for previous members. And tone is as much a part of parliamentary debate as moderation and temperance. So I would just remind the member.

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I've indicated to the member, money laundering and other organized crime activities are always a concern to our government. They are a concern historically, particularly around casino operations. That is why there are comprehensive procedures in place at all levels.

The gaming policy and enforcement branch publishes in their annual report a reconciliation or accounting of all of the complaints and the types of complaints that they've received and how they've dealt with those. There are within BCLC comprehensive requirements that they set out for casino operations. They also have within BCLC, the B.C. Lottery Corporation, expertise that is well recognized in Canada to review those reports and to put procedures in place to improve our tracking and, ultimately, enforcement against money-laundering activities.

It is an activity that requires constant vigilance. Certainly, the CBC report and the CBC activity in one of the casinos confirmed that there is more work to be done by the B.C. Lottery Corporation. The board of directors, in my meeting with them last Friday, was very quick to acknowledge that, hence the letter which I have received confirming their plan as an organization to tighten up things like training of people on the front line.

They are registered by the gaming policy and enforcement branch. They have to be screened by them.

So they have licensing obligations to meet, and B.C. Lottery Corporation is making a number of improvements as set out in the letter to improve the identification, tracking and enforcement against money-laundering activities.

H. Lali: The minister didn't answer my question, so I'd like to rephrase it again.

When did the Solicitor General's immediate predecessor, the MLA from Chilliwack-Sumas, or his predecessor before that, the present Minister of Forests, know about the money laundering in B.C.'s casinos and the subsequent FOI requests from the media related to money laundering?

The Chair: The minister cannot answer questions relating to previous ministers.

Then I'd like to ask the Solicitor General when he talked to his predecessor or his predecessor before him, the current Minister of Forests, about this money-laundering issue at B.C.'s casinos and about the FOI request.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I take my responsibility as Solicitor General seriously, and I work with all of the professional staff in the ministry and, as appropriate, with the staff in Crown corporations — in this case the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

My relationship is with the board of directors. I understand full well what that relationship entails with the board of directors, and I execute my duties based on my judgment around the best advice that I get from my staff, from the board of directors of B.C. Lottery Corporation and any other experience and information that I feel is appropriate and necessary.

H. Lali: So just for the record, is the minister saying that he has not talked to his predecessor or his predecessor before that regarding this issue of money laundering subsequent to, or even before, becoming public?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I make a personal point of sourcing information widely, and I confirm for the member that I have, on occasion, talked to the previous Solicitor General about issues.

H. Lali: Did you talk to the previous Solicitors General about this issue that we have been discussing for the last hour and a half?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I may have talked in a very general way about it, but I don't recall any specifics.

H. Lali: The minister says he has talked to them about it in a general way but nothing specific. This is a very, very important issue that is before us.

We have the present Solicitor General and the current Minister of Forests. They sit side by side at the cabinet table, along with the Premier. The member for Chilliwack-Sumas, who is the immediate former Solicitor General, you know, sits with them at the caucus table, but he also sat at the cabinet table a couple of months back, along with the present minister.

So is the Solicitor General expecting British Columbians to actually believe that none of them have ever either discussed the issue or reached sideways and whispered into each other's ears that there was money laundering going on at B.C.'s casinos and that there was a subsequent cover-up pertaining to the release of information to the media, as per the FOI requests?

Does the Solicitor General really expect me to believe that the biggest and most scandalous issue in the ministry right now has never, ever been discussed in any specifics with the two former Solicitors General immediately before him or, prior to that, has been discussed by anyone — including the three Solicitors General, a Premier and a cabinet colleague — in the last four years? Does the minister actually expect anyone to believe that?

H. Lali: That word has been used over and over again in the House, and nobody has asked anybody, including the Liberals, to withdraw the word cover-up.

Just a whole lot of stonewalling going on in this for the last four years. There has been stonewalling going on with this government.

What this government has done since it took office seven years back, some seven-odd years ago…. What this Liberal government has done in terms of freedom of information and everything that flows out of the lack of access to the freedom-of-information documents that people want has basically been an attack on democracy in this province. That's what has happened. This freedom-of-information request regarding money laundering and fraud and criminal elements that are out there practising corruption in our B.C. casinos is all related to stonewalling and not providing the information that the people here know.

I've been sitting here for almost two hours debating this issue with the minister, and he has not yet once answered a single one of my questions as relates to this issue that is before us. All we see is stonewalling after stonewalling, denial — the total and absolute ridiculousness, actually, in not releasing any information. That's what's going on here.

So I'd like to ask the minister if he wants to agree to a ten-minute recess so that he can actually go and talk to his colleagues a little bit — the immediate predecessor, the member for Chilliwack-Sumas and the current Minister of Forests, who was the Minister of Solicitor General before that? If he'd like to take ten minutes to confer with them and maybe talk a little bit in specifics, then we can come back in here and have a real debate on this issue. If he has talked to those two ministers

generally, would he like to now take a ten-minute recess and go talk specifically, so we can actually get some answers to our questions?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In the course of doing my duties as Solicitor General, I have many conversations every day. I feel that I have the information necessary to answer the member's questions.

I think what is important here is that we have a gaming policy framework in this province under the act that was established by our government in 2002. That act requires our gaming policy and enforcement branch and the B.C. Lottery Corporation to have integrity and responsibility in our gaming operations as a paramount goal.

In the course of doing my duties, I did get briefings at the appropriate time in terms of the policy frameworks, the procedures, the responsibilities. When questions were raised by the media with respect to specific issues, we dealt with those issues. We met as soon as we possibly could with the board of directors of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, who were in part involved in terms of reporting to the federal agency known as FINTRAC. We took appropriate action.

We had, I felt, an appropriate response from the board of directors and the CEO of B.C. Lottery Corporation. That is detailed in a letter which was tabled yesterday in the Legislature. I also remind the member of the Auditor General's report, a report that was a routine audit done in 2005 which, again, through an independent officer of the Legislature, sets out their review of the operations of gaming in this province.

H. Lali: The deputy minister is sitting beside the Solicitor General right now. Would the Solicitor General turn to the deputy minister right now and ask him right now when he first learned of the money laundering going on at B.C.'s casinos. I want to remind everyone here that we're trying to get all the information out here on the record. So to the minister sitting there with the deputy minister sitting beside him: would he turn to him and ask him when he first learned about money laundering going on at B.C.'s casinos.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The concern about money laundering around and in casinos is something that has been known for a long time as a risk within our gaming operations. The deputy minister is aware of that risk. It is one of the risks that he has a duty to manage within his ministry. The risks are detailed in ministry service plans.

Again, in terms of the specific freedom-of-information request, the deputy became aware of that when it came forward to him for sign-off. As I said, it's his duty as the deputy to ensure that the professional staff go through and process a freedom-of-information request based on the act. That is his duty as the deputy of the ministry.

H. Lali: I'd like to ask: when did the office of the former Solicitor General — I'm not talking about the Solicitor General himself, but the offices — or this Solicitor General or the ministry start to seek legal advice on this money-laundering-scheme issue?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm not able to answer that question. I can answer questions from the time that I was in the minister's office.

H. Lali: Can the Solicitor General tell me if there are any other incidents in his government that he is aware of where it has taken four years to release an FOI request?

Hon. J. van Dongen: No, I'm not aware. As I said, this is the longest time a request has taken. This is also the largest number of documents that have been requested from our ministry in the memory of our staff.

G. Gentner: I'll try to be as brief as possible. I know the minister has suggested that he's a new minister and was not aware of a lot of things. But there is a letter we received, today I believe, a response to him on May 28. I'll go very quickly to the letter.

In March 2006 the gaming policy and enforcement branch suggested that the BCLC's audits of section 86 reports were occurring. So my question is: why would the ministry have confidence in the B.C. Lottery Corporation to conduct secondary reviews as actions underway and to begin monthly reviews? Or does it lack confidence in the gaming policy and enforcement branch to do its job?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In looking at the reference to March 2006 in the letter, what I can say to the member is that the gaming policy and enforcement branch on a monthly basis does a double-check with the B.C. Lottery Corporation to ensure that they have all of the section 86 reports they were forwarded for the previous month. So it's simply a checking process to ensure that all of the reports came in.

The main issue in this letter involves reporting to FINTRAC, which is a federal agency. The reporting for the FINTRAC requirements comes off the section 86 reports.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Noting the time, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.