H0529am 04

H0529am 04

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, May 29, 2008 Morning Sitting Volume 35, Number 4 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR His Honour the Honourable Steven L. Point, OBC FOURTH SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................................................ Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon.

Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon.

Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations............... Hon. John van Dongen Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of State for ActNow B.C. ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Deputy Speaker ...........................................................................................................................................................................

Katherine Whittred Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole................................................................................................................................................. Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E.

George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D. Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms................................................................................................................................................................................................Vacant Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................ East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, David (NDP) ......................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) ..................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L).......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) ............................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................ Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon.

Gordon (L).....................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Hon. Kevin (L) .....................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L)........................................................................ Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas............................................................................... John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay................................................................................

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................Hon.

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Thursday, May 29, 2008 Morning Sitting 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

13083 THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 The House met at 10:03 a.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Prayers. Orders of the Day Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate, Bill 29, Environmental (Species an d Public Protection) Stat- utes Amendment Act, 2008. Mr. Speaker: And in Committee A? Hon. B. Penner: Thank you for asking, Mr. Speaker. For the information of members, it will be estimates debate in Committee A, Minist ry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Mr. Speaker: Before we continue, member for Surrey– Green Timbers. [1005] Introductions by Members S. Hammell: H o n .

S p e a k e r , o n b e h a l f o f y o u , 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.

Committee of the Whole House ENVIRONMENTAL (SPECIES AND PUBLIC PROTECTION) STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 29; S. Hammell in the chair. The committee met at 10:07 a.m.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. 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…. W o u l d i t b e f a i r f o r m e t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h i s s e c t i o n , these amendments, come as a result of activity we saw in Abbotsford a couple of years back that obviously raised some concerns and re quired 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 tw o 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. [1010]

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. 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 man- agement 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

13084 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 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 govern- ment 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 wi thout 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). [1015] 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 practi ce are specific to different industries, so there could be different formulas, depend- ing 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 fa cility 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 appre- ciate 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 arou nd that facility and had other operations around th at expressed some concern that this was happening righ t 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 haz- ardous 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? [1020] Hon. G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted.

Introductions by Members 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 stud ents 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. Debate Continued Hon. B. Penner: The public notification issue is a matter that's left to the disc retion of the regional man- ager 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. Sections 3 to 36 inclusive approved.

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 13085 On

section 37. 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? [1025] 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, informatio n 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? [1030] 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-ou tfitters. 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.

Section 37 approved. On the title. 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 ye ar 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 ac tivities 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 sp ecies in British Columbia — is being increased from $100,000 on first conviction to $250,000.

The minimum fine — w e k n o w t h e c o u r t s o f t e n 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 fr om $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.

13086 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 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 go- ing from $2,000 to $5,000, and maximum imprison- ment is changing from 18 months to three years in jail.

Those are some significan t 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 other- wise might choose to do. [1035] I t ' s a l s o w o r t h n o t i n g t h a t i n t h i s s e s s i o n w e h a v e 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…. The Chair: Minister, we are on the title. 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. Title approved. Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill be reported complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 10:37 a.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills ENVIRONMENTAL (SPECIES AND PUBLIC PROTECTION) STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 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 Trad e, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act. Second Reading of Bills 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 La bour 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. [S.

Hammell in the chair.] 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 fa cts contained within the Conference Board's report never were substantiated. No one has been able to su bstantiate 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 TILM A 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 h a v e r e j e c t e d t h i s a g r e e m e n t a s i t i s w r i t t e n . W e h a v e 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, Eco- justice, and Ontario and Quebec. [1040] 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: "TILMA isn't on the table in Quebec City, but that doesn't mean the pressure for it or something similar has eased. The business community is still urging a new mechanism to supersede the 14-year-old agreement on internal trade. AIT has reduced the barriers to labour mobility, but businesses say it is ineffective because it doesn't have a binding dispute resolution mechanism like TILMA.

For example, a national coalition of ten industry and professional organizations wants to allow individuals or businesses to challenge the decisions of elected governments before tribunals whose authority is beyond government or the judicial system.

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 13087 "The business case is weakened, however, because it hasn't produced a list of the barriers that need to be eliminated. Their claim with no supporting data is that restrictions take $3 billion off the GNP. Mr. Stelmach, the Premier of Alberta, says it's $14 billion. To her credit, Ontario Economic Development Minister Ms. Pupatello says that there's a lot of po litical rhetoric about trade barriers that doesn't withstand scrutiny. "The smart thing for the Premiers to do is to take a pass on TILMA and simply work a little harder on their bilateral irritations.

They should resist the pressure to hand over power to unelected tribunals." In further speaking against Bill 32's implementation, Gary Mar, Alberta's Minister of International and Inter- governmental 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 imple- mentation 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. [1045] 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: "There are several substantial grounds for impugning the constitutional validity of TILMA and its enabling legislation. "

(1) Namely, true to its appellation, the pith and substance of TILMA and Bill 32 concerns matters of interprovincial trade, investment and labour mobility, and for that reason infringes upon federal constitutional authority with respect to trade and commerce under

section 91(2) of the Constitution Act,1867. "

(2) By imposing financial penalties and other sanctions on the province for the lawful actions of governments and other public bodies, TILMA and Bill 32 improperly fetter the exercise of legislative and public authority. "

(3) By empowering ad hoc arbitral tribunals to adjudicate private claims concerning the actions of government and other public bodies, TILMA and Bill 32 improperly derogate from the authority of superior courts to adjudicate private claims concerning exercise of public authority and to supervise inferior tribunals. For this reason, the TILMA scheme offends the constitutional safeguard of judicial independence engendered by

section 96 of the Constitution. "

(4) By amending certain provincial statutes to accord cabinet the discretionary powers to nullify through regu- lation the application of provisions of these laws to companies and other entities from outside the province, Bill 32 offends constitutional limits on the deregulation of legislative powers to the executive. The courts have named such provisions 'King Henry VIII clauses' after the propensity of that monarch to arrogate legislative power by proclamation. "For these reasons, it would be appropriate for the province to withdraw Bill 32 and abandon its present commitment to the TILMA scheme by advising Alberta of its intentions to invoke

Article 20 to withdraw from the agreement." 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: "The politics of TILMA are similar to those of NAFTA and Canada-U.S. free trade because, you may remember, how the public debate went. A lot of rhetoric, not a lot of information. 'Of course it's a good idea.

No, it doesn't mean this or that, and certainly it isn't a sellout, but we can't tell you exactly what it does mean.' Among its benefits, foreign control of your gasoline prices. I am not persuaded that rushing into any more treaties that tie the hands of public policymakers in the name of corporate profits and trade is a good idea." With that, I close, speaking against the implementation of Bill 32.

13088 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 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. [1050] 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 for- ward 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 is n'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 yo u, 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 be half 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 ca n 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, le t'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 do n'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 trades- person, 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. [1055] 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 pr ocurement 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.

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 13089 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 ev er 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 be ing 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 under- stand 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 some thing 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 creden- tialing 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 denomi- nator. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

There's a dispute resoluti on 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. [1100] 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, wh en they were in govern- ment, 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. [K. Whittred in the chair.] 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, talk ing 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."

13090 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 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, whi ch is the ag r eement 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 agr eement 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 infor- mation than you will for trying to scare them and mis- lead them. That's the problem with politics in this province and in this country. I d o w a n t t o c o n t i n u e t o h e a r s o m e o f t h e f u r t h e r debate on TILMA, but again, Bill 32, the Trade, Invest- ment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act, is a positive one. I th ank 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. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. [1105] 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 disagr ee 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. N. Simons: Back to 2002, my friend. 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 t h a t t o o k p l a c e . W e h a v e g o n e f r o m l a s t p l a c e i n t h i s country to first place, and we're going to continue to do that. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. 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 li ke 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.

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 13091 M. Sather: It's my pleasure to address Bill 32, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implemen- tation Act. Listeners will have noticed that the member for Peace River South did not mention that the agricul- tural land reserve is excepted or exempted from TILMA, because it is not. Interjections. M. Sather: The ALR, Madam Speaker, is not exempted from TILMA. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Member for Peace River South. B. Lekstrom: I rise on a point of order. Interjection. Deputy Speaker: Member, order. Order, Member. Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. Member for Peace River South. 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. [1110] 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 articl e 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 notwith- standing a contravention of any other article, there must be a contravention of

article 4 for there to be a contra- vention of TILMA. I will show that the government's case around non-discrimination does not hold water. Another significant articl e 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, deben- tures, 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 break- fast 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 amend- ment to

article 3 as provided for under

article 21 of TILMA. [1115] The government could also issue a joint decision declaring their

interpretation of TILMA as provided for under

article 34. That's the le ast 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. Ther e'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

13092 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 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, an d there are. For example,

article 5.1: "Parties shall mutually recognize or otherwise reconcile their existing stan dards 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 agreemen t. 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 governme nt, 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 rational e and a description of eco- nomic benefits that would flow from the agreement. Now, the TILMA agreement, particularly the Con- ference Board report on the TILMA agreement, was analyzed by Prof. John Helliwell, one of the most dis- tinguished 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: [1120] "The principal source of data for the paper was a survey that asked representatives of firms, organizations and government agencies and departments to list what they thought to be the most important barriers to inter- provincial trade in their company, region or industry, and then provide qualitative rankings of winners and losers by region and industry. The latter were then con- verted to measures of long-term changes in income and employment by Conference Board staff.

Since there was no research or quantitative base for this translation, it has no empirical basis and hence cannot be treated as evi- dence." 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 govern- ment to look at the TILMA agreement in his report to the Saskatchewan government. It's significant.

"Oh, that was commissioned by an NDP government." Pre- mier 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. He goes on to say, about the Conference Board report: "Instead, the report makes use of each respondent's perceptions of how accession to TILMA, relative to de- velopments likely under the AIT alone, might affect the economic prospects of Saskatchewan by region and activity.

In my view, this is an inappropriate use of the survey instrument, akin to estimating national GDP by asking households how they think everyone else is doing these days." So that's the intellectual rigour with which the Confer- ence 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 quanti- tative 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

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 13093 calculate what increment, wh at growth there might be by signing on to TILMA and the differences between TILMA and the AIT. This is what he said. "My reason for putting such a small upper bound on the possible gains, whether static or dynamic, and how they might be shared or shifted among partner provinces is that the differences between TILMA and the AIT in terms of potential cost reductions is very small, a tiny fraction of the magnitude of what was at stake in interna- tional trade treaties.

This is because trade is essentially unfettered already among provinces." 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 legislat ion 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 Con- ference Board of Canada that it's very, very limited indeed. What the argument of the government seems to be is that this is a signific ant 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 negotiatin g a trade agreement at the provincial level….

The ability to do so is somewhat limited, and there's not a full understanding of the im- plications of a trade agreement for Canada's obliga- tions in its own internationa l 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 Agree- ment on Internal Trade, broader than NAFTA and broader than the agreements of the World Trade Or- ganization.

As a general rule, as my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows pointed out, the con- straints imposed by those other trade agreements are much more precisely and narrowly defined than are those in this particular agreement. [1125] In effect, what TILMA does is transform the consti- tutional landscape for prov incial 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 unfet- tered authority to act so long a s t h e y d o s o l a w f u l l y 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 val- ues on their head by making commercial considera- tions paramount over all other competing public inter- ests and priorities.

This repr esents 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 dis- pute 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 dis- cuss it.

Interjection. B. Ralston: The member might confine his better remarks to the proper author ities that are questioning him rather than bothering me here in the Legislature. An Hon. Member: A cheap shot. B. Ralston: You'd know all about cheap shots, wouldn't you, Member? Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. Interjections. B. Ralston: I see the well-known pugilist… Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. B. Ralston: …the member for small business and deregulation, is opining. Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member. B.

Ralston: These dispute procedures represent a radical departure from Canadian legal norms by ac- cording 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 minis- ter's defence in a number of areas is not accurate. For example, there is no mech anism 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 sequen- tially 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 arbitra- tions. 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

13094 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 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 relation- s h i p t o T I L M A , t h e T r a d e , I n v e s t m e n t a n d L a b o u r 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 re- lated 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. [1130] Let me just quote from this document: "TILMA includes some broad exemptions related to the environment, such as for measures relating to water; the promotion of renewable and alternate energy; the conservation of forests, fish, wildlife, and the manage- ment of hazardous and waste materials.

"However, these exemptions do not appear to in- clude measures related to a number of other critical envi- ronmental issues, such as the reduction of greenhouse g a s e s , p r o t e c t i o n o f e n d a n g e r e d p l a n t s i n s o m e o f t h e most endangered ecosystems in the country…or the re- duction of air pollution. "Measures to address su ch non-exempted environ- mental issues will likely breach the broad prohibitions in TILMA.

These include a prohibition on measures that 'operate to restrict or impair trade between or through the territories of the parties, or investment or labour mo- bility between the parties.'" 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, th ere 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 s h o u l d b e p u t i n p l a c e . W h a t w e k n o w i s t h a t w h e n you look at ways to deal wi th global warming, we will f i n d t h a t p a r t i e s w i l l b e a b l e t o c o m e f o r w a r d , w e b e - lieve, and begin to make the case for why certain of these approaches shouldn't be taken. One of the things that TI LMA 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 capt ure 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 — s a y i n g t h a t t o r e q u i r e a n y f o r m o f 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 con- templating 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 carb on 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 en- ergy, wants to try to promote energy conservation, there is nothing here that says that the response to that from industry, or from thos e who might challenge that position, is to say: "There are a whole variety of other alternatives that don't require us to make any invest- ment, which you should be conducting around chang- ing the way that energy gets used." That's potentially an approach that gets taken. The other concern is….

We know that the govern- ment 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 chal- lenge 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 ini- tiatives under the auspices of TILMA, what we do know is that many of our local governments, and espe- cially our smaller communities, do not have the capac- ity 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 un- der 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. [1135] 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

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 13095 forward and saying: "These are actions that we think maybe should be taken. However, because of the na- ture 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 reluctan t 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 commu- nities in that place, and it's certainly wrong for the government to embrace a policy that is totally contra- dictory 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 impl ementation mechanism for the TILMA, to this House. The government enters into a trade agreement with the prov ince 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 n eeds 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 Al- berta because of regulations that exist in one jurisdic- tion or the other that causes harm to people and corpo- rations 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…. An Hon. Member: The wall fell. D. Chudnovsky: The wall fell — right. There's this tremendous wall that's standi ng 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 govern- ment 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. [1140] This is one of a number of initiatives that this gov- ernment 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 gov- ernments 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…. Interjections. D. Chudnovsky: Pardon me? Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right) 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. Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Member continues.

13096 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 Debate Continued 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 ha ppened. Nonetheless, I think we are in British Columbia, and I think it's 2008. It's not McCarthyite United States. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. 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 pr oblem. 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. [1145] 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 th e 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." You know, when you look at…. J. Les: It's good for taxpayers, though. 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 ch allenge, 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 R i c h m o n d C h a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e i n J u n e o f ' 0 6 .

H i s 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 th is 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 th e 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

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 13097 with TILMA. They're imposi ng something on munici- palities 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. [1150] Another group that really likes TILMA is the Cana- dian 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 democ- ratic 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. [Mr.

Speaker in the chair.] It's called the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobil- ity 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 differe nt 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 stan- dard 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 ser- vice. I know people….

As a matter of fact, recently peo- ple in Mackenzie were told to go over to Alberta to work because of the destruct ion of the lumber industry in the Mackenzie region. Peop le from all over British Columbia are leaving in droves right now to go to Al- berta 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 Colum- bia"?

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 Har- mac 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 Co- lumbia 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. [1155] 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. Interjection. C. Puchmayr: As the member says, they lower taxes, but they raised user fees in almost every capac- ity.

Again, it's the shell game. They take taxes away from here, and then they double your medical premi- ums, 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'r e concerned about the juris- diction of the provincial Crown. So if that isn't a signal here that something is wrong with this legislation, that certainly sets it up.

13098 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member. C. Puchmayr: Mr. Speaker, I'll note the hour in a second. I'll continue on after the debate. But I want to say that I am really concerned wi th 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.

Noting the hour, I reserve the right to continue my debate after lunch. Mr. Speaker: Member, move adjournment of the debate, please. C. Puchmayr moved adjournment of debate. Motion approved. Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. R. Thorpe moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon. The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m. PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H.

Bloy in the chair. The committee met at 10:08 a.m. On Vote 39: ministry operations, $617,580,000 . 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.

I'll turn it over to the member opposite. [1010] 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 re- cord. 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 le gislation.

The freedom-of- information and personal priv acy 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 th at 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 appli- cation.

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 mat- ter 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 docu- ments. 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 al l 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? [1015]

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 13099 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 actua lly 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 reques t 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? Hon. J. van Dongen: My ministerial assistant. [1020] 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 inform ation 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, bu t 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 anot her 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 unimag- inable 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. [1025] 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 freed om-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? Hon.

J. van Dongen: Yes. 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 pu blic service staff that deal with freedom-of-information requests within the ministry.

13100 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 H. Lali: This is the most urgent matter in the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I'd

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0529am 04
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0529am 04
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5de4350f96190ec0a2e217acc9afb8dca8c0c6c9

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).