Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, April 29, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 240

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Family doctors

S. Malcolmson

N. Letnick

Rural roads

D. Davies

N. Simons

A forest of jobs

D. Routley

C. Oakes

Science based wildlife management

M. Bernier

R. Leonard

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 7 — Waiving of cabinet privilege on documents related to money laundering

R. Kahlon

P. Milobar

J. Routledge

M. Morris

B. D’Eith

J. Yap

J. Brar

R. Sultan

R. Glumac

T. Redies

M. Dean

MONDAY, APRIL 29, 2019

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

FAMILY DOCTORS

S. Malcolmson: I rise today as the MLA for Nanaimo. I’m very proud about some of

the improvements that we’ve been able to make as a government to

increase health care in my region. We’ve added three new ambulances;

we’ve added 24 new paramedics.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

We’ve eliminated the PharmaCare deductible for people with incomes

below $30,000 and reduced deductibles for people with incomes below

$45,000 — huge access to PharmaCare and prescription medication. It’s

making a huge difference. We’re replacing the intensive care unit at the

hospital, at NRGH. It’s long overdue, and it’s something that’s going to

make a huge difference.

[10:05 a.m.]

We’re now running the MRI machine 24 hours a day — something that

should have been done a long time ago. That is really eliminating

waiting times — of course, of great concern to families and patients who

want to know if they actually do have an emergency cancer or something.

To have the MRI machine running all the time and reducing waiting lists

is making a huge difference. Knee and hip replacements — also greatly

reduced waiting times. A lot of good work has been done.

At the same time, what I hear most often from constituents is

their inability to access a family doctor. This is a problem across the

province. One in six British Columbians does not have a primary care

provider. That has been a long-standing problem. We’ve tried to make

headway, but we’re not getting all the way. So today I want to give

people a little bit of hope back at home about some of the work that is

being done.

We are working to make sure that people do have fast access to the

health care that they need, to take the stress off families, to get the

treatment that they need as quickly as possible. But the bottleneck has

been the family doctor, and 15,500 people in Nanaimo are estimated not

to have access to a family doctor. And 36 percent of British Columbians

say that they last visited the emergency department for a condition they

could have talked with their family doctor about if they had a family

doctor or if they’d been able to get an appointment quickly.

We can imagine what the consequences are of not being able to

access a family doctor. Some people, I hear, cannot get access to the

federal and provincial disability tax credits. Without the letter from a

family doctor, they actually end up being ineligible. Some people are

self-medicating to deal with chronic pain. That has amplified the

addiction and overdose crisis that has hit this whole country, and

British Columbia particularly hard. Some cannot access the available

mental health and addictions supports simply because they can’t access a

family doctor, that primary caregiver.

There are some hopeful changes that we are bringing already, and

we’re already starting to see a little bit of a shift in Nanaimo. We

are, provincewide, funding 200 nurse practitioners and new family

doctors. I’ll talk a little bit more about that in a minute. But the

basic principle is that young doctors, especially, do not want to have

the burden of establishing a new family practice or buying into somebody

else’s old family practice. It’s expensive to have the equipment and the

overhead. They don’t necessarily want to work on the fee-for-service

level. They would rather just work at a salaried level — especially

young doctors who haven’t yet got themselves established.

Our Health Minister, in conversation with the front-line doctors

and nurse practitioners…. This government, the provincial government,

has removed a lot of barriers to working with nurse practitioners over

the last, I would say, five years at least. But now it’s how we actually

figure out a fee and a service model that lets them do their work. The

feedback that we’ve had is that they want to do these positions on a

salaried level rather than on a fee-for-service level. That is going to

attract more people to want to work as a general practitioner or a

family doctor and to work in our communities.

Then one of the biggest impact pieces that we are just on the

verge of feeling in my community is a new urgent and primary care centre

in Nanaimo. That’s going to be at the Medical Arts Centre, which is at

Harbour Park Mall, really close to where I live. I’ve been seeing

waiting lines at this place for years. We’re going to be able to take

the pressure off, have it operate seven days a week. Having a fuller

slate of health professionals is also going to mean that we can maximize

the work of those family doctors.

The big picture is that people want to access health care where

and when they need it. Doctors and other health professionals want to

find better ways of working together, breaking down the silos,

cooperating, supporting their patients and supporting each other. So we

are taking these steps as a province, through our primary care strategy,

to make sure people have faster and better access but also to establish

teams of health care professionals that work together to reduce the

burden of patient care and also to have better delivery of patient

care.

The primary care centres and the urgent primary care cen­tres that

have been established so far just in the last year…. That would involve

a family doctor, a nurse practitioner, a social worker, a pharmacist —

people that are working from the social work perspective to help

patients navigate their life and navigate services available to them.

Then especially, and this is going to be a big part of the Nanaimo

opening, there will be addictions and mental health support.

[10:10 a.m.]

Now, we still want people, if they are in a real crisis, to go to

the emergency. That absolutely applies to an overdose, an acute mental

health problem, a heart attack or anything that would traditionally send

you directly to emergency. That’s still where we want you to

go.

For the pieces that are in between — say, I’m a parent of a kid

with a high fever, and I’m not sure whether they’re in terrible trouble

— you could, in this case, take the kid with a fever to an urgent

primary care centre. They can immediately get assessed. The doctor would

say, “Yes, you need to go to emergency” or “No, this is how to reduce a

fever” or “Here’s a prescription for an antibiotic,” if that is

necessary.

It’s the same with an elder in your family who might be

experiencing anxiety. We don’t want you to wait to be able to get to see

your family doctor. It may take days to get an appointment. Or if you

have, for example, a urinary tract infection, you want to get

access….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for Nanaimo for introducing the motion and

the discussion and talking about how it’s important to continue to

support family physicians and also other allied health professionals in

primary care throughout British Columbia.

As the member knows, this is not something that’s new. Successive

governments have been trying to continue to increase access. The

previous government had its way of continuing to do that, especially

when we look at the budget — with consistently, over the years, above 40

percent of the provincial budget going to health care. Primary care is,

of course, one of the key foundations.

I was just checking the record over the weekend to prepare for

this, and I saw some interesting things that I think would be of benefit

to share with members and with British Columbians — things like Foundry,

which is now very much mainstream around British Columbia. We’re

continuing to see increases in Foundry, of course. That was done during

the prior government. Nurse-in-practice was and still is an amazing

ability for the government to fund nurses to actually go into private

physicians’ offices and thereby allow and help empower physicians to

accept more patients through the nurse-in-practice program.

Urgent care centres, of course, are nothing new. The urgent care

centre was started, the first one just up the road — or down the road,

depending on how you look at it — in Parksville, by the previous

government. It’s now continuing, of course, with the expansion by the

current government. I totally support the current government in doing

that.

Integrated primary and community care centres. Again, that’s

nothing new, but it’s continuing with the current government, which is

great. I was at an opening in Kelowna of one. Of course, there’s one in

Kamloops, and they’re elsewhere around the province.

This work with integrated care and the current way that we’re

looking at funding people, more on salary rather than on

fee-for-service, is something that the doctors have been talking about

for many years. In the 2015 discussion paper, which the member is

probably aware of, the ministry went out and asked the public in health

care: “What can we do in primary care to get moving and making it even

better?” A lot of the work came out of that.

It’s nice to see that the Deputy Minister of Health is the same

deputy minister that led that initiative. Through that, of course,

design work began on the work of establishing 61 private care networks

around British Columbia. The current government is continuing to

implement that in conjunction with patient medical homes — again,

something that the previous government was very supportive

of.

I think that one piece we need to also include in this is the

education of people to make sure that we have British Columbians who are

becoming doctors, nurse practitioners and other allied health

professionals. Back in 2001 — I know I wasn’t involved, and neither was

the member for Nanaimo — the government of the day took the medical

students’ spaces from 128 to 288. That’s still the current number of

spaces that we have through distributed campuses through­out British

Columbia.

For people in the north — Prince George, for example — the theory

was, and in practice it’s worked out that way, that if you got trained

in a location, you probably wanted to stay in that location as well. Of

course, now it’s in Kelowna as well that we have a school. I think this

continues to be a great way of implementing expansion of primary

care.

[10:15 a.m.]

Over the life of the previous government, there were 8,900 new

health and medical program seats, including twice the number of seats

for nurses in British Columbia, twice the number of midwife spaces and

twice the number of residency spaces, from 134 to 346. Again, I think

that’s an important thing we need to look at, that the current

government needs to look at. It’s one thing to train a doctor here, but

you need the residence spaces to finish off the training. We have a lot

of British Columbians that go abroad, learn the trade through their

school. Then they come back here and have to compete for those residency

spaces. I think we need to look at increasing those residence

spaces.

Of course, the previous government created the nurse practitioner

program in 2005. By 2017, we had 409 practising in B.C. The current

government supports that and actually increased it from 45 nurse

practitioners per year by an additional 30. We applaud that decision. We

continue to move together, I believe, in a collaborative manner between

the Minister of Health and us — in particular, myself as the critic. We

work together to improve primary health care and all health care for all

British Columbians throughout our province.

S. Malcolmson: With respect to the member opposite, former Premier Christy Clark

and the former government made a grand pronouncement at election time

that they were going to eliminate the family doctor shortage. That

promise was abandoned towards the end of the term, and in fact the

province was in worse shape than when they started. This is a

government, under the NDP, that is taking real action.

We hear from people again and again. If they don’t have access to

a family doctor, it puts them into real crisis, which costs the system,

and emergency, more overall. If we can treat people in a team-based

approach, giving them the supports on mental health, on physio, on

social work, working together with a pharmacist to develop a good plan

of approach, then we can do better.

We’re going to do better with chronic pain. I was just meeting on

Friday with an optometrist who said that with some eye conditions, if

you can immediately deliver a prescription approach, you may be able to

prevent blindness. What are we going to be able to do as a province if

we give people the help that they need right away?

In Nanaimo, we’re going to have 14 new full-time health care

providers opening up in June. That’s going to support up to 25,000

additional patient visits, and 3,300 of those are estimated to be for

mental health and addictions treatment. Again, if we can deal with

people at an entry level, then we may be able to prevent some of the

crises.

There’s also now under consideration a nurse practitioner clinic

in south Nanaimo. It’s called the nurse practitioner patient medical

home — which I support, and so does my fellow member to the south. This

is a place where residents have higher health care needs but less access

to doctors. Seven-days-a-week home care visits for palliative care,

again being delivered mostly by nurse practitioners, is a good way to

access health directly. It’s something that has been proven in other

settings to reduce hospital visits. Over 60 different studies say there

are fewer emergency visits to the ER and fewer hospitalizations when we

have these urgent primary care centres.

Then the offer of 200 new paid general practitioner positions and

200 nurse practitioner positions across the province — again, a real

step that’s going to make a difference in people’s lives right now. It’s

something that a government that is committed to health care, that’s

committed to people but also managing taxpayer resources wisely…. I’m

proud of the work that we’re doing together with the Health Minister and

look forward to seeing people in my community move forward with health

and the support that they need.

RURAL ROADS

D. Davies: I appreciate the opportunity to lead a discussion this morning on

rural road infrastructure. It is certainly an issue that is at the front

of my mind. As well, I’m sure it’s true for many folks in this chamber

on both sides of the aisle who represent rural ridings. I would say that

if there’s probably one call that I receive often in my office in Fort

St. John, it is on the rural roads.

[10:20 a.m.]

There are many layers to this issue, so we’ll start with one of

the hottest issues, both literally and figuratively. Of course, with the

increased forest fires that B.C. has had, there’s been a destabilization

of large swaths around the province, particularly in the central

Interior and the north, where the fires have blazed.

While the immediate implications of this are devastating, the

destruction of the trees also serves to destabilize the terrain, which,

of course, leads to landslides. Of course, speaking of landslides,

you’ll recall that one struck very close to my home last fall, in the

community of Old Fort, about a 10-minute drive from Fort St. John, home

to about 200 people that were evacuated from their homes. It was almost

a month after the landslide that residents were able to return home.

That was due to the construction of a temporary road. If there’s

anything that we are certainly grateful for, it’s that nobody was hurt

in that landslide.

These disasters do happen, though, around the province. We need to

ensure that resources and funding are ready to go when these disasters

strike. What happened in Old Fort is but one example to draw on in

regards to the urgent care that is needed for our rural roads across the

province. These are the roads that connect people with their jobs and

families and with the important resources they require, such as food and

clothing. We all know that Old Fort certainly doesn’t have a grocery

store. So the people living there have to get into their community —

Fort St. John, in this case — to get their needs. The washing out of any

small rural road could certainly develop into a humanitarian crisis

quite quickly.

It’s not just the effects of forest fires that cause wear and

tear. Access can be difficult in the spring as well, as conditions

become poor due to spring runoff. It becomes, actually, so bad in some

areas in my riding that kids can’t get picked up by their school bus.

People that are facing a health crisis cannot get the emergency care

that they require. Again, this happens in my riding as well as many

other ridings in the Interior and northern areas.

The lack of upkeep sometimes makes these routes very dangerous to

travel, especially in the summertime, when many of these gravel roads

become so dusty that it is very difficult to see oncoming traffic. In

fact, very specifically, I think about the Baldonnel Road in my riding.

It is old and in poor repair. There are already concerns that due to the

dust, you can’t see pedestrians, children and animals. My colleague from

Cariboo North has likewise brought up issues around the West Fraser

Road, which is also in disrepair and has caused a great deal of strife

for First Nations communities that rely on access to nearby service

centres.

What’s more is there can be overlap between public roads and roads

that are meant for industry. While it isn’t supposed to happen, of

course, it does, and it leads to a whole new slew of issues. Going back

to the Baldonnel area around Fort St. John — and frankly, again, many

other roads around B.C. — the Baldonnel Road has been used heavily for

industry in recent years. This, coupled with the disrepair, has made the

road even more dangerous, especially for the 60 or so people that live

along it.

While these roads do play an important role in rural economies,

which is something I’m going to touch on briefly a little bit later, the

government needs to make sure that this is done in such a way that it

bears in mind the safety of all the individuals that use it, whether

it’s the residents that live on the roads or the industry that is using

them. People of the Interior, the north, parts of the Island, as well as

all British Columbians, deserve roads that allow them to live their

lives without the stress of being suddenly cut off from essential goods

and services or being at risk for their own personal safety.

They also deserve roads that are safe for use, which requires that

they are well maintained and up to the current code. The responsibility

for doing this falls upon all of us in this chamber. Again, the rural

roads, outside of the Lower Mainland and Victoria, often include even

our secondary highways, which I think a lot of people don’t necessarily

recognize as rural roads. But these secondary highways are critical

arteries for many of our farmers.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention one very important piece of

infrastructure up in the north as we talk about the ability to move

commerce back and forth to communities. It’s the Taylor

Bridge.

[10:25 a.m.]

The Taylor Bridge has been brought up a number of times by myself

in this chamber — about the disrepair that the bridge is in and the

issues that it is causing the economy in the entire north.

With that, I will take my seat. I do look forward to what the

member opposite has to say on this topic. I’m sure there’s going to be

some mention of remote islands and other things, as well, on

this.

N. Simons: Thank you to my friend the MLA for Peace River North for his

comments on rural roads. As a representative of a rural riding, I

understand the importance of our highway infrastructure. As a

representative of a ferry-reliant community, I also recognize the

importance of what is, essentially, at the root of this discussion — and

that is, enabling us to get from one community to another and ensuring

that our commerce can be promoted through that effort.

I just want to say that one of my first political awakenings was

when I was driving with my mom and dad in our Volkswagen, with my

siblings packed into the back. I don’t think we had seatbelts in those

days. But I remember going through the rolling hills of Rawdon, in Nova

Scotia, and my dad commenting, as we hit a rough patch, “This must be a

Conservative riding” — or a Liberal riding, depending who was in

government at the time. I don’t remember exactly. But it was really very

stark. You’re driving along a very bumpy road, and then suddenly, it’s

really smooth.

As a child, unrestrained in a vehicle with very little suspension,

you can tell when you’re on a good road and when you’re on a bad road. I

thought to myself: “Well, isn’t it the responsibility of government just

to ensure that we keep safe roads everywhere?” It might be this

particular party’s riding now, but another day it might be

another.

Really, when we talk about provincial expenditures in the

infrastructure of our province, we think it should be allocated fairly.

It should be allocated with careful consideration of safety issues, of

community needs, of economic development and of good travel

options.

Blacktop politics is not a foreign subject. In fact, it was the

subject of a Postmedia analysis a few years back, which found that the

governing party was more likely to allocate funds to projects in their

ridings and, in fact, predominantly in the ridings of that government’s

cabinet ministers.

I just think that every time there’s a change in government,

there’s always that allegation that perhaps this government is going to

do more for theirs and less for others. But I like to think that in our

system of checks and balances, we can be transparent and open about

that. We know that when a bridge, for example, gets upgrading in a

riding in the north, they’ll understand that we need to ensure that our

roads and our communities are equally well looked after.

The maintenance contract for rural roads is an important one. We

see that some increases and improvements are being made to the upcoming

maintenance agreements. In the north, this is probably relevant because

the standards of when patrols take place after a winter event — a.k.a.

snow, a blizzard or what have you…. There’ll be different standards of

when that has to be cleared by and how often the patrols take

place.

I want to comment on the member’s referral to communities that get

cut off, communities that lose their connection to other communities.

It’s one thing when there’s

an act of God — a natural disaster or the

moving of a hillside — to impede proper communication and connection

between communities. It’s quite another when government takes the

specific, concerted and planned action to reduce your ability to get

from one community to another.

I think that when we talk about rural roads, we should talk about

rural transportation infrastructure. As I said, it’s one thing when snow

stops us from getting places or landslides make it impossible to

traverse, but when a government plans to reduce your access to get to

other communities, that’s when we run into trouble. That’s why I would

call on every government in this province to recognize that the

transportation infrastructure between our communities is different in

the north than it is in the south. It’s different in the Interior than

it is on the coast.

[10:30 a.m.]

Every single British Columbian’s transportation needs should be

met by a government. They shouldn’t be impeded. We should make sure we

have safe highways. We make sure that standards exist to ascertain what

projects need to be prioritized. I hope that there’s a robust system in

place to make sure that when there’s resurfacing or when there are

special safety projects that need to take place or when there needs to

be a bridge replacement, it’s done on the basis of what is needed first

and foremost.

Some of us might decry the fact that we don’t get enough gravel

for an island road or we don’t….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

N. Simons: I thank the member for his comments.

D. Davies: I’d like to thank, of course, the member for Powell River–Sunshine

Coast for his remarks, and just to touch on a couple of those that he

raised.

Going back to the Taylor Bridge…. It started out that it used to

have monthly maintenance. It’s now a couple times a week that the bridge

is closed down for maintenance. These are things that are above and

beyond natural disasters. This is a bridge that is in the final stages

of its life. It is certainly something on the forefront of all of our

minds.

He also mentioned the maintenance contracts. I’m going to maybe

take this opportunity, as well, to recognize the maintenance contractors

around the province that do incredible work. We’ve just had a change in

maintenance contractors. I certainly want to thank YRB for the hard work

that they’ve done over many years in the North Peace and welcome

Interior Roads as the new contractor, as they take on the incredible

challenges that we face in rural B.C.

While the safety of rural roads is first and foremost, I also

wanted to touch briefly on the economic importance. To quote a piece out

of the B.C. government website, it says: “Resource roads are a highly

valued part of B.C.’s transportation network and economic development.”

The upkeep of these rural roads is critically important for industries

such as oil and gas, forestry, mining and a number of other resources

that we depend on in this province. If a resource road becomes unstable,

we won’t have access to these critical resources. They also deserve

roads that are safe for their use, which requires well maintained as

well as keeping up to current codes. The responsibility, again, for this

falls on us here in this chamber.

Many of us here in this province enjoy the benefits of the

revenues that these industries bring to our province, both on the large

scale with regards to a strong economy and the financial basis for

public spending as well as on the family level, where they provide an

income for all of us to provide for our families. Most importantly,

though, we cannot expose the men and women that work in these industries

to unsafe conditions. It’s our responsibility, again, to keep them safe,

and rural roads are a critical piece of this.

So what do we do about this? Well, I think the first step is to

listen to the people that use the roads the most. I know that the Peace

River regional district has come together and put out a rural roads in

the North Peace economic initiative. Starting in 2018, the regional

district has been reaching out to the public, industry, stakeholders and

all affected groups — what is needed to improve the safety and the

conditions of our rural roads, specifically in the Peace. In my mind,

the regional district is taking great opportunities, and I hope others

follow suit.

With that, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the

importance of rural roads in British Columbia.

A FOREST OF JOBS

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about a forest of jobs, about the forestry

industry in British Columbia. It’s an industry that British Columbians

were very proud of. For a time, it was very difficult to be proud of the

industry because of the amount of conflict that it created. It still

does that, but I think we need to find our way back to being very proud

of a very renewable and sustainable industry.

My own history with the industry is that my first paying job was

cleaning log barges. I’ve worked in a sawmill. I’ve worked in a plywood

veneer plant. I’ve been a logger. I’ve been a tree planter, and while I

was a tree planter, I worked in a lumber yard and as a construction

labourer. At 57 now, I’d have to live about 25 more years in order to

see the trees I planted being harvested as 60-year-old second-growth

forests. That’s at least a half a million trees.

[10:35 a.m.]

I’m proud of that. I think British Columbians deserve to be proud

of their forest industry, partly because it’s theirs. We have $2

trillion worth of public forests in this province. The industry made $13

billion last year. That is the largest resource industry by a country

mile. It’s something that We need to find a way to reduce conflict over

and to build bridges to create more prosperity and opportunity for

everyone.

I ask myself: what is our obligation when it comes to public

policy with this industry? Currently there are 57,000 people working in

the industry in 140 communities across the province, the knock-on

benefits of that being thousands more jobs and economic activity. We

want all British Columbians to benefit from their forests. That includes

First Nations, first and foremost; industry, large and small; and

workers and the communities they live in.

This is the principle of nurturing and building an asset that you

have. That seems a basic business test. There is a head shake. It’s a

test. Ask British Columbians what they think we should do. They’ll say:

“Get the highest value for what you take from our forests.”

What does that mean? It’s simple, really. Ensure that the public

interest is paramount when decisions are made with public policy

affecting forests, encourage aspects of the industry that are of high

value, and ensure that industries, secondary industries and communities

have access to wood fibre before it’s exported raw. This is something

that leads from that all the way to developing and leading efforts such

as building tall building components and the use of wood in all sorts of

different applications.

How would we not do that? Well, we would not disable government’s

oversight role. We would not fail to apply the rules as they exist. We

would not remove public interest as a paramount principle. We would not

deregulate wantonly, regardless of the impacts on worker safety and the

industry and the environment. And we would not allow the students to

mark their own tests.

What I mean by that is that the professional reliance model that

was used in the province and has been used in the province…. A friend of

mine described it as asking the companies to write their own speeding

ticket. Well, how many of us would write our own speeding ticket? The

member from Powell River excepted because he actually did. It’s not a

fair expectation of the companies who operate in the industry to put the

social responsibility on their shoulders without the oversight,

regulatory control and inspections that government should be doing in

the public interest.

There has been a 100 percent increase in wood waste in the coastal

forest. This must change in order for the industry and the environment

to be sustainable.

Our obligation is to reconcile with First Nations and partner in

the management of the resources of this province. Nowhere is it more

important than in the forest industry.

I went to a truck loggers event where a number of people were

standing up and saying: “My family has been in the industry for three

generations. My family company has been here for 80 years. My family has

made the commitment to this industry over three generations.” Then a

gentleman stood up, and he said: “My family has been in this industry

for 5,000 years.” He was a First Nations logger.

This is our responsibility — to work together, to partner in the

public interest and to make reconciliation mean something beyond words.

We need to reduce our footprint on the environment and with climate. The

lungs of the planet are a healthy forest, and the heart of a thriving

economy is a healthy forest. The same thing — one cannot exist without

the other in British Columbia.

We need to increase investment in employment and benefit all

British Columbians. We need to build that pride, settle conflict,

provide opportunity and maximize prosperity.

C. Oakes: I’m delighted today to have the opportunity to respond to the

member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan and to talk about forestry and the

people who exist within the forest economy.

[10:40 a.m.]

Now, the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan may find it difficult

to be proud of the forest sector and the forest economy. I am not. I am

proud to stand in this Legislature and talk about how proud I am of the

forest sector and the hard-working men and women that have worked in

this sector for many, many years.

I have the privilege of representing one of the most integrated

and innovative forest manufacturing regions in North America. I have the

opportunity to have had a front-row seat witnessing world-leading

advancements in research, forest innovations and efforts working to

address critical challenges in our communities, including climate change

and housing affordability.

I have witnessed successful partnerships roll out between

governments and industry. I’ve experienced the changes — initiatives

like industrial entrepreneurship partnering with governments to develop

a new renewable forest economy several decades ago, with the example led

by the first B.C. bioenergy strategy in the late 2000s. I have seen

investments in impacting fibre optimization. I have seen the development

of new economies and new value-added sectors.

Last week I was incredibly proud to attend the annual general

meeting of West Fraser Mills in Quesnel. Surrounded by the community,

employees and family of the original founders, I was reminded of how far

our forest economy and sector has come. The sweat and hard work of three

young men — Sam, Bill and Pete Ketcham — together with a founding group

of employees have laid a foundation for West Fraser that thrives

today.

Six decades later the company has grown from the original

12-person crew at Two Mile Flat to become the largest lumber producer in

North America. I was proud that they chose Quesnel to come and hold

their annual general meeting. I appreciate the efforts of our industry,

our employees and our hard-working small businesses that rely on this

sector.

The forest sector provides jobs both directly and indirectly in

significant numbers in British Columbia. There are concerns with the

legislative bills and policies being brought forward by this government.

Direct attacks on our rural economies — whether it be carbon taxes,

changes in legislation, regulations — decisions that are having a real

impact on our communities….

Forest-dependent communities are losing jobs at record alarming

rates. Since taking office in 2017, the forest industry has lost the

equivalent of five direct jobs and ten to 15 indirect jobs per day. In

fact, a labour market survey…. Under this government, British Columbia

has lost nearly 2,000 jobs in natural resources — including in forestry

— in the month of March alone.

Last week we heard of the curtailments of the Canfor operations in

British Columbia. Under this government, their policies and decisions

that are being taken are having a real impact on British Columbians’

lives.

I would like to respond to comments made by Nanaimo–​North

Cowichan about the importance that the forest sector has had — to drive

climate change and housing affordability. West Fraser has become a world

leader in energy transformation. They generated the equivalent of one

million barrels of oil from carbon-neutral energy, biomass heat and

green electricity, located at our B.C. wood-producing

facilities.

West Fraser operates two of the world’s largest biomass power

generators, in Chetwynd and Fraser Lake. Overall, they’ve replaced fuel

sources by increasing the carbon-neutral biomass energy that they

consume. Sixty percent of their energy needs company-wide are met

through biomass fuel energy. For context, bioenergy represents about 5

percent of Canada’s total primary energy resources. Not an academic

exercise and certainly not a dinosaur industry — real action, real

change with real results for climate change.

Let us look at how the forest sector and people are taking action

also on investing in wood manufacturing products to support the supply

side of housing affordability. For decades, leadership has been

taken.

D. Routley: Thank you to the member for Cariboo North for that presentation,

although I think a guy named Corky Evans is throwing rolled-up socks at

the TV right now. That’s how he copes with the presentations from the

other side, he tells me, because it is frustrating to hear

that.

[10:45 a.m.]

In fact, in 2013, there were 6.7 million cubic metres of raw logs

exported from this province. Since the 1990s, the…. That’s an increase

of 500 percent, 30 percent of the coast harvest. Vancouver Island and

the coast lost 6,800 jobs between ’01 and ’14. That’s a decline of 41

percent. We lost 30,000 jobs provincially. This was before the housing

crisis of ’08 and after the deregulation that was undertaken by the

previous government. The coast saw 68 mills close between ’01 and 2011,

a 38 percent decline. The coast lost 17 large mills since 2000, a 47

percent decline.

Idled mills are everywhere because of a lack of fibre, while raw

log exports increased. Half of the coast value-added industry was lost.

Consolidation allowed large companies to squeeze small companies out of

business. Up to 1.5 million to two million hectares of public lands in

this province are not sufficiently restocked or planted, and

silviculture companies can’t make a living. Other provinces? Well, B.C.

gets one job per 1,400 cubic metres of trees; Ontario, four times that;

Quebec, three times that. Since the 1990s, B.C.’s efficiency has gone

down by 50 percent. That’s less than 800 metres per job.

Manufacturing sales in the province per 1,000 metres cut from our

forests, $160,000. In Ontario, that’s $865,000; in Quebec, that’s

$467,000. There have been 16 straight damning reports on this

performance.

We mean to create new opportunities, ensure that fibre is

available to secondary manufacturers, communities, First Nations and the

industries, such as pulp and paper and the bioeconomy, that rely on

residuals. We see the industry as a source of great

innovation.

It’s in fact a high-tech industry. The fastest log-peeling

operation in North America is about 50 kilometres north of here. They’ve

spent $400,000 to precisely hit the centre of a tree in spinning the

log. It’s never been done at that speed before. That’s in Nanaimo. We

need to be technological and process leaders. We need to do more than we

have before, and we aim to do that.

SCIENCE BASED WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

M. Bernier: It’s an honour to stand up and speak. You know, I was going to be

talking a little bit about science-based wildlife management. Actually,

I think, it’s a great segue — after what I just heard from the member

opposite, for Nanaimo–North Cowichan — when we talk about the proper use

of the back country, the proper decision-making that’s going to support

communities.

Contrary to what the member just said, it’s too bad that what he

said doesn’t translate into proper policy that would actually sustain

what he is trying to accomplish. Right now government is putting forward

policies that are doing the exact opposite. In fact, in my riding,

instead of using science-based wildlife management when they look at

trying to make policy decisions for the back country, they’re not using

any of that.

They’re coming forward and just doing a cookie-cutter approach

that could, effectively, in my riding alone put over 500 forestry

workers out of work because of decisions that the government is making,

rather than looking at a science-based approach of what’s actually the

best use of the back country and the best use for sustaining the

environment. It’s rather disappointing when we hear one thing and we

don’t see it actually translating into fact.

Let me set the stage a little bit about why science-based

management is important. I know that the former minister when we were in

government, the member for Kelowna-Mission, used to tell me that one of

the hardest things is making decisions in government based on fact,

based on science, rather than the emotional pressures that you sometimes

get from people and from groups who don’t have all the information and

are focused solely on maybe one sector or one goal. Maybe it’s shutting

down the back country completely.

[10:50 a.m.]

Right now we’re faced with tough decisions. When you look back at

what was done since 2001, 2.3 million hectares of land in the province

of British Columbia were protected, with provincial parks, with

conservancies, with more ecological areas. This was all taken into

consideration using science, using professional people that were coming

to the table with stakeholders to make sure that we had all that

information when we were basing decisions as a government — not a small

group, not one group or two groups. It was about consultation and

working with the people of British Columbia.

In fact, in 2005, when we were looking at a caribou recovery

program here in B.C., we wanted to look at a science-based approach,

because it was right thing to do. So we actually put a panel together of

scientific people in the province, 14 people who worked together in the

province to come forward with recommendations to protect our caribou but

also to work for almost half a year in public consultation with

stakeholders, with local governments, with people affected in the areas

to make sure that as decisions were being made, they were the proper

environmentally sound decisions for resource extraction, and they were

the proper science-based decisions for management of our back country,

for our ungulates and our predators.

But it was also important to make sure that that was in

consultation with all of the people in the area that would be affected.

Part of that was making sure that decisions were going to be made,

proper use of the land base, that were also going to also promote the

sustainability of communities and jobs and for them to make sure that

the people who live in and enjoy rural B.C. had the opportunity to

continue doing that.

Decisions were made around predator management. Right now, up in

my region, this is a huge issue. When we’re looking at making

science-based decisions, we look at our decline of ungulates, but we

also look at the increase in our wolf population — wolverines, grizzly

bear, black bear — who are actually one of the largest contributors to

the mortality rates of our ungulates in our back country.

Contrary to what government’s trying to say of just maybe putting

a circle on a map and saying this is a no-go zone for human activity,

they’re not holistically looking at the science-based reasons for what

we need to do to preserve our back country, to preserve our species at

risk. Again, when we were in government, that was why we made sure that

it was a science-based approach and not emotional.

In fact, I think it was just last week that we had the David

Suzuki Foundation come out and make the drastic, in my opinion — and I

would hope that the members opposite would agree — comment that says we

should shut down back-country use in the province of British Columbia

for skiing, for snowmobiling, for hiking, for back-country use, because

that’s an impact to our biodiversity and an impact to our wildlife. The

problem is that we have groups like this that are out there giving

pressure to the federal government and to the NDP government to actually

shut down the back country. What they fail to say is that it’s to reach

their ultimate goal, which is to slow down or actually stop resource

extraction in the back country.

Now, the people who live in rural B.C. want to see our wildlife

thrive. They want to see our back countries used. They want to see a

holistic approach. It’s our backyard. We respect it. We work there. We

live there. We play there. But it can’t be considered just one arm of a

decision. You have to look at the entire issue.

That’s why, when I see decisions being made that are not based on

science and based on emotion, it’s important to stand up in this House

and say that that is the wrong approach and we need do better. Lives are

at stake, not just wildlife, but we’re talking human activity and the

existence of rural, and especially small rural, communities. If we don’t

have them, we don’t have the small businesses that support them. We

don’t have the large corporations that help make sure that we have the

jobs for people to live in our rural communities.

I look forward to the comments from the members opposite, because

I’d like them to actually be able to stand in this House and say that

the decisions they will be making that right now are negatively

affecting small, rural communities will slow down, that they will give

more time, have more consultation and have decisions based on science,

not emotion.

[10:55 a.m.]

R. Leonard: I thank the member for Peace River South for raising the important

topic of science-based wildlife management, and I’d like to share a

positive local science-based wildlife management story from

Courtenay-Comox.

Comox Valley Project Watershed has undertaken many projects to

restore habitat which supports the recovery of fish and wildlife. One

major initiative that is underway right now involves a brownfield site

where a sawmill on the estuary closed in the mid-2000s. This project has

been given a name in the language of the K’ómoks peoples. It’s

Kus-kus-sum, which refers to this land as a historic tree burial site of

the K’ómoks First Nation.

I’m proud that this very local non-profit stepped into

reconciliation with the K’ómoks peoples, along with the city of

Courtenay. They’re all moving together with respect and intention to

restore the property to a natural state. In the end, K’ómoks First

Nation will retain ownership and take on the stewardship of a rich

habitat that will nurture fish and wildlife as well as mitigate the

impacts of climate change for human settlement. It’s an amazing recipe

of science mixed with a very human dynamic, where all interests are

served.

I think the member opposite mentioned the science team that, in

2005, reported on how the caribou have been in B.C. for over 10,000

years and how the geographic distribution of First Peoples was based on

the geographic distribution of the caribou. The caribou have been

essential to Indigenous people for food and clothing for

millennia.

The abundance of the caribou began its drastic decline after the

introduction of the industrial world to its habitat. The federal

government placed it on the threatened wildlife species list in 2003. I

have to ask myself, as others: what impactful actions did the former

provincial government take when, 15 years later, the federal government

raised the threat to the southern mountain caribou to “immi­nent”

in May last year?

Immediate action is required where we face a federal emergency

order to protect caribou and their habitat from further development and

disturbance, under the Species at Risk Act. Fortunately, Canada has been

willing to work with the province and First Nations to create agreements

outlining overarching commitments with measures and stra­tegies for

recovery while minimizing the impacts to local government, communities

and industry.

These agreements are novel and complex. The rights and interests

of First Nations are protected by the constitution, and it is incumbent

that caribou recovery involve government-to-government processes with

them. Like the Kus-kus-sum initiative in my community, the Peace can

embrace reconciliation in action as the West Moberly and Saulteau First

Nations, with their shared interest, take ongoing leadership in the

caribou recovery.

Science and socioeconomic interests are not mutually exclusive to

effective wildlife management. The caribou is the most studied species,

yet the populations continue to decline. The four key threats are not

independent of one another, so action on all fronts is required, with

emphasis on the biggest threats.

The member opposite mentioned the first and most important:

predation. The second is habitat changes; the third, disturbances; and

fourth, climate change. Monitoring and updating the plan annually can

pave the way for eventual recovery that we have not yet seen.

We know that measures to recover caribou will have impacts on

economic activities in and around protected habitat, and we recognize

that people are concerned. So how do we save the southern mountain

caribou from extinction while minimizing impacts to people and the

economy of the area?

A trusted leader in the Peace, Coun. Blair Lekstrom, has been

hired for the extended consultation process. This is a time to make sure

that the public, industry, recreation groups and local governments can

have confidence that their interests will inform the final Canada-B.C.

agreements and decisions.

[11:00 a.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The province has also commissioned an independent regional

economic analysis, with input from local governments and businesses. I’m

particularly interested in the habitat mitigation and offsetting program

to be developed by B.C. This will drive industry innovation to achieve

improved caribou habitat quality and availability, rather than being a

contributor to the caribou decline.

With agreements in place, with B.C. at the table to assert B.C.

interests, the path forward must and will lead to success for the

ecosystem of the Peace — caribou and human alike.

M. Bernier: Thanks to the member for Courtenay-Comox for the lovely story of

what she experienced in her riding. Unfortunately, it seems to be the

exception, not the rule, when we’re dealing with government right

now.

The member was quick to tout that it was successful because all

interested parties were at the table talking about a successful

opportunity, working together. Well, that is exactly contrary to what’s

happening right now.

Again, the members are going to actually say what works, but then

they’re not following it through with action. That’s why we need to

actually do what we need to do in the rest of the province — what the

member in Courtenay-Comox said worked in her riding — because that’s not

taking place.

All interested parties need to be at the table. Of course, the

member mentions the fact that West Moberly and Saulteau were at the

table. Well, in her example, though, she said that local First Nations

and other stakeholders and everybody were at the table. That did not

take place in the decisions right now that are taken on the ground up in

my part of the world. But right across rural British Columbia, the

member said that nothing took place when it came to caribou

protection.

Well, in fact, in 2017, $27 million was put forward to make sure

that we had proper planning taking place on the land base that was not

going to negatively affect communities. In fact, it was going to invite

those communities to the table to be part of the solution. It was going

to invite communities and corporations, industries, small business,

everyone, to say: how can we work together to protect our back country

that we love and use so much, and one that’s going to protect the

wildlife? How do we do that using a science-based approach?

The member was quick to mention, too, her first point about

predation. It was this government that actually created part of the

problems in my area when they did a blanket approach and actually said

that we were going to stop grizzly bear hunting in all of B.C. without

looking at the science-based information, knowing that that was going to

be an impact, a negative impact, for the wildlife — the ungulates,

specifically the caribou — in my area.

Again, when we hear that almost 75 percent of these animals are

being harvested, being taken by predators, obviously that has to be part

of a solution. You cannot just say: “Shut down the back country to

forestry and all will be good.” That is not how this works.

It’s interesting. The member also had to bring up a city

councillor in Dawson Creek, who government had to hire. What’s

unfortunate is that the rural caucus on this side of the House, local

MLAs…. Almost every rural MLA has tried to have meetings to share their

information with this government, and they failed to listen.

Unfortunately, they had to hire someone because they didn’t listen to

us.

Hon. J. Darcy: I would ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 7,

standing in the name of the member for Delta North.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to

proceed with Motion 7 without disturbing the priorities of the motions

preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 7 — WAIVING OF CABINET

PRIVILEGE ON DOCUMENTS

RELATED TO MONEY LAUNDERING

R. Kahlon: It’s my privilege today to bring forward this motion.

[Be it resolved that this House urge that the former Members of the

Executive Council of the previous government agree to waive Cabinet

privilege on all documents related to money laundering as requested by

the Attorney General on August 10, 2018.]

Money laundering. Money laundering comes up all the time in my

community, perhaps because there is a casino coming very soon. But it’s

a very top-of-mind issue. To take a moment to step back and think about

the impact that money laundering has had in our society, in our

province, in our communities, is staggering.

[11:05 a.m.]

Fentanyl. Casinos. Housing. Vancouver model. We are famous in the

world for the Vancouver model. We have organized crime units coming in,

flooding our streets with fentanyl, using the proceeds, going into

casinos, making it legitimate money and then parking it in luxury homes

throughout this province, which then makes it unaffordable for everyone

else.

Housing crisis, fentanyl crisis — using our casinos to do it.

People come up to me all the time and say: “How did this happen? Why

didn’t anybody do anything about it?” Let’s just take a little trip down

memory lane. Let’s look through how we got to this point.

In December 2007, the Integrated Illegal Gaming Enforcement Team

prepared a report on its future, warning that high-level illegal

gambling targets would conduct their operations with impunity if the

unit was disbanded. That’s December 2007.

In November 2008, reporter Sean Holman revealed that the B.C.

Liberal Party accepted $250,000 in donations from private bingo halls

and community gaming centre interests between 2002 and 2007. This is

despite an internal party rule that they have, banning donations from

gaming. They were finding ways to get through their own internal

rules.

In January 2009, the Integrated Illegal Gaming Enforcement Team

prepares a threat assessment report, warning that B.C. casinos are

extremely vulnerable to money laundering. They asked for an expanded

role to be included in B.C. casinos. Well, what was the result of that

report? Four months after that report came out, the Housing Minister,

who’s the member for Langley East, eliminated the funding for this unit.

He disbanded the unit four months after getting a report from them

saying: “There’s a crisis, and we need more supports to do the work.” He

suggested the unit wasn’t cost-effective. He told the reporters later

on: “They didn’t have a business plan.”

Well, lo and behold, a few months later, a document gets leaked,

and the report shows…. Actually, Cdr. Fred Pinnock spoke to journalists,

stating the team had, in fact, a report, had a business plan. He

comments: “I’m not sure how motivated the provincial government,”

meaning the B.C. Liberal government, “was to have high-profile

enforcement of illegal gaming in this province.” That’s four months

after saying that there was no business plan, and this information gets

leaked to the media.

Let’s go a little bit forward. At that time, the member for

Langley East also told reporters: “I know what they’re saying, but I

don’t agree with them.” I’d be really interested to hear from him

whether he agrees with them now, knowing all this information is out in

the public.

In January 2011, Insp. Barry Baxter, from the RCMP integrated

proceeds of crimes section, spoke to media. He said that there were

“sophisticated money-laundering activities” being done by organized

crime. He highlighted a period of three months in 2010 where employees

in two Lower Mainland casinos reported a combined total of $8 million in

90 large transactions on an average day. Think about that for a second:

an unbelievable number.

Then the B.C. Liberal minister, who also happened to be the member

for Langley East at that time, criticized the inspector. He said: “Yeah,

I know what he said, and I don’t agree with him. Neither do…his

superiors in the RCMP.” Well, we’ll get back to that very

soon.

Following the request by the Solicitor General, the B.C. office of

civil forfeiture prepared a report on money laundering in B.C. casinos.

The report recommended bringing back the RCMP unit. The head of the

gaming policy and enforcement branch identified 543 suspicious

transactions, $39.5 million, between 2010 and 2011, one year.

The list goes on. July 2015 — let’s go even closer now. The

money-laundering crisis reaches a historic level. One casino accepted

$13.5 million….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

R. Kahlon: There’s a lot more to say, hon. Speaker. Five minutes is not

enough, but I’ve got lots of colleagues who are up to speak.

P. Milobar: There’s absolutely no doubt that money laundering is a serious

criminal issue and must continue to be addressed. As the previous

speaker mentioned, there is something out there called the Vancouver

model, but if we’re going on a trip down memory lane, I think we’d be

remiss if we didn’t actually talk about the Nanaimo model of money

laundering.

[11:10 a.m.]

The Nanaimo model of money laundering involved the Nanaimo

Commonwealth Holding Society and the corruption scandal under the

previous NDP government. That involved fraud, theft, laundering of

gaming moneys and stealing from nuns. In fact, those cabinet documents

have not been shared with the public. Those cabinet confidences have not

been shared by the NDP. One would think that the first place this

government….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, one speaker at a time.

P. Milobar: One would think that this government would have first addressed

the genesis of money laundering in this province, under their watch,

with this motion today. But no. Instead what we hear is a hyper-partisan

attempt yet again, by the Attorney General, to hyper-partisan a very

serious situation in our province.

The reality is, as the previous government, we did take steps to

address the problems, including the creation of a $4.5 million Joint

Illegal Gaming Investigation Team, and that resulted in a decrease of

these incidents by about 60 percent. In fact, the Ernst and Young report

that was commissioned by the Attorney General, under his watch, but

didn’t come out with the type of narrative he wanted, got buried. I

notice that the members opposite don’t want to talk about the fact that

Ernst and Young, commissioned by the current Attorney General, actually

verified a lot of these facts as well.

Let’s look at what has happened for the Attorney General over the

last two years. There has been press release after press release. There

has been precious little done. In fact, the highest-profile case so far

was conducted during the previous government’s term, and it fell apart

under the current Attorney General’s watch. In fact, what has come to

light is that it’s taken the Attorney General two years, two reports and

an outside person looking at it to come back and let the Attorney

General know that there are no federal RCMP resources working on money

laundering in British Columbia.

Now, I heard the Attorney General’s answer to that, saying that

the reality is that it took an expert like Mr. German to delve in and

ask those hard-hitting questions. Yet the Attorney General summarized it

in four questions. You ask what the complement is. You ask what the

funded complement is. You ask how many boots on the ground there are.

Then you find out right away, from the RCMP, that you have a problem.

This is all the Attorney General had to do.

In fact, the Solicitor General acknowledged the next day that he

has known for two years there has been a shortage. So apparently, the

Attorney General just doesn’t talk to the RCMP; he doesn’t talk to the

Solicitor General two seats away in this House.

The reality is that the RCMP do share that information, especially

with elected officials. Any mayor in this province could tell you that

they sit down regularly with the RCMP. They know how many their

complement is in their city. They know how many federal resources are in

their city. And they know how many provincial resources are in their

city and where the short-term and long-term disability leaves

are.

In fact, I questioned the Environment Minister last estimates

about the conservation service, and even the Environment Minister could

answer knowledgeably about the lack of resources or long-term disability

or leave requirements within the conservation officer service. Yet here

we have an Attorney General who took two years to figure that out with

the RCMP. It’s totally not acceptable.

To have some red herring motion like this, when in fact they’re in

the Supreme Court right now…. The Attorney General is in Supreme Court

fighting to keep cabinet confidentiality of documents under his watch,

to not be released as part of a court case. It’s laughable that this

motion would come forward trying to paint it as there’s something

untoward going on.

Perhaps if the Attorney General had spent the last two years

actually doing his job of going after money launderers, instead of a

hyper-partisan press conference of the week every time the news gets

bad…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

P. Milobar: …for the current government…. Every time the news gets bad for the

current government, and that’s quite often these days, it seems we get

another money-laundering report.

The last one was the great nugget of the pre-emptive release of

one phase of the phase 2 report, which actually took two years to come

to tell you what you could have solved with a two-minute phone call with

the RCMP that would have told you there were no resources in British

Columbia.

Have they added any provincial resources? No, they haven’t.

They’ve spent two years doing nothing. They haven’t added any

enforcement. They haven’t added any type of convictions. They haven’t

chased anyone down. There have been no civil forfeitures. Instead, they

go around and bleat and bleat and bleat on about trying to get cabinet

documents that they know should remain confidential.

J. Routledge: I’d like to thank the member for Delta North for moving this very

important motion. I welcome the opportunity to engage in a debate that

helps us come to terms with dirty money and how it has become normalized

in this province — a debate in which we can talk about how we can work

together across the aisle to expose it, to put an end to it and to

prosecute the criminals who have gotten rich because, for years, they’ve

been able to hide their illegal source of wealth.

[11:15 a.m.]

I had hoped we would be able to have this discussion across the

aisle, because this is not a victimless crime. We are all touched by it.

We all have stories of how it’s affected ourselves, our families, our

neighbours and our communities. I’ve had a constituent sit in my office,

in my community office in Burnaby North, sobbing and showing me a photo

of her son, who had been injured. He was a promising young athlete who

had been injured and, because his pain couldn’t be controlled, started

self-medicating. She found him dead on the living-room floor from an

overdose.

There are seniors living in their cars in my community because

they can’t find affordable housing. We all have stories. The official

opposition has risen in this House to share stories and demand action on

the opioid crisis and the housing crisis.

Yet they have remained curiously silent about the root cause of

these emergencies that have taken so many lives and taken the joy out of

so many other lives. No, they have not been speaking about this. Their

silence on money laundering has been deafening. In fact, it is the Green

Party, not the B.C. Liberals, who have been pressing the Attorney

General about it in question period, and he has been

responding.

Here are just some of the things that he’s been saying. In all

cases, we will be moving quickly “to slam the door…on dirty money in

B.C. casinos and cut off funding to organized crime in our province. It

won’t be easy to reverse a decade and a half of neglect, but we are not

waiting to get started. The era of inaction and denial is

over.”

Here’s something else he’s been saying, and I read from the letter

that he sent to the Leader of the Official Opposition. The former

minister “has recently said that the previous government did ‘everything

we could’ to crack down on money laundering. In that light, I am

requesting that the official opposition support our efforts in fighting

this criminal activity in British Columbia. It is our government’s

desire to continue to aggressively pursue measures to counter money

laundering but to do so in a manner that does not duplicate unsuccessful

efforts” from the previous government.

He asked that in a formal letter on August 10, 2018, almost a year

ago. He hasn’t even gotten a civil response, let alone the cooperation

requested. In fact, their House Leader called his request “playing

politics.” Really? Slamming the door on dirty money is not a game. It is

not a political sport. This is lives lost, lives ruined and dreams

dashed.

It’s been estimated, in reports commissioned by our government —

not the previous government — that as much as $1 billion a year was

being laundered in British Columbia. That’s money that was largely

accumulated in $20 bills, taken from drug addicts on the streets of

Vancouver, too many of whom are now dead from overdoses or tainted doses

— too many families torn apart and mourning loved ones. Even the

Washington Post calls the situation in Vancouver an

emergency. This is not a political game.

No wonder the public are demanding answers and accoun­tability.

It’s perplexing that the official opposition has chosen to trivialize

this crisis. The member for Langley East was the Solicitor General for

much of the time when the so-called Vancouver model of money laundering

was being perfected. After a long period of silence, he finally came out

and defended his government’s track record by saying: “We tried. We did

all that we could.”

Like what? What did they do? That’s what the Attorney General has

been trying to find out. If they took steps that didn’t work, enlighten

us. Why make us reinvent the wheel? Lives and livelihoods are at stake

here.

[11:20 a.m.]

M. Morris: I’ve listened to the motion, and I’ve listened to the rhetoric,

mostly from members opposite, on this. I have to say one thing right

from the outset. Of course, a lot of this is based on my 32 years in the

RCMP, much of it as a senior manager, up until I retired. But again, as

a member of the executive council in the previous government and the

Solicitor General in the previous government, I’m very much aware of

what’s been going on in the world of money laundering and organized

crime.

The information that government members have…. They wouldn’t have

that if it hadn’t been for the RCMP investigations that were ongoing at

the particular time that they formed government. They wouldn’t have the

pictures of the laundry bags or the hockey bags full of money if it

wasn’t for the work that the RCMP and the gaming folks were doing in

British Columbia at the time.

The Joint Illegal Gaming Investigation Team was something that

came about when I was the Solicitor General because we identified that

there were issues with money laundering in casinos and elsewhere

throughout the province here. That team has been very successful since

its implementation in the province here.

The disclosure of information that the government is alluding to,

and wanting access to the executive council, to the cabinet documents

that we had here…. The disclosure of information is something that has

to be very carefully considered, particularly when it pertains to

illegal gaming or criminal investigations.

When I was in the RCMP…. The same thing still holds true today.

Information is never released by an investigator unless there is a

need-to-know basis for other police officers or anybody else that is

involved in it. The police don’t disclose the information on the

investigation that they’re working on to all the police members around.

They disclose it to only people that have a need to know. It is so

critical to safeguard the integrity of that investigation so we don’t

blow it, so we don’t make a mistake in the investigation, so we don’t

spend millions of dollars on something that can never be prosecuted at

the end of the day.

I think this is something that the Attorney needs to pay attention

to when he looks at the disclosure of information himself. He was privy

to a briefing, as we were in the executive council, with respect to

ongoing issues. He was privy to the contents of a confidential report,

and he released that report in September of 2017. The release of that

information I believe compromised the ongoing investigation that had

been going on already for a couple of years by that time.

There were agents involved. There were undercover operators

involved. There were millions of dollars that had been expended. It was

an international investigation that had complications of its own just

because of that. Because of the release of that information, it

compromised that investigation. I believe, ultimately, at the end of the

day, it compromised the prosecution of, or the ability to prosecute,

that particular case.

There are ongoing investigations on money laundering as I speak in

this House today. There are at least a half a dozen I was aware of when

I was the Solicitor General. These are complex investigations. We are

going…. The RCMP and the police forces involved — and there are

international police forces involved — are targeting the top individuals

on this. These things take time.

I just want to finish up, and I see my time is getting a little

low here.

The safeguarding of cabinet documents and the confidentiality of

what is discussed in cabinet by the executive council have been

supported year over year over year by courts throughout the Commonwealth

and by the Supreme Court of Canada here in British Columbia. As the

chief justice wrote in a recent decision:

“The British democratic tradition, which informs the Canadian

tradition, has long affirmed the confidentiality of what is said in the

cabinet room and documents and papers prepared for cabinet discussions.

The reasons are obvious. Those charged with the heavy responsibility of

making government decisions must be free to discuss all aspects of the

problem that come before them and to express all manner of views without

fear that what they read, say or act on will be later subject to public

scrutiny.”

This is the problem that the Attorney has. He wants access to

this, but he doesn’t have the confidence of the police forces and many

other agencies involved in it because he just so indiscreetly released

information that jeopardized the ongoing investigations that the police

forces across Canada were involved in, dealing with money laundering in

British Columbia. He jeopardized millions of dollars.

B. D’Eith: It was interesting that members on the other side had to go back

to before, I think, one of our members was even born to talk about this

issue, but in fact, I think you would have to look at more recent

history.

[11:25 a.m.]

I wonder how historians would look at the 16 years that the B.C.

Liberals were in government. Perhaps the historian…. It would read: “The

self-serving 16, the big money era,” or something to that

extent.

I wonder what they would look at. They might look at the dumpster

fire of ICBC. They may look at the contract-cancelling Christy Clark,

ripping up education documents, perhaps doubling MSP premiums, unfair

tolls on bridges, B.C. Hydro mismanagement. Or maybe it will just be the

mean-spiritedness of cutting bus passes for people with disabilities. I

think all of these things will probably be in the history books, looking

back on that 16 years.

I think what will stand out is also dirty money and the fact that

we really had a blind-eye boondoggle under the B.C. Liberals, as is

coming out and becoming very apparent in the reports that Peter German

has been putting out. Clearly, the warning signs were there, and there

was wilful blindness.

The member for Prince George–Mackenzie spoke. He was actually the

Public Safety Minister. While he was minister, he acknowledged that

there were vacancies of 50 percent or more in RCMP positions dedicated

to fighting money laundering. Despite this, nothing was done.

Other examples. Eliminating the Integrated Illegal Gam­bling

Enforcement Team in 2009. The member for Langley East, while he was

minister, called the RCMP to crack down on Insp. Barry Baxter. What did

he do? He was sounding the alarm, the public alarm, about what was going

on in 2011.

B.C. Liberals intervening to raise betting limits, after all of

this, against the warning of the regulators. Then, of course, the second

report by Peter German, about real estate and how organized crime has

significantly penetrated our housing market, and there are links to the

opioid crisis. Now, as we find out, there are billions of dollars that

were laundered through B.C. real estate. This has helped to create the

housing crisis that we’re experiencing and contributed to the fentanyl

epidemic.

Of course, why would the B.C. Liberals do anything about that?

Their biggest corporate and individual donors made a killing during the

dirty money decade. Maybe that’s what they’ll call it: the dirty money

decade. I wonder what the historians will call it in the end.

The revenues? Well, they helped balance the books, but they were

never sustainable. Really, this was just destructive public

policy.

So what has been done? On the other side, they say nothing has

been done. It couldn’t be further from the truth. The Attorney General

has been working since the day he got in on this matter, setting up

independent reviews, reforming the B.C. gambling sector with the $10,000

cash excess limit. How about the regulators actually being on evenings

and weekends and not just nine to five, Monday to Friday, because when

do people gamble? Third-party business auditing firm. There are so many

other things.

The second prong, of course, of this is dealing with the real

estate market, where the new condo and strata assignment integrity

register for condo flipping is being introduced. There’s another bill

about hidden ownership that the Minister of Finance has brought in. Of

course, the Minister of Finance is also empowering the Securities

Commission. These are all tangible actions that have been taken

decisively to deal with this.

What we’re asking…. Perhaps the members on the other side would be

interested in their legacy. If they are interested in that legacy, why

wouldn’t they want to release the information that they have? Why

wouldn’t they want that record? If they did do things, then let’s hear

about it. Release those records, just like the Attorney General has

asked.

I want to make sure that this whole idea that we can’t do that

because if we do that, it might affect an investigation…. Well, the

Attorney General has already said that he’s happy to take these in

confidence. So let’s hear about this. Let’s get the documents put in,

and then the Attorney General can have a look at that and

decide.

I encourage all the members on the other side. Support this

motion. It’s important. If you really want your legacy to be known as

the dirty money decade, then by all means, hide the

information.

[11:30 a.m.]

J. Yap: This is a motion that is designed to distract us from the Attorney

General’s failure, this government’s failure to successfully prosecute

money laundering, which we all acknowledge is a serious criminal issue.

In fact, the previous B.C. Liberal government took steps, as we’ve

heard, to address this problem, including the creation of a $4.5 million

Joint Illegal Gaming Investigation Team. That resulted in a decrease of

these incidents by 60 percent. The highest profile case so far, as we’ve

heard, was conducted during the previous government’s term. But it was

under this current Attorney General, who is more interested in playing

politics, that the case fell apart, as we heard from my friend for

Prince George–Mackenzie.

It certainly came to light that it took this Attorney General two

years and two outside investigations to figure out that B.C. has zero —

zero — federal RCMP officers dedicated to money laundering. That’s

utterly unbelievable. All the Attorney General had to do was pick up the

phone, call the RCMP and find out. Or send them a direct message on

Twitter, or email them. But he was too busy playing politics.

In fact, we have learned that the Government House Leader and

Solicitor General knew that the RCMP had zero officers dedicated to

money laundering. So the Attorney General could have simply walked down

the hall of the Legislature to the Solicitor General’s office and got

the information, but even that, he didn’t do. The Attorney General has

wasted enough time playing politics with this significant issue. British

Columbians want action. They want results. They don’t want any more

innuendo from this Attorney General.

If the names, home addresses and licence plate numbers of these

individuals are known, where are the arrests and prosecutions on money

laundering? If the Attorney General has video footage of criminal

suspects with their legendary hockey bags full of $20 bills, where are

the arrests? Where are the charges? If the civil forfeiture office can

impound criminal vehicles, why hasn’t that happened?

The buck stops with the Attorney General, and so far he has little

to show for his efforts. British Columbians want answers, want action

and deserve better than what they’ve been getting from this Attorney

General and this government.

Now, turning to the essence of Motion 7, the member for Delta

North, through this motion, seeks to tamper with and potentially destroy

a long-standing tradition of our system of governance, and that’s

cabinet confidentiality. I know that the member for Delta North has not

yet had the privilege of serving in cabinet. Perhaps one day he will be

elevated and given the honour of a cabinet post. If that day arrives,

I’ve no doubt that he will cherish this principle of

confidentiality.

For a government of any political stripe to function, this

principle of cabinet confidentiality must be in place. It must be

upheld. The Premier and ministers must be able to freely confer,

discuss, analyze and conclude on all matters, including difficult

decisions.

In fact, as we’ve heard, the courts of our land have weighed in on

this important principle. I will quote one reference — the Supreme Court

of Canada. “The process of democratic governance works best when cabinet

ministers charged with government policy and decision-making are free to

express themselves around the cabinet table unreservedly. In addition to

ensuring candour in cabinet discussions,” another important reason for

protecting cabinet documents is to avoid creating or fanning

ill-informed or capricious public or political criticism.

Why are we here this morning debating this motion, which

contemplates a change which is clearly not in the interest of British

Columbians? Well, as I said, this is a distraction. It’s a red herring.

It’s a setup for a fishing expedition to troll for potentially

embarrassing information — that may or may not be there — to perpetuate

the Attorney General’s political games.

But the argument will go both ways with cabinet confidentiality,

which is non-partisan. It doesn’t matter which government we’re talking

about. What examples might that be, you may ask, Mr. Speaker? Well,

we’ve already heard about the legendary Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding

Society scandal, where real money laundering happened under a previous

NDP government. And there’s also the fudge-it budget of the 1990s. I’m

sure there were interesting cabinet discussions that happened during

that time.

[11:35 a.m.]

Cabinet confidentiality is a fundamental cornerstone of our system

of government. It should remain in place for all British Columbians. It

should be steadfastly upheld now and forever.

J. Brar: I’m very pleased to support this important and much-needed motion

introduced by the member for Delta North urging that the previous

government agree to waive cabinet privilege on all documents related to

money laundering.

I have had the opportunity to listen to three members on the other

side, and it seems to me that they have learned nothing. They have

learned nothing from Peter German’s report and subsequent media reports

about the sensitive issue of money laundering. This is the height of

arrogance I have seen from any party in this Legislature.

Money laundering is a serious problem that needs a serious and

coordinated response from all members of this House. Money laundering is

linked to the opioid crisis and deaths on our streets. It is linked to

skyrocketing housing costs that are pushing people out of our

communities.

There is no doubt in my mind that the B.C. Liberals turned a blind

eye to mounting evidence of money laundering in casinos while they were

in government. The Peter German report paints a troubling picture of the

previous government — that they didn’t effectively respond to pervasive

money laundering in B.C. casinos. German found they didn’t effectively

detect, prevent and prosecute it. They turned a blind eye to

it.

A careful view of German’s report indicates a clear pattern of the

B.C. Liberals failing to respond to clear warning signs of money

laundering in B.C. casinos. Some of the examples of such a pattern are

as follows.

First, the B.C. Liberals eliminated the Integrated Illegal Gaming

Enforcement Team in 2009, when money laundering was at its peak. It

should be noted that the province and the RCMP created this integrated

team in 2004, amid growing concern that organized crime was expanding

into gambling. But for some unknown reasons, the Liberals killed the

integrated team in 2009, when money laundering was at its peak. The

question is: why?

Secondly, when a senior RCMP inspector, Barry Baxter, had seen

videos of stacks of $20 bills delivered to a casino cash cage and large

gambling buy-ins from women who described themselves as housewives, he

shared his suspicions with the CBC’s Eric Rankin, telling him that the

casino industry appeared to have been targeted for very sophisticated

money laundering activity by organized crime. What happened next? The

former gaming minister, the member for Langley East, called the RCMP to

stop Insp. Barry Baxter from sounding the alarm publicly about money

laundering in 2011. The question is: why? People deserve to know about

why he intervened in that situation.

Thirdly, the B.C. Liberals intervened to raise betting limits in

2004, against warnings from regulators. Again, the question is: why?

Despite money laundering concerns from the province’s gambling

regulator, officials in B.C.’s Finance Ministry intervened to allow B.C.

Lottery Corp. to raise high-rollers’ betting limits to $100,000 per

hand, as reported by Global News . It seems that greed, rather

than the public good, was the key factor in this public policy decision.

People deserve to know the rationale behind this policy and who made

this decision, based on what.

[11:40 a.m.]

The people of British Columbia know that the B.C. Liberals turned

a blind eye to mounting evidence of money laundering in casinos while

they were in government. They not only failed to take action to stop

money laundering; the evidence suggests that they made it easier for

criminals to launder money by eliminating the dedicated enforcement

units.

I support the motion.

R. Sultan: Cabinet privilege is important in any democratic government.

Individuals charged with governing must enjoy the right to openly

discuss various ideas, options and choices available to them in private.

They must have the privilege of private, freewheeling debate before

bringing final decisions to the Legislature for public debate or

order-in-council or, perhaps, just taking them back to their ministry.

The reasons for protecting such rights should be fairly

obvious.

As a result, the Supreme Court of Canada deems it necessary for

these conversations to be private and protected. If statements in

cabinet were subject to disclosure, if reporters or the public who are

in the cabinet room, for example…. I even conjured up the physical

challenge of squeezing in some spectator space in the cabinet chambers,

which I’ve been privileged to attend from time to time in the past. Or

even have all television present during cabinet meetings, a famous idea

that Gordon Campbell tried. It didn’t last very long.

It turned out that during the skits night, where they made fun of

us, the reporters pointed out there were actually two concurrent cabinet

meetings taking place. There was the televised cabinet meeting and then,

when it ended, they had the real cabinet meeting. So with that kind of,

shall we say, skepticism, the televised cabinet meetings eventually

faded into history.

The reasons are obvious enough. Cabinets of all persuasion are

dealing with sensitive and complex matters, and it remains important

that those deliberations remain private. It’s a fairly obvious concept,

though, that some of the remarks today are from persons who don’t seem

to grasp…. They are calling for cabinet privilege to be waived on

complex and sensitive criminal matters — in this case, money laundering.

Now, money laundering is an important issue, which must continue to

preoccupy us. British Columbians are demanding action, and all of us

agree.

What British Columbians are not demanding is innuendo from the

Attorney General, but that’s the steady diet they have been fed. Real

action has, unfortunately, too often been replaced by

rhetoric.

The last government took real action to address the problem,

including the creation of a $4½ million Joint Illegal Gaming

Investigation Team. That measure alone resulted in a decrease in the

incidents of money laundering. But of course, it didn’t stamp it out.

Unfortunately, the highest profile case initiated during the previous

government’s term now seems to be unravelling, which is a shameful

travesty of justice if, in fact, that is true.

Now, as my colleague from Richmond-Steveston has already observed,

it took the NDP two years to solve the perplex police problem of finding

out whether, actually, any police working on this file, from the federal

government point of view…. Two years later, they finally realized that

there weren’t any federal police officers assigned. I would say that was

probably a failure of policing, on the part of the Attorney General’s

office, of major magnitude. No wonder there’s been no real action on the

real criminality that has been on display.

As, again, the member for Richmond-Steveston has observed, if we

know their addresses, the licence plate numbers of all those Maseratis

that are presumably the object of asset acquisition, their memberships

in all the fancy clubs and all the rest, why is there no

action?

[11:45 a.m.]

These people, if we believe the statements of the Attorney

General, are rather well known and flamboyant, frequently, in their

public behavior. If the breaches of law are so obvious and transparent

to the public, why doesn’t the Attorney General do something about it?

Why doesn’t he take real action?

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Thank you.

R. Sultan: Instead, the Attorney General wants to waive cabinet privilege

related to all documents pertaining to money laundering and seems to

prefer speech-making….

Deputy Speaker: The member will take his seat.

R. Glumac: Money laundering. We know this has been a problem in B.C. for

years, a very serious problem, not only in our casinos, but also

affecting our real estate market, contributing to home prices escalating

and the affordability crisis. Now is the time for all of us to work

together. This is not a political issue; it’s a criminal issue. I think

the people of British Columbia want a government that will address

difficult issues like this. No one wants excuses.

This government is taking action. We started by ordering an

independent review of B.C.’s anti-money-laundering policies and

practices in the Lower Mainland casinos, called the German report. From

this, we’ve already put in a number of reforms that have reduced

suspicious transactions substantially, but there is more work to

do.

In moving forward, we need to understand the full scope of what

has been done. What did the previous government do to address money

laundering? The former Solicitor General from the previous government

stated: “We did every­thing we could.” Well, that’s great to hear, but if

that’s the case, then let’s share that information in the spirit of

solving this problem together. Let’s put politics aside. Let’s work

together for the benefit of British Columbians.

Last year the Attorney General made a request to representatives

of the former government to waive cabinet privilege on all documents

related to money laundering. This request was made in August of last

year. Our government still has not received those documents. Why? When

we ask, “What did you do,” we get silence. Maybe we’re not asking the

right people. I don’t know.

The former head of B.C.’s Integrated Illegal Gambling Enforcement

Team said that the Liberals did not crack down on money laundering

because they didn’t want to disrupt the flow of money. In fact, he

called it the Wild West in B.C.’s large casinos. What did the previous

government do? It looks like they did nothing. Well, actually, that’s

not true. They did shut down the Illegal Gambling Enforcement

Team.

Peter German, former RCMP deputy commissioner, stated: “For many

years, Lower Mainland casinos unwittingly served as laundromats for the

proceeds of organized crime.” His 247-page report outlines in detail the

mismanagement of the B.C. Liberals overseeing gambling regulations. But

this wasn’t the first report on money laundering. The head of the civil

forfeiture office did a review on money laundering in 2011 that clearly

states that money laundering was occurring in casinos. What did the

previous government do? It look like they did nothing.

In 2013, the head of gaming enforcement investigations sends an

email that identifies the extent of money laundering in B.C. What did

the previous government do? Again, it looks like they did nothing. Well,

the former Minister of Finance fired the investigator.

In 2016, the government hires an accounting firm to investigate

money laundering in one casino. The firm writes a report outlining

detailed concerns about crime and money laundering. What did the

government do? Again, it look like they did nothing.

Over and over again, the previous government was told that there

is a serious problem. Over and over again, we cannot find what they did.

Now they won’t release cabinet documents on money laundering. It’s just

not acceptable. A lot of this money went into real estate, driving up

home prices and making homes unaffordable.

Our government is also taking action on this. In 2018, the

Minister of Finance appointed an independent chair, an expert panel to

lead a review on money laundering in real estate. This report, and

another report from Peter German that focuses more on real estate, will

shed more light on this issue. The days of doing nothing are

over.

[11:50 a.m.]

Our government is taking action. We ask all members of this House

to work together to do the right thing and release the cabinet documents

on this issue.

T. Redies: I’m pleased to rise to speak to the motion.

As a 25-year banker, the subject of money laundering is of

significant interest to me. Banking is a trust business between the

financial institution and the clients it serves. Any facilitation of

money laundering, unintended or otherwise, puts that at risk. To say

that I’m 100 percent against money laundering would be an

understatement, because this is about the reputation of the

province.

I’ve read the Peter German report and followed the Silver

International case because of my interest in this subject. I agree with

many of the recommendations of Mr. German’s report. Those

recommendations build upon what was already done in 2015 by the previous

government, including the creation of a $4.5 million Joint Illegal

Gaming Investigation Team, which reduced the incidence of money

laundering by 60 percent. The German recommendations represent the next

step in advancing our fight against money laundering, because it’s a

never-ending battle.

With respect to Silver International, I was also relieved to find

out that the major facilitator of money laundering in B.C. was an

underground illegal bank, not a regulated financial institution. Given

the strict requirements to monitor and prevent money-laundering

activities in financial institutions, and with notaries, real estate

agents and lawyers, I was hard pressed to think how money laundering

could be done in real estate transactions, because little if any cash is

used in transactions that go through the regulated side of the financial

sector.

So to see that money laundering was being conducted by an

underground bank operating outside the regulated sector made sense to

me. What hasn’t made sense to me is the revelation that none of the RCMP

resources that are supposed to be working on anti–money laundering are

actually doing that.

Which now brings me to the motion, which the opposition have

conveniently brought to the House to obfuscate what is a shocking

failure of the current government to understand the primary issues

preventing us from stopping money laundering in the province. This

motion has been brought forward to conveniently change the channel from

the fact that the Attorney General, the person who is responsible for

the file, didn’t even know that none of the RCMP officers in B.C.

responsible for fighting money laundering are actually investigating

those types of criminal activity.

According to Mr. German’s partially released second report, the

RCMP’s money laundering team is more than three-quarters unstaffed, and

of the 26 positions on the federal and serious organized crime branch,

only five are filled, and those are assigned to referring potential

criminal cases to B.C.’s civil forfeiture office.

This is really disturbing. There is no way to prevent money

laundering outside the regulated financial chain without significant,

highly experienced police officers investigating and prosecuting this

type of criminal activity. We must ensure that at the provincial and

federal levels of government, we have adequate resourcing of experienced

police who can investigate and bring to justice this kind of illicit

activity.

To find out that essentially none of the federal resources tasked

with prosecuting this activity are actually in place is both shocking

and disheartening. How could the Attorney General, the person

responsible for this file, not know that the RCMP weren’t properly

staffed? It defies logic. I would have thought that his first order of

business would have been to find out what police resources were assigned

to money laundering. Did he even speak to the people in

charge?

What is further stunning is that the Solicitor General

subsequently confirmed that he knew the federal serious and organized

crime branch was seriously understaffed. It would seem that the Attorney

General and Solicitor General don’t speak much about money

laundering.

It’s absolutely imperative that both the provincial and federal

governments get on this now and make sure the RCMP is fully staffed,

with the experienced police expertise that is needed to identify,

investigate and prosecute gang and money-laundering activity.

Instead of a political fishing exercise, which is what this

motion’s about, what should be discussed is why, after two years and two

outside investigations, it took that length of time for the Attorney

General to figure out that B.C. has zero federal RCMP officers dedicated

to money laundering. Perhaps that is why the highest profile money

laundering case, which was conducted and underway under the previous

government, fell apart under this current government.

British Columbians want action, not political grandstanding from

this government. There should be less partisan posturing by the Attorney

General and the other side of the House and more activity to get at the

real issues that are preventing us from seriously dealing with money

laundering. Our province’s reputation depends on it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

M. Dean: Thank you to my colleague from Delta North for bringing forward

this motion.

I’ve heard no response today from the other side that illustrates

any understanding of actually how serious this matter is. In fact, a

scandal from over 20 years ago was brought up.

[11:55 a.m.]

I’m sure some of them will recall how that ended. Is that what

they’re offering — resignations — to actually take some responsibility

in this area? They mention the team that was investigating. Well, that

was disbanded, and I’m going to go into that more.

Our government has established a new team to review suspicious

transactions. We’re taking action.

Now, this is important to me. I have a casino in my community. It

serves the whole region. It has a really diverse clientele. During the

day, there are actually many seniors there who get their socialization

and their networking through that facility. In the evenings, people go

there for a meal and have a night out. There are support services in the

casino, and there’s monitoring throughout the building. The casino

contributes to the local economy, and it also gives directly to local

communities and to municipalities.

This was at risk of becoming a centre for organized crime — links

with gangs, drug trafficking — because of the development of a money

laundering system in Vancouver. The B.C. Liberals claim that they were

doing whatever they could to tackle money laundering, but the evidence

shows that, worse than even turning a blind eye, they were firing

investigators and burying reports. Is that why they won’t release the

documents that have been requested by the Attorney General?

The German report tells us that for many years, Lower Mainland

casinos were unwittingly serving as laundromats for the proceeds of

organized crime. The inaction of the opposition when they were in

government allowed criminals to establish what became known as the

Vancouver model.

Organized crime lenders recruited gamblers, gave them massive bags

of dirty bills earned from illegal drug sales and had them play briefly

in casinos before cashing out to get cleaned-up money. And then guess

what? Most of these criminal proceeds went into the real estate sector,

driving up the prices of homes and contributing to the affordability

crisis as well as the opioid overdose epidemic.

As early as 2009, the Liberals killed the Integrated Illegal

Gaming Enforcement Team and blamed the RCMP. Well, the RCMP issued a

statement correcting the record, saying: “At times, government is

briefed on sensitive information concerning police investigations that

cannot be released. However, it was the decision of the government to

disband the Integrated Illegal Gaming Enforcement Team.”

Just prior to the closure of the team, a report had identified 284

gambling incidents involving organized crime, gang members, murders and

child abduction. By 2010, the government’s internal gambling enforcement

regulator had started to raise concerns. In 2011, an RCMP officer told

the media of his suspicion of dirty money, saying: “The common person

would say this stinks.” He was shut down.

In 2013, the head of gaming enforcement investigations sent an

email to the member for Abbotsford West, then Minister of Finance,

identifying the extent of the money laundering problem in B.C., and,

according to the German report, he nailed it.

There’s plenty of evidence that illustrates that it was not taken

seriously by the previous government. Our government is concerned about

these criminal activities, about the links with organized crime and

about the impact on the housing crisis and the opioid crisis. We are

trying to tackle the issue.

The Official Opposition has been asked to waive cabinet privilege

on all documents related to money laundering, as requested by the

Attorney General on August 10, 2018. If, as they claim, they’ve done

work, they could help us tackle this crisis and help British

Columbians.

We’ve been reforming B.C.’s gambling sector to keep criminals out

of our casinos. We have reduced suspicious transactions by 100 times

from the peak in 2015. We’re taking a multifaceted approach to

anticipate and shut down new avenues for money laundering. We are

working hard to keep dirty money out of B.C.

M. Dean moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Darcy 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.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada