2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 35, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Committee of the Whole House

Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 29)

S. Simpson

Hon. B. Penner

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 29)

Second Reading of Bills

Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 32) (continued)

C. Wyse

B. Lekstrom

M. Sather

B. Ralston

S. Simpson

D. Chudnovsky

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Hon. P. Bell

Second Reading of Bills

Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 32) (continued)

D. Chudnovsky

C. Puchmayr

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir

Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

Hon. J. van Dongen

H. Lali

G. Gentner

[ Page 13083 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate, Bill 29,

Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Mr. Speaker: And in Committee A?

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you for asking, Mr. Speaker. For the

information of members, it will be estimates debate in Committee A, Ministry of

Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Mr. Speaker: Before we continue, member for Surrey–Green

Timbers.

[1005]

Introductions by Members

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, on behalf of you, I would like

this House to introduce a group of students visiting us this morning from Good

Shepherd Christian School in Osoyoos. We are joined by teacher Patricia Pearson,

15 grade 6 students and accompanying adults.

The group visited Mr. Speaker in his office this morning and

learned firsthand about some of our traditions and procedures. They have been

looking forward to seeing the Legislature in action. I ask all members to join

me in sending a very warm welcome to our very special visitors.

Committee of the Whole House

ENVIRONMENTAL (SPECIES AND

PUBLIC PROTECTION) STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 29; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 10:07 a.m.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

S. Simpson: I just want to confirm with the minister that,

essentially, these changes around the Environmental Management Act and hazardous

waste or waste products…. Would it be fair for me to suggest that this section,

these amendments, come as a result of activity we saw in Abbotsford a couple of

years back that obviously raised some concerns and required some tightening up

around management of hazardous waste by people who act in less than a

responsible fashion, to deal with those matters?

I believe I know that that particular episode on Industrial Avenue

has continued. I believe it's before the courts now. I believe there has been a

charge laid by the government against the individual involved, so we won't talk

directly about that. Is it fair to say that this

section of the changes

introduced in Bill 29 reflects the government's decision, the need to clarify or

tighten up some of the areas around hazardous waste and environmental

management?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, this amendment would give the

Lieutenant-Governor-In-Council authority to require a certain amount of security

or deposits to be paid by handlers or would-be handlers of hazardous waste

products.

The member is also correct that there was a successful prosecution

a number of years ago which led to two specific convictions, or two counts and a

$10,000 fine, against the company known as Canadian Petroleum Corp. that was

operating, I believe, on the street in question in Abbotsford.

The individual involved in that case, as the member just noted,

has been charged, I think, with 52 counts this spring as a result of an

investigation led by the conservation officer service. But I believe that those

activities related to those charges are at different locations than the

particular location that the member referenced. I believe that individual

conducted business at a number of other locations, and that's what drew the

attention of the ministry.

[1010]

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

S. Simpson: I do note that in sections coming…. I guess it

falls into

section 3, so we'll deal with it here. I notice that in the

section

there are requirements around securities to be provided for these, or for waste

management facilities, by the government in the form and amount specified.

Could the minister tell us: is it the expectation that the

ministry will require of any business or enterprise operating this kind of

facility that would be captured by this amendment to supply a security in an

amount that the ministry would determine as necessary to perform a cleanup if

you had an incident like what happened in Abbotsford? It was a fairly

significant mess, as I recall, and required a fair amount of investment on the

part of the government to clean this up.

Is it the expectation you'd be looking for a full security or some

portion of security against that? How would the minister envision that?

Hon. B. Penner: Just a point of clarification. This

section

pertains to what are known as codes of practice, which are standards of

operation that are applied to

[ Page 13084 ]

lower-risk operations — either low- or medium-risk types of operations, like

a landfill, for example, operated by a municipal government.

Section 2 related to amendments for hazardous waste facilities

specifically, which we consider to be higher-risk operations and do not operate

under a code of practice. They would still require a permit to be issued by the

ministry — at least that's my understanding — where

section 3 talks about a code

of practice.

But you're right. In both cases we're clarifying and giving us

authority, or would like to give the government authority, to require a security

to be paid. We haven't determined the exact amount of security to be required

under either scenario, but this would make it clear that the government could

require it, and certainly it is our intention to require a security.

S. Simpson: The reason I ask the question is because if we

look at 3(f), it puts in place the condition that if required by government,

ownership of a facility would transfer to the government at closure. I assume

that's so the government has a free hand to deal with that facility in whatever

way they see fit, without having ownership challenges around that.

What I'm looking for is some assurance that we don't end up with a

security that's in an amount that is insufficient to deal with that odd bad

actor we might find. The vast majority of operators would act in a responsible

fashion, but we know from past experience that you're going to find incidences

where that's not the case.

In subsection (f.1) it talks about putting some money up, and I

agree with that. I think that's the right thing to do — the security.

My concern is that the government takes ownership, the operator

walks away without having provided a sufficient enough security to ensure that

the cleanup can be complete, and the taxpayer pays the bill, particularly if the

government takes ownership as suggested under 3(f).

[1015]

First of all, is that a scenario that could occur? And if so, how

does the government, the minister, deem to deal with that so that it's not the

taxpayer paying for somebody else's mess?

Hon. B. Penner: The security provision required would be

what the ministry deemed appropriate, considering the size and the nature of the

proposed operation. So the ministry will be working on…. It could take the form

of a formula or some other criteria to assess what the appropriate security

would be for a particular operation.

The different codes of practice are specific to different

industries, so there could be different formulas, depending on the type of the

industry that would be governed under a code of practice. But again, it's

important to note that a hazardous waste facility such as the one the member

references in Abbotsford would not be operating under a code of practice. It

would be governed under, I believe, a permit such as is contemplated in

section

S. Simpson: Maybe this is a bit of a waffle. I appreciate

the clarification or the explanation by the minister in regard to the two

differences in sections 2 and 3, so I'm going to ask a question here that is in

section 3, but it probably relates a little bit more to

section 2 in some ways.

When you have a facility of that nature that is of a bit higher

risk because of the contents of the facility, what are the requirements, or are

there any additional requirements anticipated, around public information to be

provided about that facility?

One of the things that we know when we go back…. If we look at the

experience that we had with Abbotsford, that really was quite a mess there. I

know that people who lived or operated around that facility and had other

operations around that expressed some concern that this was happening right

beside them. They didn't necessarily have knowledge of that, because there

wasn't a requirement for that to occur.

I'm wondering. Is there any requirement in here around some public

disclosure or public information so that people operating around what is

essentially a hazardous waste facility are given some knowledge of that so they

can make their own determination about whether that's where they want to be

located — or even just be more aware of it and keep their eyes open as to what's

going on, in case you have that odd bad actor?

[1020]

Hon. G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Hogg: We are honoured this day to have a group of

students from Ray Shepherd Elementary School. They're grades 5 and 6 students

accompanied by their teachers Ms. Irwin and Ms. Graham. They have brought to us,

from Surrey–White Rock, sunshine, goodwill and inquisitive minds. Would the

house please make them feel most welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Penner: The public notification issue is a matter

that's left to the discretion of the regional manager or the director, during

the permitting process. So if the regional manager or the director, as the case

me be, determines that the application is such that public notification is

warranted, then that's, again, a matter of discretion that's left to the

regional manager or the director.

S. Simpson: I think that will end my questions around

section 3. In fact, the other two significant components of the bill, around

alien species and some matters related to hunting, are not issues that we on

this side have significant questions about. So in terms of my questioning, I'm

prepared to go right to commencement, in 37, where I have some questions.

Sections 3 to 36 inclusive approved.

[ Page 13085 ]

section 37.

S. Simpson: The question I have in relation to this is…. A

large portion of this legislation doesn't come into commencement at the date of

royal assent, but rather by regulation through cabinet. Could the minister tell

us why most of this bill isn't going to come into force, what needs to be done,

and when he anticipates it coming into force?

[1025]

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct to note that sections

6, 8, 9, 14 to 28, 30 to 32 and 36 of this proposed legislation will come into

force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. All the remaining

sections of the act will come into force on royal assent, assuming that this

legislation passes.

The reason for the difference is primarily based around training,

information and educational needs, specifically training and education for park

rangers, who will be given additional authority under this legislation, and an

education component and information exchange with guide-outfitters, because some

of these provisions apply to them.

As well, we want to do some consultation, I'm told, with the court

system about some of the increased penalties and fines, as well as with the

conservation officer service, who have primary responsibility for enforcement of

the Wildlife Act. They'll need to be briefed and prepared for what the new fines

and penalties are.

S. Simpson: Does the minister have a projected time frame

for when that work will be completed and these sections will be enacted?

[1030]

Hon. B. Penner: I would envision that we would move forward

with some of these changes as soon as possible, particularly around the

increased penalties and fines. You could expect to see those come into force

sooner than some of the other components.

The ones that may take up to a year would include changes

affecting the guide-outfitters. There's going to be a requirement for some

education and development of some policy around some of the proposed changes

there, particularly around establishing qualifications for the assistant

guide-outfitters. I imagine the ministry staff will be devising some form of an

examination process to make sure that the assistant guides have adequate and

sufficient local knowledge in order to operate in a specific area.

That type of work, we expect, will be on the longer end of the

range of up to one year. The shorter-range changes will include the fines and

penalty provisions and also the extra training and so forth for the park

rangers.

Section 37 approved.

On the title.

S. Simpson: Just a quick comment here. I thought about

where to make this comment and decided that the title was the appropriate place,

as the title talks about species and public protection.

As the minister will know — we've discussed this before — this

side of the House is disappointed that Bill 29, which comes out of the Wildlife

Act review, offers nothing in terms of substantive or meaningful protection for

species at risk — some 1,300 species that have been identified by the

conservation data centre.

To that end, I would note that we had hoped that that would be

included. As a result of its not being here, I'm looking forward this afternoon

after question period to introducing the wildlife protection act, which would in

fact provide stand-alone species-at-risk protection that's habitat-based.

I hope that the minister and the government might choose to pick

up that bill when they see it and maybe bring it back in the fall as their own

and have it adopted at that time. With that, I'm done.

Hon. B. Penner: I'd just like to respond to that for a

moment. As the member knows, when we began the consultation process last year on

updating the Wildlife Act, the issue that the member refers to was not part of

the consultation process or the scope of the review. We already passed

amendments to the Wildlife Act back in 2004, giving us authority to do what the

member refers to.

The member knows we've recently established a new framework for

assessing activities or actions that are required to help mitigate the threat to

endangered species or species generally in British Columbia, and the government

is moving forward on that. It is, however, worth noting that a number of the

changes in this legislation will in fact provide extra protection to all species

in British Columbia, particularly endangered species.

We're dramatically increasing the penalties for people convicted

of killing endangered species in British Columbia. Just to put this on the

record so people know it clearly, the maximum fine on first conviction for tier

1 — that is, the most serious offences, which include killing endangered species

in British Columbia — is being increased from $100,000 on first conviction to

$250,000.

The minimum fine — we know the courts often don't feel comfortable

about imposing maximums; that's why I gave specific direction to our staff to

look at increasing the minimum fines as well — is more than doubling from $1,000

to $2,500 on first conviction. The maximum term of imprisonment is being doubled

from one year to two years.

For the tier 2 or moderately serious offences, the maximum fine is

going from $50,000 to $100,000, and the maximum term of imprisonment is going

from six months to one year. For the least serious offences, tier 3, the maximum

fines are being changed from $25,000 to $50,000, and the maximum term of

imprisonment is remaining the same at six months.

[ Page 13086 ]

However, on subsequent convictions for all three of these tiers,

or types of offences, the maximum penalty is going up to $500,000 for tier 1.

That's the most serious offences, including killing endangered species in

British Columbia. Minimum fines are going from $2,000 to $5,000, and maximum

imprisonment is changing from 18 months to three years in jail.

Those are some significant increases, which I think will act as at

least some kind of added deterrent in order to address those bad actors, as the

member has referred to certain people who like to disobey environmental

regulations in British Columbia, doing what they otherwise might choose to do.

[1035]

It's also worth noting that in this session we have passed

legislation to establish 70 additional conservancies and 11 new class A

provincial parks, which also provide additional protection for species in

British Columbia. So there have been a number of initiatives this session to

address the concerns of wildlife generally in British Columbia.

Lastly, since this is my only opportunity to do it, I'd just like

to make a quick comment on the record pertaining to some of the changes for

guide-outfitters. Just to note on the record….

The Chair: Minister, we are on the title.

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, and this being my only chance to make

this comment, I'll just quickly wrap up.

Nothing, in terms of the amendments to this act, was meant to

diminish rights and privileges of a guide certificate as it existed prior to the

amendment. I just wanted to make that comment.

Title approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill be reported complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 10:37 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

ENVIRONMENTAL (SPECIES AND

PUBLIC PROTECTION) STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Bill 29, Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I call continued second reading debate of

Bill 32, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act.

Second Reading of Bills

TRADE, INVESTMENT AND

LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION ACT

(continued)

C. Wyse: Once more, it is my pleasure to be here in front

of the House to talk about Bill 32, which is the Trade, Investment and Labour

Mobility Agreement implementation bill. I wish to start off and pick up with my

address clearly stating that we are not supportive of this particular bill.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

We are not supportive of a bill that implements an agreement that

was entered into between the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta without

adequate public debate, an agreement that in essence was signed in secrecy and

then announced, Madam Speaker, to be in support of implementing

an act that

deals with a bill based upon the Conference Board of Canada report that I

established in previous discussion was done quick and dirty.

In actual fact, the facts contained within the Conference Board's

report never were substantiated. No one has been able to substantiate them. In

actual fact, the report was done in a very, very short period of time, less than

40 days, on a very limited budget and with very limited input, with conclusions

contained in it that simply have not stood up to the test.

What fact is very clear underneath TILMA, and why Bill 32 is not

supportable, is that anything that is not excluded from the TILMA agreement is

covered by the agreement. Therefore, we have an agreement that covers everything

that is not in the agreement.

Briefly, I would like to point out a very long list of

organizations and provinces and governments that have rejected this agreement as

it is written. We have the province of Manitoba, the present Saskatchewan

government under Premier Brad Wall, the first ministers, the UBCM, the B.C.

School Trustees Association, the University of Victoria Environmental Law

Society, Ecojustice, and Ontario and Quebec.

[1040]

As a matter of fact, on May 24 of this year, an

article in the

Globe and Mail by Murray Campbell has this observation around TILMA that I

would like to put in on the record:

"TILMA isn't on the table in Quebec City, but

that doesn't mean the pressure for it or something similar has eased. The

business community is still urging a new mechanism to supersede the

14-year-old agreement on internal trade. AIT has reduced the barriers to

labour mobility, but businesses say it is ineffective because it doesn't have

a binding dispute resolution mechanism like TILMA. For example, a national

coalition of ten industry and professional organizations wants to allow

individuals or businesses to challenge the decisions of elected governments

before tribunals whose authority is beyond government or the judicial system.

[ Page 13087 ]

"The business case is weakened, however, because

it hasn't produced a list of the barriers that need to be eliminated. Their

claim with no supporting data is that restrictions take $3 billion off the

GNP. Mr. Stelmach, the Premier of Alberta, says it's $14 billion. To her

credit, Ontario Economic Development Minister Ms. Pupatello says that there's

a lot of political rhetoric about trade barriers that doesn't withstand

scrutiny.

"The smart thing for the Premiers to do is to

take a pass on TILMA and simply work a little harder on their bilateral

irritations. They should resist the pressure to hand over power to unelected

tribunals."

In further speaking against Bill 32's implementation, Gary Mar,

Alberta's Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations, made this

statement in June 2006 to the Richmond Chamber of Commerce with regards to the

TILMA dispute process. He stated that that dispute process is everything

Canadian industry asked for.

This government has forgotten its responsibility to look after the

interests of and to govern for all British Columbians, not simply one

section of

it. Therefore, Bill 32 is not supportable.

Now, further, in the dispute mechanism contained within the

agreement, the province itself decides what is defended. The ultimate dispute

resolution is a three-person panel. The province, underneath TILMA

article 2.2,

must enforce the agreement, and I quote from that agreement: "Each party is

responsible for compliance with this agreement by its government entities."

So the ability to govern has been turned over to a three-person

dispute panel. When we look at the Liberal government's agenda from this

particular session dealing with the environment, its legislation in actual fact

becomes one of greenwashing underneath TILMA and its implementation act.

The Premier's interest in harmonizing provincial standards through

the B.C.-Alberta Trade Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement could prove to

be a thorn in the government's side, undermining its ability to take necessary

measures on the climate change file.

The basic problem is this. Fighting climate change will

necessarily involve a lot of regulation, while TILMA is fundamentally a

deregulatory initiative. What TILMA really does is create and codify investor

rights and provide a mechanism for private enforcement. This has huge

consequences for public interest regulation in B.C., as TILMA's dispute panels

can award up to $5 million to an investor if a decision made by the B.C.

government body restricts or impairs their investment.

Almost every environmental regulation restricts or impairs

someone's investment. A restructuring of B.C. into a carbon-neutral economy will

almost certainly affect the profits of Alberta's oil patch. This is bad news for

the government's climate action strategy. As we know from debate, there is still

much detail to come on exactly how B.C. will meet its greenhouse gas emission

targets, but regulation will necessarily be part of a meaningful strategy.

[1045]

TILMA does provide an exemption for promoting renewable and

alternative energy. This is helpful but falls far short of what will be

required. More contentious policies that impose costs of manufacturers, such as

automotive tailpipe emission requirements or mandated use of carbon capture and

storage, could easily be open to challenge. In these cases, the government would

have to prove that there were legitimate measures to protect the environment and

that they were not more restrictive than necessary — a clause that will give

investors plenty of wiggle room for challenges.

Recently there has been a legal analysis that has been brought

forward on TILMA, another reason to be voting against the implementation of the

actual act. This legal analysis points out the difficulties of putting in an

implementation act. I will quote from the actual report:

"There are several substantial grounds for

impugning the constitutional validity of TILMA and its enabling legislation.

"

(1) Namely, true to its appellation, the pith

and substance of TILMA and Bill 32 concerns matters of interprovincial trade,

investment and labour mobility, and for that reason infringes upon federal

constitutional authority with respect to trade and commerce under

section

91(2) of the Constitution Act,1867.

"

(2) By imposing financial penalties and other

sanctions on the province for the lawful actions of governments and other

public bodies, TILMA and Bill 32 improperly fetter the exercise of legislative

and public authority.

"

(3) By empowering ad hoc arbitral tribunals to

adjudicate private claims concerning the actions of government and other

public bodies, TILMA and Bill 32 improperly derogate from the authority of

superior courts to adjudicate private claims concerning exercise of public

authority and to supervise inferior tribunals. For this reason, the TILMA

scheme offends the constitutional safeguard of judicial independence

engendered by

section 96 of the Constitution.

"

(4) By amending certain provincial statutes to

accord cabinet the discretionary powers to nullify through regulation the

application of provisions of these laws to companies and other entities from

outside the province, Bill 32 offends constitutional limits on the

deregulation of legislative powers to the executive. The courts have named

such provisions 'King Henry VIII clauses' after the propensity of that monarch

to arrogate legislative power by proclamation.

"For these reasons, it would be appropriate for

the province to withdraw Bill 32 and abandon its present commitment to the

TILMA scheme by advising Alberta of its intentions to invoke

Article 20 to

withdraw from the agreement."

I do know that there are many other people here in the House that

would like to have the opportunity to speak on Bill 32, and with that, I would

close with this quote from Frank Stanford on CFAX on May 26, '08:

"The politics of TILMA are similar to those of

NAFTA and Canada-U.S. free trade because, you may remember, how the public

debate went. A lot of rhetoric, not a lot of information. 'Of course it's a

good idea. No, it doesn't mean this or that, and certainly it isn't a sellout,

but we can't tell you exactly what it does mean.' Among its benefits, foreign

control of your gasoline prices. I am not persuaded that rushing into any more

treaties that tie the hands of public policymakers in the name of corporate

profits and trade is a good idea."

With that, I close, speaking against the implementation of Bill

[ Page 13088 ]

B. Lekstrom: It's my privilege to rise in the House to

speak in support of Bill 32, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility

Implementation Act. It's interesting. I mean, we come here and…. With all due

respect to the member for Cariboo South, I'm not sure that he fully understands

what he was talking about.

[1050]

I've lived in the Peace country all of my life. We border Alberta

on both sides, out Highway 2 and out Highway 49, and the issue of the

implementation of TILMA is one that's welcomed in my area. For over 40 years we

have seen this imaginary boundary we call the B.C.-Alberta border hinder both

labour mobility and business movement between our provinces, which has been a

detriment not only to the business community and the workers but to our entire

province as a whole.

I find it interesting — and I guess, with some great concern — the

misleading information that was put forward here for the people of British

Columbia who are listening to this debate. I will encourage them to go on the

government website to look at what's there on the TILMA issue — to review the

legislation and judge for themselves whether what they've heard in the debate is

factual or not.

I have some grave concerns with what has been said — what's

exempt, what isn't exempt, what's going to take place. I think there was a lot

of fear that was put into the minds of British Columbians, and human nature is,

I believe, that they expect to be told the factual information from this

building. Unfortunately, that's not what I heard. That is not what I heard at

all.

I want to talk briefly about what is included under TILMA and what

isn't. What isn't is the ALR, for one. We have heard people from the opposition

speak about: "My God, the agricultural land reserve is now going to be up under

TILMA." This is absolutely false — absolutely false. For any member of this

House to say any different, I would caution them. I would caution them, because

they obviously haven't done their homework.

We've also heard that our environmental policies could be up. You

know, the large oil and gas that we hear the opposition rail about is going to

be the victor on this. Well, let me tell you, the oil and gas companies that

operate on both sides of the province and certainly in the Peace River area….

We're there to welcome them. I think they do a good job in the Peace country,

and they do a good job on behalf of all of us. They've come a long way in their

environmental policies.

It's interesting. We hear about the tax breaks that are given to

big oil — $441 million. We just had a land sale take place in the Peace country

— $441 million. Now, it's interesting. When that kind of money comes in, it pays

for our education, health care, social programs, but unfortunately, it seems the

opposition is opposed to oil and gas. It's unfortunate.

I want to read what is exempt under TILMA so that there is no

mistake for the people of British Columbia. These are the facts. They can look

at them; they can look at the bill. I encourage them to check it out. What is

exempt? Well, provincial measures for water are exempt. We've heard just the

opposite from many of the people I've heard that oppose TILMA.

The opposition to TILMA is beyond me, because TILMA really is an

extension of the AIT agreement, the agreement on internal trade. I believe it

was 1994. I'm pretty close on that. I was a member of council in Dawson Creek. I

remember, as a member of the UBCM, concern being expressed to the government of

the day because there was no debate on the floor of this Legislature. The

government of the day, who's now in opposition…. To stand up and rally against

this government for: "My God, you're pushing TILMA through. There was no public

debate…." Hypocritical. How hypocritical can it get?

The AIT. I remember…. I know there were members on the other side

that were members of local government at the time. There's nothing wrong, I

guess, if they stood up and said: "You know, when I rallied against that…. I've

changed my mind." I haven't heard that. So it's unfortunate that the information

that has been fed by some to the people is so misleading.

What else is exempt? Well, taxation is exempt. Royalties are

exempt. Our standards, occupational health and safety are exempt. You wouldn't

know that from what we've heard here, though. Certainly from the opposition, you

would think all of that was on the table when in fact it isn't. There is nothing

wrong with opposing something for the right reasons and for the factual

information, but let me tell you, it's a little bit much — certainly for me and,

I think, most of the people in this province — to oppose something based on

half-truths. That's not what we're elected to do here.

What else is exempt? Well, let's see. We have aboriginal policies

and programs. Social policy is exempt from TILMA. It's written right into it —

says it's exempt. But again, I encourage people: go to Hansard . Read the

Hansard on what you've heard and see if that lines up with what is exempt

as I've just said. I don't think it will, and I think you'll raise an eyebrow

and wonder: "Gee, what's going on?"

Really, as an enhancement and building on the AIT, I think we've

moved in the right direction. I think labour mobility, where we have

credentialing that we're trying to make sure we can move between provinces…. We

do it under Red Seal now across our country for tradespeople. If you want to go,

you can be a tradesperson, and if you want to apply your skill across this great

country of ours, you get Red Seal–certified. That's what happens. Then you have

labour mobility.

[1055]

What we're doing is taking that, as two provinces, B.C. and

Alberta, and building upon it. We can have early childhood educators that are

qualified in Alberta, work in British Columbia and vice versa. I think it's a

great thing.

We heard a lot about procurement and what this will mean for

procurement of municipalities. Well, I want to relay a story. I was the mayor of

Dawson Creek. It was a great privilege. I thought, shortly after I was elected

in 1996 as mayor, that I was going to do a wonderful thing for our business

community. So I called them all together and said: "You know, I've seen a couple

of tenders that we've put out as the city of Dawson Creek go to companies that

weren't from Dawson Creek." Some had actually gone, I believe, to Alberta

companies. Some had gone to Prince George companies.

[ Page 13089 ]

I said: "I'm going to come up with a 5 percent break for anybody

that's a business located in Dawson Creek. If you're within 5 percent of that

tendered price, if you're only 5 percent higher or less, we're going to give it

to you."

Thinking, as a new mayor, that this might be the most wonderful

thing I've ever done, without question every business that had come to the

meeting said: "Blair" — or Member, I guess; I don't know how you refer to

yourself in here — "don't do it. Don't do it, and here's why. We don't make our

living just in Dawson Creek. We make our living in this region, and this region

is not just in British Columbia. It transcends this imaginary boundary between

B.C. and Alberta. So if you do that, and everybody takes a protectionist

attitude that we're going to give you a break because you're located in our

community, it'll kill business."

So as good an idea as I thought it was, we didn't go. We didn't

move on it, and I can tell you our businesses are flourishing. We have

businesses in Dawson Creek that work on the Alberta side. We have Alberta-side

companies that work in the B.C. side. They bring workers. We send workers over

there, and it's working. It's working well.

To be able to stand here today and talk about TILMA and the

benefits, particularly on an area that is directly affected — we're ten minutes

from the Alberta border — I can tell you it's welcome news for us.

The other issues. I mean, when we hear about the environment and

what it could mean under TILMA…. Again, misinformation is being spread out

there. We look after our own environment in British Columbia. We are not going

to be bound under TILMA to accept lesser standards, as some people would have

you believe. This is about building two economies into one very sound

opportunity for both parties, being Alberta and British Columbia.

I can't, for the life of me, see…. I mean, I understand that

opposition is here to oppose the government, but whether we like it or not — and

this goes for both sides — there are ideas that are tough to oppose. This is one

of them.

To oppose something just for the sake of opposing it doesn't make

sense. I haven't heard a good argument yet. I'm always pretty open-minded. If

somebody came out and said, "Here's why I'm opposing it," based on the factual

information — and it's something I wasn't aware of — I'm pretty open to the

ability to say: "I haven't thought of that."

I haven't heard that. I've heard political rhetoric from

opposition on this and why they want to oppose it, but no good reasons. I mean,

I just don't see the downfall on this bill whatsoever. Labour mobility is a key

issue, as I said. Our tradespeople, and I'll go back and speak to this, have

that labour mobility if they're Red Seal–certified now. It's a pretty great

thing to be able to take your applied trade and go across this country without

having to recredential.

We're saying we can do that to a greater degree. I spoke on it

earlier. We can look at bringing our credentialing and melding those, whether

you're a teacher, whether you're an early childhood educator, on numerous

amounts of things. That seems to me like a good thing.

I've heard where people have said that we're going to race that

credentialing to the lowest common denominator. Again, nothing could be further

from the truth. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

There's a dispute resolution process that I think is quite

straightforward in here. It's nothing earth-shattering about it. It lays out how

this dispute resolution works. We've heard people rally on about that. Both

governments and individuals can access the dispute resolution process. This is

something that I'm not sure I heard clearly from the other side.

[1100]

I just want to do a little comparison between TILMA and the

agreement on internal trade. We eliminate, under TILMA, all the barriers that

restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility — again, something I

fully support — from this imaginary boundary. Under the AIT, it only requires

parties to "reduce and eliminate, to the extent possible." That's kind of an

interesting thing. Possibly the opposition, when they were in government, were

going to build upon that. They didn't by the time that they were leaving office,

but maybe they thought they were going to. If you look at it, we have….

Under the TILMA, one set of general rules apply to all measures of

all government entities that relate to trade, investment and labour mobility.

There are special provisions that augment the general rules in certain areas to

ensure comprehensive coverage.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Under the AIT, the general rules do not apply consistently. It

doesn't seem like a favourable position, so to be able to build on that and

improve it is one that I think is a good move.

The issue under TILMA. I've had many people in my area talk to me

and say: "Blair, we're not sure about TILMA. Tell us what it's about." I

encourage them to actually read the information, and most — I would say nine out

of ten — say: "Well, we heard the opposition saying this." By the time they're

finished getting the factual information, they're quite amazed, too, at how that

could actually be said to mislead the public of British Columbia, with a

straight face. Maybe they actually believe it. I don't believe that the

opposition believes what they're saying. I mean, I can't believe they would on

this issue, but there is that remote possibility.

The issue of labour mobility — one that we all, I think,

understand as a very important economic driver, not just to British Columbia but

to Alberta as well — is one that we're building on. I don't know a negative on

that. I can't see a negative. We may hear future speakers, as this debate goes

on, talking about: "No, the speaker from Peace River South was wrong. TILMA is

going to eliminate the opportunity for workers in British Columbia to carry on

their work in a meaningful way. Their credentialing will be driven to the lowest

common denominator."

[ Page 13090 ]

I'm going to look at you today, and if you hear that, pick up your

phone, send an e-mail to the member. Tell him to point out where it says that in

TILMA, or is it just being made up? I think you'll find that it's just being

made up.

I want to go back to the issues with the Union of British Columbia

Municipalities, of which I sat on their executive as well. We've made a

commitment to work with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities on this

very issue so that both sides, both B.C. and Alberta, can make sure that the

impact of this is a positive impact. There is no doubt in my mind that TILMA

will bring positive impacts.

I want to go back, again. We hear about the extension of an AIT,

which is the agreement on internal trade. I haven't heard from the opposition,

in their railing on about their opposition to TILMA, what they thought about

AIT, which is the agreement on internal trade. I can't focus enough on this,

because I was there, when that debate was taking place, as an elected municipal

member. Again, the government of the day, which was the New Democrats, didn't

bring it forward for debate on this floor. They didn't bring it to the Union of

British Columbia Municipalities for consultation.

Yet now we have actually…. We're here today debating TILMA. We

have met with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. It's unfortunate

that we have a group of members of this place…. Rather than looking at good,

solid legislation and saying, "You know, we think that's going to benefit the

province of British Columbia," they're rallying and playing politics.

I know the election is coming relatively soon, and this goes for

everybody. It goes for every member that's elected or wants to be elected.

You'll gain a greater deal of respect from the public for telling the factual

information than you will for trying to scare them and mislead them. That's the

problem with politics in this province and in this country.

I do want to continue to hear some of the further debate on TILMA,

but again, Bill 32, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement

Implementation Act, is a positive one. I thank the minister for bringing it

forward. I think there is an understanding that, as you cross the Alberta-B.C.

border — if you had your eyes closed, you wouldn't know, for one; there are no

guards; there's not anything there — so much can change. We're going to actually

try and build that together.

I think if you want to look at the transportation side of it and

the regulatory issues we used to face…. We faced regulatory burdens through the

1990s on transportation. It's interesting.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[1105]

B. Lekstrom: There used to be a bit of a joke in the Peace

country, and that was that we would never have to worry as a country if Russia

invaded, because once they hit the B.C.-Alberta border they would be stopped by

the regulatory burden on transportation in a heartbeat.

That's how it used to be. No longer is it going to be that way.

What they're going to do now is…. We're going to open it up. We live in the best

province in the best country in the world. We have the ability to trade freely

amongst our provinces. On occasion we can actually trade freer with other

countries than we can with our own country, our own provinces. That's

ridiculous. That's a sad statement.

To hear people say that this isn't good…. Well, I'm going to

respectfully disagree with them. Although we have differences in this House — I

still relate back to this, and I try to refer to it — I think we've built

friendships as well. We obviously see legislation differently. Particularly in

this session, I think virtually every piece of legislation has been seen

differently.

N. Simons: Back to 2002, my friend.

B. Lekstrom: Well, 2002 was a good year. I hear the member

speaking. Unfortunately, he wasn't here to see the good times happen, but he

recognized the transition that took place. We have gone from last place in this

country to first place, and we're going to continue to do that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

B. Lekstrom: I kind of enjoy the heckling, because I know

that at about five o'clock today we'll hear that the world is about to end and

British Columbia's democracy will come to an end because debate will have cut

off. I encourage people to go and read Hansard and see what they get out

of four days of discussion on sustainability, see what they get out of the

rhetoric we've heard, because there's been no waste of time here.

In closing, Bill 32 is a positive step for every British

Columbian. It's a positive step for our province. It's a great step for our

country, because we have the rest of the country…. I've heard the readings of

the others. But for the vast majority, I think, what people are looking at is

saying: "How do we get on to this? How can they actually build an economy like

that between B.C. and Alberta that we can benefit from?"

It's interesting. I want to encourage every member of the public

who's interested at all. I know sometimes reading legislation isn't the most

wonderful thing to do, but if you have questions, call us. If you want to for

yourself, go on the Internet. Have a look at TILMA. We have every piece of

legislation on there as well. But don't, for heaven's sake…. I'm not saying you

have to take my words that I'm saying. I'm not saying you have to take the

opposition's words. Base it on the factual information, read it, and do your

homework. Without question, British Columbians will find Bill 32, the TILMA

agreement, one that they'll support.

[ Page 13091 ]

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to address Bill 32, the Trade,

Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act. Listeners will have

noticed that the member for Peace River South did not mention that the

agricultural land reserve is excepted or exempted from TILMA, because it is not.

Interjections.

M. Sather: The ALR, Madam Speaker, is not exempted from

TILMA.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Peace River South.

B. Lekstrom: I rise on a point of order.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, order. Order, Member.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.

Member for Peace River South.

B. Lekstrom: On a point of order, I just rise to correct

the member. I don't mind if he wants to speak to what I've said. But make sure

he's got the truth here, because he's dead wrong.

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

a point of debate.

[1110]

M. Sather: The point is that the ALR is not exempted from

TILMA. That's my point.

Madam Speaker, in the small amount of time that I have, I want to

talk about two provisions in TILMA:

article 3, "No obstacles," and

article 4,

"Non-discrimination." The government says that there is no case under TILMA

unless a resident of Alberta is not discriminated against in B.C. and vice

versa. That is, in fact, what

article 4 says.

However, there are 34 articles in TILMA. The government is saying,

in other words, that notwithstanding a contravention of any other article, there

must be a contravention of

article 4 for there to be a contravention of TILMA. I

will show that the government's case around non-discrimination does not hold

water.

Another significant

article in TILMA is

article 3, which is called

"No obstacles." It says that each party shall ensure that its measures — that's

its laws, etc., — do not operate to restrict or impair trade between or through

the territory of the parties or investment or labour mobility between the

parties.

Investment is defined in TILMA as an enterprise; financial assets

including money, shares, bonds, debentures, partnership rights, receivables,

inventories, capital assets, options and wills; the acquisition of financial

assets and the establishment, acquisition or expansion of an enterprise.

If we take the ALR…. For example, if an individual has a business

next to the ALR and wants to expand that business, he is clearly in

contravention of

article 3, which says that expansion of an enterprise comes

under the restrictions of TILMA. It's very straightforward. I don't think the

government would argue that. They try to argue that everything is included under

non-discrimination, which it is not.

There is nothing in

article 3 that talks about non-discrimination.

Nowhere in TILMA does it say that contravention of "no obstacles" must be

accompanied by contravention of

article 4 for there to be a disputable case

under TILMA. Since

article 3 is not specifically limited by non-discrimination,

to say it is, is essentially to deprive

article 3 of its meaning.

There is a provision in international trade law that you cannot

empty a provision of its meaning. World Trade Organization panels have ruled

that if the drafters intended a provision to have a limited scope, they should

have written it that way. For example, the WTO case against U.S. steel policies

said: "We as a treaty interpreter are not allowed to read into the text words

and concepts which are not there."

Under the WTO, in a challenge that Canada and the U.S. took

against European restrictions on hormone-treated beef, the WTO appellate body

ruled that even though the European restrictions were not discriminatory — that

is, they applied to European beef just as much as to imported beef — they still

violated a WTO agreement.

The minister said at a chamber of commerce breakfast last year

that he appointed the dispute resolution panel members from B.C., that they know

it's about non-discrimination and will rule accordingly.

Madam Speaker, because the government says it does not make it so.

If the government wanted to limit the "no obstacle" clause, it would have

provided a phrase in that clause such as, "each party shall ensure that its

measures do not operate through discriminatory means to restrict or impair

trade, etc.," or if the intent is to fetter — that's what it's called — "no

obstacles" by non-discrimination, the government should have written: "Subject

article 4, each party shall ensure that its measures do not operate to

restrict or impair…."

They did not do that, and they did not do that for a reason —

because they want to maintain the investor rights that are encapsulated in the

"no obstacles" clause. I would challenge the government to negotiate an

amendment to

article 3 as provided for under

article 21 of TILMA.

[1115]

The government could also issue a joint decision declaring their

interpretation of TILMA as provided for under

article 34. That's the least they

could do. If they want to clarify what they call misconceptions about TILMA,

then they could do that. It's provided for, but they are choosing not to.

There's a reason for that. The minister says that "TILMA's all about

non-discrimination because I say so." That's not good enough.

I just want to go on to talk a little bit about the panel members

from B.C. Three of the five panel members

[ Page 13092 ]

are lawyers. Arbitration dispute panels are required by international law to

interpret agreements in the following way, not according to what the minister

thinks they should do.

(1) They look at the ordinary meaning of the words in the

agreement. If the ordinary meaning is clear, that's as far as they go. Given

that

article 3 on "no obstacles" is so clear, it's unlikely they're going to

consider what the government says their intent was, and they haven't even said

what their intent was.

(2) If they think a clause is ambiguous, they look at other

clauses in the agreement. So since

article 4 says the government already must

not discriminate, then

article 3 must say something else.

(3) They would look to see if there are other clauses in the

agreement that put restrictions on non-discriminatory measures, and there are.

For example,

article 5.1: "Parties shall mutually recognize or otherwise

reconcile their existing standards and regulations that operate to restrict or

impair trade, investment or labour mobility." Mutually recognizing and accepting

each other's regulations is about non-discrimination.

(4) If they still couldn't decide on the meaning of an article,

they would look at the operating principles laid out in the agreement. Principle

2 is: "Eliminate barriers that restrict…trade, investment and labour mobility."

An agreement that covers investment is far more significant than

just a trade agreement. TILMA imposes too many restrictions on the ability of

government to steer economic development. That's why the 1998 multilateral

agreement on investment failed. "No obstacles" applies only to trade in the AIT,

and the member before me said that this was just an extension of the AIT. But

"no obstacles" applies to trade, investment and labour mobility in TILMA.

I think I'm just about out of time. The last thing I want to

mention is that the Alberta negotiator, Shawn Robbins, said that the investment,

with its inclusion of "no obstacles," was put in because it felt this was a big

hole in the AIT. Clearly, the government wants "no obstacles" there. They don't

want to limit it.

Madam Speaker, this is first and foremost an investors rights

bill, even though the government doesn't want to talk about investment any more.

B. Ralston: I rise to speak briefly to this bill that's

before the House on legislation that's designed to provide some enforcement

mechanisms for the TILMA agreement signed between the governments of Alberta and

British Columbia.

It is significant, when one looks at what the minister said on

April 17 and on May 13 here in this House, that he didn't refer to what was the

initial argument put forward by the government and the supporting document put

forward by the government, the Conference Board study.

This was a study that was a single-source study. The Conference

Board was the sole bidder on this contract, given 45 days to complete it,

completed a very shallow survey of a number of businesses and organizations —

relatively few — and then purported to extract from that an economic rationale

and a description of economic benefits that would flow from the agreement.

Now, the TILMA agreement, particularly the Conference Board report

on the TILMA agreement, was analyzed by Prof. John Helliwell, one of the most

distinguished economists in the country. He was asked by the Saskatchewan

government to analyze the so-called evidence provided by the Conference Board of

Canada. It's no wonder that the minister has totally abandoned this report as a

line of defence on this. What Professor Helliwell says is devastating in terms

of just completely shredding the report. He says:

[1120]

"The principal source of data for the paper was a

survey that asked representatives of firms, organizations and government

agencies and departments to list what they thought to be the most important

barriers to interprovincial trade in their company, region or industry, and

then provide qualitative rankings of winners and losers by region and

industry. The latter were then converted to measures of long-term changes in

income and employment by Conference Board staff. Since there was no research

or quantitative base for this translation, it has no empirical basis and hence

cannot be treated as evidence."

So basically, the survey is meaningless, and the benefits that the Conference

Board purported to deduce from their survey cannot be treated as evidence.

This is not a New Democrat. This is not a partisan. This is one of

the most distinguished economists in the country, commissioned by the

Saskatchewan government to look at the TILMA agreement in his report to the

Saskatchewan government. It's significant. "Oh, that was commissioned by an NDP

government." Premier Wall, the new Premier of Saskatchewan, has not agreed to

sign on to TILMA. He has reservations about it, and those are no doubt informed

by this report by Professor Helliwell.

He goes on to say, about the Conference Board report:

"Instead, the report makes use of each

respondent's perceptions of how accession to TILMA, relative to developments

likely under the AIT alone, might affect the economic prospects of

Saskatchewan by region and activity. In my view, this is an inappropriate use

of the survey instrument, akin to estimating national GDP by asking households

how they think everyone else is doing these days."

So that's the intellectual rigour with which the Conference Board study was

put together, and this minister and this government went out into the public.

The member for Peace River South just spoke moments ago about

giving the facts to people. Why doesn't the minister come forward and admit that

the report from the Conference Board of Canada is a complete sham and an

intellectual fraud? That's what Professor Helliwell is saying, somewhat more

politely than that, but he's saying that, essentially. "Since there was no

research or quantitative basis for this translation, it has no empirical basis

and hence cannot be treated as evidence."

That was the major piece of work that the government used to send

out and trumpet the so-called economic benefits of the trade agreement. It's

significant, as well, what Professor Helliwell said when he was asked to

[ Page 13093 ]

calculate what increment, what growth there might be by signing on to TILMA

and the differences between TILMA and the AIT. This is what he said.

"My reason for putting such a small upper bound

on the possible gains, whether static or dynamic, and how they might be shared

or shifted among partner provinces is that the differences between TILMA and

the AIT in terms of potential cost reductions is very small, a tiny fraction

of the magnitude of what was at stake in international trade treaties. This is

because trade is essentially unfettered already among provinces."

Really what this is, is a political document, no doubt directed

out of the Premier's office, like everyone else. The minister has been forced

out into the field to defend it with a study that has no evidentiary weight and

basically proves nothing, and he has been forced to push this piece of

legislation through the Legislature. One might have some sympathy for the

minister. That perhaps explains his lack of vigour in defending this particular

piece of legislation. It's very clear from the economic rationale that's been

put forward by the Conference Board of Canada that it's very, very limited

indeed.

What the argument of the government seems to be is that this is a

significant enhancement and that one only has to go and look at the agreement

itself to notice the benefits. But the fact is and my sense is that the

infrastructure for negotiating a trade agreement at the provincial level…. The

ability to do so is somewhat limited, and there's not a full understanding of

the implications of a trade agreement for Canada's obligations in its own

international trade agreements and the implications for those agreements

themselves.

Commentators have pointed out that TILMA's reach is much broader

than that of the AIT, the Agreement on Internal Trade, broader than NAFTA and

broader than the agreements of the World Trade Organization. As a general rule,

as my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows pointed out, the constraints

imposed by those other trade agreements are much more precisely and narrowly

defined than are those in this particular agreement.

[1125]

In effect, what TILMA does is transform the constitutional

landscape for provincial government action, because the constraints are imposed

over broad areas of public policy and law that would otherwise be duly enacted

and entirely lawful.

Under the constitution, governments have unfettered authority to

act so long as they do so lawfully and in accordance with the constitution.

However, TILMA, which is an interprovincial agreement, adds an additional and

overarching constraint that says that unless exempt, no government action may

reduce or impair the commercial interests of those residing in a neighbouring

province.

In effect, it also turns Canadian constitutional values on their

head by making commercial considerations paramount over all other competing

public interests and priorities. This represents an entrenchment of private

property rights that Canadian governments explicitly rejected as a feature of

the constitution and the constitutional negotiations in recent decades.

So this is a sweeping change, and the rationale that's put forward

takes no account of that. The dispute settlement mechanism…. I'm about to

conclude because there are a number of speakers here, Madam Speaker. I would

have preferred the opportunity to debate this more fully, but naturally the

government, in its rush to jam all these pieces of legislation through, has not

allocated a great deal of time to discuss it.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: The member might confine his better remarks to

the proper authorities that are questioning him rather than bothering me here in

the Legislature.

An Hon. Member: A cheap shot.

B. Ralston: You'd know all about cheap shots, wouldn't you,

Member?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

B. Ralston: I see the well-known pugilist…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

B. Ralston: …the member for small business and

deregulation, is opining.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member.

B. Ralston: These dispute procedures represent a radical

departure from Canadian legal norms by according private parties a unilateral

right to enforce and claim damages under an interprovincial agreement to which

they are not party and under which they have no obligation.

So there is much more that can be said. The minister's defence in

a number of areas is not accurate. For example, there is no mechanism to prevent

multiple claims. The minister claims that there is. In fact, any number of

proceedings may be initiated to challenge a particular measure, as long as they

proceed sequentially rather than at the same time.

There are a number of other…. The right of judicial review is very

limited. Courts generally will defer to tribunals, particularly international

commercial arbitrations. There's a body of law that says that they will almost

always defer to the decision of such a body so that a court review would be

very, very limited.

It's clear that what this is, is a significant departure in

Canadian law at the provincial level. The minister

[ Page 13094 ]

deliberately underplays that and is not being straight with the public about

what the implications of this are for future government action. Accordingly, I

speak against it.

S. Simpson: I am pleased to have an opportunity to stand

and speak to this piece of legislation in relationship to TILMA, the Trade,

Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. We have a number of people who want to

have an opportunity to voice their concern around this bill, so I plan to just

take a couple of minutes here to ensure that my colleagues have that

opportunity.

I'm going to limit my comments to some matters related to the

environment, particularly to matters related to climate change. To start with,

we know that there are some exemptions in TILMA related to the environment.

However, those exemptions are far from comprehensive and far from complete. I

would quote here from an opinion released by Sierra Legal Defence, now called

Ecojustice, where their lawyers looked at TILMA and the environment.

[1130]

Let me just quote from this document:

"TILMA includes some broad exemptions related to

the environment, such as for measures relating to water; the promotion of

renewable and alternate energy; the conservation of forests, fish, wildlife,

and the management of hazardous and waste materials.

"However, these exemptions do not appear to

include measures related to a number of other critical environmental issues,

such as the reduction of greenhouse gases, protection of endangered plants in

some of the most endangered ecosystems in the country…or the reduction of air

pollution.

"Measures to address such non-exempted

environmental issues will likely breach the broad prohibitions in TILMA. These

include a prohibition on measures that 'operate to restrict or impair trade

between or through the territories of the parties, or investment or labour

mobility between the parties.'"

What we're being told — and the government has offered up nothing

to suggest that this isn't accurate — is that while there are some exemptions,

particularly related to energy matters, there are significant issues that are

not covered. These include significant issues related to questions around

climate change and around how climate change will be dealt with.

I want to give a couple of examples, because there may be

arguments to be made that some protections should be put in place. What we know

is that when you look at ways to deal with global warming, we will find that

parties will be able to come forward, we believe, and begin to make the case for

why certain of these approaches shouldn't be taken.

One of the things that TILMA tells us, of course, is that

governments should be looking for options that do the least to impair trade and

investment and to not be restrictive. So when the government comes forward, for

example, on a matter like carbon capture and storage…. We saw the Minister of

Environment and the Minister of Energy, the other day, make an announcement

around that matter with Spectra Energy around trying to develop carbon capture

and storage.

Now, that will be an expensive process. It will cost hundreds of

millions of dollars, should it be viable at all, to put that carbon capture and

storage in place. But what we know is that under TILMA, there is nothing to stop

an applicant — somebody coming forward who is in that industry — saying that to

require any form of carbon capture and storage impairs their right to do

business and, in fact, is not the least restrictive strategy or approach to

take.

Our friends in Alberta, for example, who are contemplating nuclear

power right now, might come back and say: "Well, if you want to reduce

emissions, carbon capture and storage is restrictive for us and prohibitive.

What you should do is promote nuclear power instead. It's going to be okay for

us in Alberta, so why don't you promote nuclear power in British Columbia? That

is more consistent with TILMA than you trying to oblige us to get involved in

carbon capture and storage when we don't desire to."

We also know that in terms of some of the energy conservation

matters…. If the government, if British Columbia, wants to put limits around

renewable energy, wants to try to promote energy conservation, there is nothing

here that says that the response to that from industry, or from those who might

challenge that position, is to say: "There are a whole variety of other

alternatives that don't require us to make any investment, which you should be

conducting around changing the way that energy gets used." That's potentially an

approach that gets taken.

The other concern is…. We know that the government around the

issue of climate change is putting a lot of emphasis on local government and on

requiring local governments to take action, whether it's those who have signed

climate charters or those that will be required to do it through future

legislation. The challenge here is that while the provincial government may be

in a place to resist some of the challenges from some of those interests who

want to move forward and would want to reject some of those climate change

initiatives under the auspices of TILMA, what we do know is that many of our

local governments, and especially our smaller communities, do not have the

capacity to resist that.

The provincial government, of course, has given no indication at

all that they are prepared to defend the interests of those local governments if

they're put under pressure under the auspices of TILMA. If we're asking local

governments to take the action, to do the work to help deal with emissions, they

will potentially take actions that will breach TILMA. They will have these

companies or businesses coming down on them saying: "You're outside the box in

terms of TILMA. You can't do that." For many of those, the chill will be the

issue here.

[1135]

I suspect what we'll start to see with the introduction of TILMA

is city managers, town clerks and advisers to local governments in smaller

communities coming

[ Page 13095 ]

forward and saying: "These are actions that we think maybe should be taken.

However, because of the nature of TILMA, we're recommending you consider

something else, because the impact on us, the potential for resistance from

industry, the potential for legal challenges to us are significant, and we don't

suggest that we get ourselves into that circumstance."

So the problem here is both what actually is or isn't allowable

under TILMA and that significant impacts on the environment are not covered by

TILMA. They will, in fact, be a breach of TILMA. Most climate change initiatives

will be a breach of TILMA, and there's a question of whether this government

will be able to bring that forward.

Then, on the other hand, you have the chill factor where local

governments and others will have a certain fear that they're going to, in fact,

be taken on because of the terms of TILMA that will put them in a position where

they are very reluctant to do the right thing, because they're concerned about

the implications, legal and other, for them in their jurisdictions.

It's wrong for the government to put local communities in that

place, and it's certainly wrong for the government to embrace a policy that is

totally contradictory to all of the musings of the Premier about climate change.

It will help to ensure that the climate change policies of the Premier, if

they're real, are in effect in any way, shape or form.

D. Chudnovsky: I am pleased to speak today in opposition to

this bill. I think that it is a tremendous error for us to go down this road.

I want to begin by saying I find it tremendously ironic that the

TILMA agreement itself was never brought to this House. What the government has

deigned to do is to bring the implementation mechanism for the TILMA, to this

House. The government enters into a trade agreement with the province of

Alberta, doesn't bring that bill to the House for debate, but does bring a bill

to the House which would allow individuals and corporations in Alberta to sue

the British Columbia government.

I note that there are members opposite who are smiling at the

irony. It is a tremendous irony that the substance of the agreement itself

doesn't get to the floor, but the implementation, which would put British

Columbians and British Columbia governments in jeopardy of being sued, is

brought to the floor.

The first question that needs to be asked is: what's the problem

that this legislation is going to solve? What is the problem? I didn't notice in

the newspapers over the last 15 or 20 years the trade war between Alberta and

British Columbia — the vicious trade war that is holding up development in

British Columbia and Alberta because of regulations that exist in one

jurisdiction or the other that causes harm to people and corporations and

entities in the other jurisdiction.

I didn't see the headline that said that the Alberta national

guard is massed at Blairmore, and the British Columbia irregulars are in Golden,

facing each other across this border, with guns and armoured personnel carriers

and that the war just needs a spark to begin. You need….

An Hon. Member: The wall fell.

D. Chudnovsky: The wall fell — right. There's this

tremendous wall that's standing on the border there at the continental divide

that needs to be knocked down.

If you have legislation like this, which potentially is going to

be hurtful to individuals, municipalities and governments in British Columbia,

then you better have a good reason for it. I would argue that this government

has not put forward any acceptable reason that would justify putting this

province in a situation where the negative effects of the TILMA might come into

effect.

[1140]

This is one of a number of initiatives that this government has

taken which further intrude and undermine the power and authority of municipal

governments in British Columbia. It's one of a series. That's why it's no

surprise that at the Union of B.C. Municipalities there was and continues to be

tremendous concern about this legislation and its potential impacts.

The argument is made often by those who support this legislation

and this kind of legislation that all it's doing is creating a level playing

field. That is the last thing that this does. It isn't about creating a level

playing field. It's about explicitly…. It's a much narrower test. The test is

the removal of obstacles to trade.

What are obstacles to trade? Obstacles to trade are,

overwhelmingly, the public policy actions that governments at the provincial and

the municipal level take. Those are obstacles to trade, and we are getting into

a situation where we're making ourselves vulnerable — at the provincial level,

at the municipal level and at the school board level — to charges that

legitimate public policy decisions made by democratically elected governments

are somehow obstacles to trade.

That is a tremendous, tremendous threat. It potentially undermines

the power of government. It potentially undermines the power of municipal

governments — all to solve a problem that doesn't exist. There is no trade war

between Alberta and British Columbia. I challenge the government to bring us the

dozens, the hundreds, the thousands of complaints that have been brought to them

by….

Interjections.

D. Chudnovsky: Pardon me?

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. P. Bell: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point

of privilege regarding the remarks made earlier by the member for Maple

Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Member continues.

[ Page 13096 ]

Debate Continued

D. Chudnovsky: I look forward to continuing just for a few

minutes, though I thought for a minute I'd been transported to the U.S. Congress

and that Joe McCarthy was sitting across from me. I thought for a minute that

that's what happened. Nonetheless, I think we are in British Columbia, and I

think it's 2008. It's not McCarthyite United States.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

D. Chudnovsky: Now, let me finish with one more comment.

There is another tremendous downside to this legislation, and it's this. It

allows, at the end of the day…. It calls, at the end of the day, for disputes to

be resolved by a trade tribunal.

In effect, what it does is put into private hands public

decision-making, which is tremendously important. If there is a dispute between

a corporation and the British Columbia government or a municipality in British

Columbia, there's an appropriate way to deal with that. The government might be

wrong. It might be right.

But if there is a dispute between a corporation and the British

Columbia government, there are two appropriate ways to deal with that. One of

them is to bring the dispute, the problem, to this House and to pass a law that

deals with the problem. The people who are accountable to the population pass a

law. The second appropriate way to deal with the dispute between a corporation

in Alberta or anywhere else and the British Columbia government or a

municipality in British Columbia is to send it to the courts. Those are the two

appropriate ways to deal with those kinds of disputes.

What this legislation does is put those disputes in the hands of a

private tribunal which is not accountable to the people and is not part of the

courts of British Columbia or Canada. That's a mistake. It is a withdrawal from

the democratic process. It's something that we shouldn't be doing.

I'll conclude my comments by saying there is no problem. There is

no trade war. There are no significant obstacles. If there were, they should be

brought to this House. They should be debated. They should be resolved. It's

undemocratic. We're against it.

[1145]

Deputy Speaker: Member, before I recognize you, I'm just

going to caution all members of the House to be a bit careful about the choice

of language.

C. Puchmayr: I rise here in opposition to this enabling

legislation. TILMA is such a crucial and important piece of legislation that can

affect so many municipalities and communities that it deserves a full debate, a

debate on the actual legislation itself, not only on the enabling legislation.

It's a debate that needs to be looked at, needs to go to committee

stage, needs to have an analysis and needs to have input from all the

stakeholders in British Columbia. All the stakeholders are communities and

municipalities. Municipalities have spoken out almost unanimously against TILMA,

and they have done so at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities

convention. School boards are greatly affected and can be greatly affected by

TILMA.

The fact is that enabling legislation that sets up an arbitrary

panel that will look at disputes of TILMA and can issue fines in the millions of

dollars for breaches of TILMA could virtually bankrupt a municipality that is

engaged in any type of activity that may be giving a local business a priority.

For instance, a local business may be doing regular work for a

school board or for a municipality, and then under TILMA, somebody from Alberta

can say: "I can come in there and do it for cheaper. You have to allow me to do

it. If you don't, I will take a charge against this municipality in the courts,

in the new quasi court that TILMA has set up."

You know, when you look at….

J. Les: It's good for taxpayers, though.

C. Puchmayr: The member across, the former Solicitor

General, says that it's good for taxpayers. Is it good for taxpayers when you

take businesses out of a community? Or when someone has struggled for years to

work within a community to contribute to that community, and suddenly, on the

basis of a challenge, may not be able to apply for that tender?

Just on the threat of a challenge, a municipality may decide that

it is too risky to go forward with the contract and that they will not pursue

what they have pursued in the past. That is dangerous for the community.

Then the other proponent can come in there and, once established,

can raise the prices and take competition right out of the play. That is the

case that has happened so often in trade deals.

Here's what Alberta's Minister of International and

Intergovernmental Relations, Gary Mar, told the Richmond Chamber of Commerce in

June of '06. His quote, with regards to the TILMA dispute process was that

everything Canadian businesses have asked for, we have in TILMA. Everything that

Canadian businesses have asked for are in TILMA. There wasn't any consultation.

All of the Canadian businesses are happy and elated and pleased

with TILMA. The grass roots of a municipality, a school board, the UBCM…. The

hundreds of people, the thousands of people that are involved in municipal

politics are shocked that this legislation is coming forward — absolutely

shocked and concerned. They're absolutely concerned.

The members on the other side sit there, and they just continue to

rubber-stamp initiatives that this government brings on that take away the

democratic rights of the grass roots of the local communities. They continue to

chip away at the democratic rights of communities.

They're taking their powers away from them over and over and over

again. They've done it with municipalities with respect to independent power.

They're doing it

[ Page 13097 ]

with TILMA. They're imposing something on municipalities that could put them

in a legal position that could cost them significantly in an increase in taxes

to pay for a legal ruling against them.

[1150]

Another group that really likes TILMA is the Canadian Council of

Chief Executives. They sent a letter to the Premier and to Ralph Klein saying

that they're making an economic agreement that goes further than any other

government in Canada to tearing down the barriers that too long have stifled

economic growth and competitiveness in the country.

I didn't see any problem with competitiveness across the border. I

can still bank in Alberta. I can put my money in Alberta.

You know, over a decade ago, Madam Speaker, the interprovincial

boundaries of trade came down. That was over a decade ago. Those boundaries were

already removed. Those boundaries were implemented from the federal government,

and they were imposed on provinces across Canada. They created the way that we

do business across the borders.

To have this legislation come in after the fact — legislation such

as this, which is going to put pressure on municipalities and impose a position

on municipalities — is absolutely unacceptable. The manner that this side does

it over and over again — without proper debate, without looking at it point by

point, without going through the policies point by point — is absolutely

unacceptable. It is absolutely unacceptable in a democratic society to have this

type of legislation imposed on citizens of British Columbia, on municipalities

of British Columbia and on school boards of British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It's called the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. I

don't see any barriers to investment. I don't see them at all, other than the

fact that somebody can come in and impose a contract on a municipality. Other

than that, there are no barriers on investment.

Alberta companies come here all the time and work. Companies from

Germany come here and work. Companies from Italy come here and work. Are there

barriers on them? Absolutely not.

Labour mobility. You know, they talk about labour mobility. The

other side has to look at why there are certain restrictions with regards to

labour mobility. There are colleges in different disciplines that have rules.

There is a national college in many disciplines that has rules and regulations

that apply nationally, and they apply them to keep an extremely high standard of

delivery of service in that field.

It's understandable to have a national college that makes sure we

have the delivery of those services, such as doctors and nurses, in the highest

degree that is available to the citizens who are the users of that service.

I know people…. As a matter of fact, recently people in Mackenzie

were told to go over to Alberta to work because of the destruction of the lumber

industry in the Mackenzie region. People from all over British Columbia are

leaving in droves right now to go to Alberta and work because this government is

destroying jobs through the forest policies — meaningful, value-added jobs in

British Columbia.

Is there a restriction now? We haven't even passed this

legislation. Is there a restriction now? Are those people being stopped at the

border and told: "No, take your millwright ticket and go back to British

Columbia"? No, not at all. They are going across the border. They are leaving

for Alberta. There's no restriction.

As a matter of fact, Alberta companies are coming here. They were

in Nanaimo just recently at the Harmac mill with a job fair trying to get B.C.

workers to come to Alberta. Gee, but TILMA…? This is before TILMA. There are no

restrictions. There are no labour mobility restrictions with workers who are

leaving British Columbia in droves under the watch of this government and going

to Alberta. There are no restrictions.

People going to work in Fort McMurray who have worked in our oil

and gas industry and are going to the Alberta oil and gas industry — is there a

restriction to them? People that are working in banks in British Columbia and

want to work in a bank in Alberta where there is maybe some cheaper real estate

— is there a restriction to them? No, absolutely not.

[1155]

It may be that in some accounting fields there are, but that's the

national college that deals with that. It doesn't need this type of enabling

legislation and this quasi-kangaroo tribunal that is going to be set up, which

is exempt from the Supreme Court of Canada. Unless there's a massive error in

law, they're able to impose penalties on municipalities, on citizens, on the

taxpayers in our community — on the government, which is the taxpayer of British

Columbia. Maybe the minister doesn't understand that. There's only one pocket,

and it's the taxpayer. This could impose it.

Interjection.

C. Puchmayr: As the member says, they lower taxes, but they

raised user fees in almost every capacity. Again, it's the shell game. They take

taxes away from here, and then they double your medical premiums, they double

your tuition premiums, and they go around boasting that they've lowered taxes.

They haven't lowered taxes, Mr. Speaker. Not at all.

This is enabling legislation that is unnecessary. Even in

Saskatchewan…. I mean, Saskatchewan just elected a right-wing government. They

said that they didn't want to engage in TILMA, because it affects the provincial

Crown and municipalities. Well, isn't that something. You would think that the

new government in Saskatchewan would just be embracing TILMA right now, but do

you know what? They're concerned about their municipalities. They're concerned

about the jurisdiction of the provincial Crown.

So if that isn't a signal here that something is wrong with this

legislation, that certainly sets it up.

[ Page 13098 ]

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

C. Puchmayr: Mr. Speaker, I'll note the hour in a second.

I'll continue on after the debate. But I want to say that I am

really concerned with this legislation. I think that it needs to be addressed. I

think every stakeholder needs to be brought to the table — not just the business

community but labour, municipalities, school boards. All need to come to the

table to look at whether or not there really is a need for this type of

legislation. If common sense prevailed, it would be seen that there is no need.

Noting the hour, I reserve the right to continue my debate after

lunch.

Mr. Speaker: Member, move adjournment of the debate,

please.

C. Puchmayr moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Thorpe moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

On Vote 39: ministry operations, $617,580,000 .

Hon. J. van Dongen: I understand that the member opposite

wants to start with questions about the B.C. Lottery Corporation. I just would

like to introduce my staff. On my left is Deputy Minister David Morhart. On my

right is the president and CEO of B.C. Lottery Corporation, Michael Graydon.

Behind me is Derek Sturko, the director of the gaming policy and enforcement

branch, and behind Michael is Tom Williamson, the chief financial officer of

B.C. Lottery Corporation.

I'll turn it over to the member opposite.

[1010]

H. Lali: We know that there's money laundering going on in

British Columbia's casinos. My question is to the minister. Does the minister

think that four years is a reasonable time to respond to an FOI request?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I do want to correct the record. Derek

Sturko is the assistant deputy minister of the gaming policy and enforcement

branch.

In answer to the member's question, I want to start out by talking

about the legislation. The freedom-of-information and personal privacy

legislation sets out a number of requirements for our professional civil service

who have the job of vetting applications. That gives them a number of duties

that require them, sometimes, to notify third parties. It requires them to

remove any information that is considered personal and private under the act.

In this case, the application was a very substantial application —

approximately 3,000 pages, as I understand it — and through the process, there

was a third party that got involved, expressing their interest in the

application. There was a significant amount of mediation and other process

through the Office the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Because of a range of issues, certainly, the application took a

significant period of time to process. From my point of view, our philosophy is

that subject to the requirements of the act, we would like to see applications

processed as expeditiously as possible.

H. Lali: I don't think the minister has answered my

question. I pose the question to the minister again. Does he believe that four

years is a reasonable amount of time to act upon an FOI request? No matter how

long it is, it doesn't take four years. I'd like to ask the minister again: does

he believe that four years is a reasonable amount of time to act upon an FOI

request?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This particular application, as I

understand it, is the longest one the ministry has had. It was also the largest

request that the ministry has had. It spanned a number of years in terms of the

documents — as I've said, very significant documents.

It involved a fair bit of time and process within the Office of

the Privacy Commissioner. I think, as the member indicates, it's not ideal to

have an application go for four years. As I said, we have many

freedom-of-information requests, and all of them are processed quicker than

that.

H. Lali: In his first answer the minister stated that third

parties had to be notified. Could he tell this committee what third parties had

to be notified?

[1015]

[ Page 13099 ]

Hon. J. van Dongen: Under the act, staff have an obligation

to notify certain types of third parties. In this case, they had an obligation

to notify all casino operators. They did that, and they got responses from two

casinos that sought to be involved in the process, as I understand it, as

interveners. Great Canadian Casinos and Gateway Casinos were the two operators

that got involved in the process of this application.

H. Lali: I'd like to ask the Solicitor General: when did

the Solicitor General actually first learn that B.C.'s casinos are being used by

organized crime to launder money? At the same time, when did the minister first

become aware that the request actually took four years to respond to?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In terms of the question about money

laundering, there have been allegations around over time about the possibility

of money laundering around gaming facilities. The gaming policy and enforcement

branch and B.C. Lottery Corporation have been aware of those. They report out on

them. They have processes and procedures in place to deal with those

possibilities.

In terms of the FOI request, the CBC report and that specific

information, I became aware of that about two weeks ago.

H. Lali: How did the minister become aware of this? How was

he informed? Who informed him?

Hon. J. van Dongen: My ministerial assistant.

[1020]

H. Lali: Did the ministerial assistant inform the minister

before the matter was raised in the media, or was it after it was raised in the

media?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I recall, it was a couple of days

before it came out in the media.

H. Lali: So the minister was aware a couple of days before

it came out in the media. Why did the minister not take any steps to actually

make this issue public and have to wait until the media had brought this matter

to his attention?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In answer to the member's question, I

knew that information had gone out. I did not have any of that information. I

assumed that if the CBC had any questions or public comment, they would make

those in due course. I didn't have the information. I knew that 3,000 pages of

documents had gone out.

H. Lali: The Solicitor General has just admitted on the

record that he was made aware that 3,000 pages of documents had gone out, but

basically he has implied that he did not know the details of the issue. I find

it a little bit difficult to believe that any minister in this government, when

they are informed that 3,000 pages of documents have gone out, would not ask for

further details as to what was contained in those documents.

I'll give the minister another chance to answer the question. What

details did the minister learn about the issue a couple of days prior to it

becoming known in the media that this FOI, freedom-of-information request was

filled, had gone out? What details did the minister learn at that time, a couple

of days…? I find it unimaginable that the minister would not ask the ministerial

assistant what was contained in those 3,000 pages of documents. It wasn't just

one page or two pages. It was 3,000 pages.

[1025]

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to restate the fact that

freedom-of-information requests go through a process through the public service.

There are staff whose specific duty it is to process freedom-of-information

requests. The minister does not see those. The minister is not involved in

those; neither are any staff in the minister's office.

We did not know the details of what went out. We knew that a

request went out. When I became aware of that, I certainly got briefings on the

role of the B.C. Lottery Corporation in these matters, the role of the gaming

policy and enforcement branch and the kinds of procedures and protocols that are

in place.

The member should be aware that the request included a very, very

wide range of documents, including a lot of broader information. It wasn't just

the one specific piece of information that ultimately came into the media.

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

ministerial assistant?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The name of my ministerial assistant is

a matter for the public record. His name is Brian Sims.

H. Lali: Just for the record, I just want to reiterate my

question. Was that the first time that the minister received a briefing on this

FOI request on the money-laundering issue?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Yes.

H. Lali: Will the minister table that briefing note that he

received from Mr. Sims?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I received a verbal briefing on these

issues at the time.

H. Lali: Would the minister tell this committee the

explanation given by his ministerial assistant as to the four-year delay?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The briefing that I received at the

time really encompassed four areas — the role of the B.C. Lottery Corporation;

the role of the gaming policy and enforcement branch; the role of the federal

agency known as FINTRAC, an independent federal agency; and the role of the

public service staff that deal with freedom-of-information requests within the

ministry.

[ Page 13100 ]

H. Lali: This is the most urgent matter in the Ministry of

the Solicitor General. I'd like to again ask the minister…. After a four-year

delay for the FOI request that was put forward by the media, obviously, there

was some reason why it was delayed for four years, other than the explanation

that the minister has given.

The minister says that the only briefing that he got was a verbal

one from his ministerial assistant. There was no written briefing. It was a

verbal briefing, yet the ministerial assistant does not talk to the minister

about the seriousness of the nature of the request for FOI, which is money

laundering and fraud going on at the casinos in British Columbia. That's how

serious this matter is. It's the most serious matter on the lap of the minister

right now, and the minister wants this committee to believe that there were no

details discussed.

[1030]

I'll give the minister a chance again to tell this committee what

the details of the request and the briefing were and to inform this House. What

were the details, and was he concerned?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to assure the member, with

respect, that I've been dealing with many high-priority urgent issues in the

ministry. The issue of money laundering is a great concern to our government.

Under the Gaming Control Act that was passed by our government in 2002, the

integrity of our gaming operations is the highest priority. Money laundering and

other similar activities are a concern — a major concern.

But I suggest to the member that if he looks at the 2005-2006

Auditor General's report, which was a routine audit done of our gaming

operations — the B.C. Lottery Corporation's gaming policy and enforcement branch

— it certainly indicated generally that the government was fulfilling the

mandate of the act to properly manage risks within our gaming operations.

The concern that came out of the CBC report is a specific concern

about a specific type of transaction known as suspicious currency transactions,

involving reports to FINTRAC. Along with all of the other procedures and

protocols that are in place, it forms part of a comprehensive

anti-money-laundering program that is implemented not only by BCLC, which sets

operating policy, but by registered workers in our gaming operations. The casino

operators themselves, B.C. Lottery Corporation, the gaming policy and

enforcement branch provincially and FINTRAC federally all have regulatory

responsibilities in this area.

So this is an issue that we do take seriously in terms of both the

general overall concern around money laundering and the potential for that

around gaming operations. We did take seriously the specific question that came

up about reporting, which came out of the CBC report.

H. Lali: When the minister received his verbal briefing a

couple of days before the issue became public, were any of these four gentlemen

— the senior staff at B.C. Lottery Corporation or the gaming policy and

enforcement branch, or any other official from either BCLC or GPEB —

accompanying Mr. Sims, your ministerial assistant? Were they present when you

received that briefing?

[1035]

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I recall, it was my ministerial

assistant who indicated that a significant freedom-of-information request had

gone out to the media. Subsequent to that, I invited ministry staff to brief me

on the various roles, as I've said to the member, of BCLC, the gaming policy and

enforcement branch and the policy framework that we had in place, and the role

of FINTRAC — those sorts of things.

H. Lali: The minister indicates that subsequent to the

discussion with Mr. Sims, the MA…. He talked to some of the ministry staff

following that. I mean, a gentle nod will be okay. Am I correct? Yes.

How soon after the discussion with Mr. Sims did you talk to

ministry staff, and could you name the ministry staff that you talked to,

please?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I recall, within one or two days I

talked to my deputy minister, David Morhart, and assistant deputy minister Derek

Sturko, who is responsible for the gaming policy and enforcement branch.

H. Lali: The minister had indicated in an earlier question

that it was a couple of days before the issue became public that the ministerial

assistant informed the Solicitor General about the FOI request. In answer to the

question, "Which ministry staff did he meet with?" he said that it was one or

two days.

Would the minister please inform this committee: did you meet with

the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister before the issue became

public, or was it after the issue became public?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I recall, it was before the issue

became public.

H. Lali: That is a significant release of information,

because during question period, subsequent to the issue becoming public through

the media, the minister is on record as stating that he knew nothing about this

issue and that he would find out what was necessary to make that information

public.

That is a significant development here, because he led the House

to believe that there was no discussion, that he did not know about the issue

but that he would endeavour to find out whatever he could. The minister just

said on record that it was one or two days after the discussion with Mr. Sims.

Obviously, it was before the issue became public and also the question period

question had taken place.

Could the minister tell me: which one of your senior deputies,

assistant deputies — the four gentlemen that are present here today — is

actually responsible for either knowing about or dealing with FOI requests that

come forward to the Ministry of Solicitor General?

[1040]

[ Page 13101 ]

Hon. J. van Dongen: Just to clarify for the member. The

briefings I received were very general in nature. They involved the policy

framework, the procedures, how things worked and who was responsible for what.

Because I did not have specific knowledge of the information, I also at that

point had no knowledge of what might come out in the media.

In terms of his question about who is responsible for the

freedom-of-information process, the staff — the public servants who process the

freedom-of-information request — ultimately report to the deputy minister.

H. Lali: Would the Solicitor General tell this committee if

the deputy minister had a chance to look at the 3,000-page report that went out

under the FOI request and if the deputy minister was aware of the full details

of the request regarding money laundering?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I just want to confirm for the member

that I've never seen the documents. The person ultimately responsible for the

release of the documents is the deputy minister. He signed off the package for

release also without seeing the documents. He relied on staff in the

freedom-of-information office. They're the professional staff within the

ministry whose duty it is to review any application. He relied on their

professional expertise, and he signed off the release of the package.

H. Lali: I find it absolutely incredible that this being

the most urgent issue that is before the minister regarding the B.C. Lottery

Corporation, there is a four-year delay in releasing the FOI request to the

media that had been made four years earlier and contains damaging information to

this government and to the B.C. Lottery Corporation. It took four years to

develop this because they had to, as the minister said, talk to third parties

and had to go through the privacy protection act as well, in terms of protecting

the people's personal information.

All of those had been around the ministry for four years. The

deputy minister is responsible for this. That the deputy minister would just

sign off on a 3,000-page document without having to read it or be informed by

anybody else as to what is contained in it and just blindly trust the people

working on it, to say: "I'm signing off on something that took four years to

release. I'm going to finally release it." That the deputy minister would not

know what was contained in there….

Again, I would ask the Solicitor General: what did the deputy

minister know at that time in terms of what was contained in this very, very

damaging FOI request that went out only two days before it hit the media?

[1045]

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again for the member, under the Freedom

of Information and Privacy Act the ministry is compelled to release the

information that is the subject of the request, subject to legal obligations in

terms of personal privacy and various other requirements under the act that

professional staff have the obligation to review prior to release.

The deputy minister has no role in reviewing the documents other

than to confirm that he believes that staff have appropriately followed the act

in the release of the information. He simply signs off the release of the

package. As I've said, the minister's office has no role in that process.

H. Lali: I think the hon. minister meant the deputy

minister has no role, because the question was directed about the deputy

minister.

A Voice: Yes.

H. Lali: If the deputy minister has no role to read the

report, then who under the deputy minister has the role to actually read that

report before it goes to the deputy minister for sign-off or release?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I just want to emphasize for the member

that it was not a report that was released. It was a collection of documents

based on a request over a time period that spanned from sometime in 1997 to

2004. So it was a very significant compilation of

section 86 reports, which are

standard reports under the act to the gaming policy and enforcement branch, with

copies to B.C. Lottery.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Again, it's the professional freedom-of-information staff in the

ministry. It is not their duty to necessarily read the documents. Their duty is

to release those documents, to follow the process laid out in the act whereby

they find all the documents. They locate all of the documents within government.

Sometimes they can be in different places, though in this case they're all

section 86 reports.

They have to locate the documents and identify all the documents,

and then they have to go through them from the point of view of ensuring that

all the requirements of the act are met. That includes certain deletions that

are legally required of the staff to identify and process.

[1050]

H. Lali: It's not the deputy minister's role to read the

FOI documents that go out as per request, and it's not the role of anybody

underneath the deputy minister to "necessarily read the report." Those are the

minister's words. It's not their role necessarily to read that.

I'd like to ask the minister: whose role is it in the Solicitor

General's ministry to actually read the FOI request document before it goes to

the deputy minister for sign-off for release? There's got to be somebody within

the ministry whose role it is to actually read something before it goes out.

Could the minister please provide the answer to this question:

whose role is it, and what are the names of those individuals whose role it is

to actually read those documents?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to reiterate and clarify for the

member that it's the job of the professional staff

[ Page 13102 ]

in the freedom-of-information and personal privacy

section of the ministry to

process applications. To do that, they go through each document line by line

with a view to ensuring that all of the requirements of the act are met. That is

their purpose in going through the documents.

To clarify, they do read the documents. They read them line by

line but with the strict purpose of ensuring that their duties under the act are

met in terms of protection of private interests and all the requirements of the

act.

In terms of the normal course of business of government, it is the

role of the gaming policy and enforcement branch to review

section 86 reports as

they come in from casino operations. That is an important function under the act

for the gaming policy and enforcement branch. So there are staff in the ministry

that on a day-to-day basis review those reports.

H. Lali: Once the minister became aware of this issue, did

the Solicitor General discuss it with anyone in the Premier's office?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I don't recall that I did.

H. Lali: Does the minister not recall he did, or did the

minister not actually talk to anybody in the Premier's office?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I didn't talk to anybody in the

Premier's office. That's my recollection. If the member wants to split hairs, I

don't think I did.

H. Lali: I'm not trying to split hairs. First off, the

minister says he doesn't recall, and now he says: "I don't think I did."

Did you talk to anybody in the Premier's office, or did you not

talk to anybody in the Premier's office after you learned of this issue?

[1055]

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member, please.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I didn't talk to anyone in the

Premier's office. That's my recollection.

H. Lali: Did anybody in the minister's office, his

ministerial staff — Mr. Sims or anyone who works for the minister in this

minister's office — talk to anyone in the Premier's office after the minister

learned of this issue?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm not aware whether they did or not.

H. Lali: Then would the minister like to tell me: was there

anybody…? The deputy minister or the president and CEO of BCLC or the assistant

deputy minister for GPEB or the chair of the B.C. Lottery Corp — did any one of

these four gentlemen talk to anybody in the Premier's office after learning of

this information?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I am advised by staff that no, they

didn't.

H. Lali: Did any one of the gentlemen that I mentioned or

Mr. Sims or any ministerial staff who work in the minister's office here in the

legislative building…? Did anybody talk to anyone in the Premier's office before

the minister was briefed by Mr. Sims and after this whole issue became public in

the media?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can't specifically confirm that, but

they may have talked to someone in the Premier's office.

H. Lali: Did the Solicitor General actually discuss this

issue with anyone in central communications?

Hon. J. van Dongen: No.

H. Lali: Did any one of the individuals whose positions I

mentioned earlier, in the last two or three questions…? Did any one of the

people I mentioned talk to anyone in central communications regarding this

particular issue?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, I can't confirm for the member,

but someone may have talked to central communications about the issue.

H. Lali: The minister can't confirm. But would the minister

tell the committee who is most likely to actually talk to somebody in central

communications about this issue?

[1100]

Hon. J. van Dongen: Just to confirm for the member, we do

have a communications staff within the ministry who report to the public affairs

bureau on matters involving the ministry. They serve both the ministry and the

minister's office.

H. Lali: Then perhaps the minister would like to confirm:

what advice did he or his ministry get from the…? What advice did he get from

the communications department on this particular issue?

The Chair: Member, I would advise you that we are on Vote

39. If you can keep your questions relevant to Vote 39 or how they relate

towards 39.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I had indicated to the member, I

received briefings from my deputy minister and from the assistant deputy

minister responsible for the gaming policy and enforcement branch. That was the

kind of information I received prior to the CBC releasing certain information

and asking questions publicly.

When the CBC asked specific questions about reporting by B.C.

Lottery Corporation to FINTRAC, then we dealt with those issues. That's when I

decided to meet with the board of directors. I did have a meeting

[ Page 13103 ]

with them last Friday, and we received, subsequent to that, the letter that I

released yesterday from the board of directors of B.C. Lottery Corporation.

H. Lali: I was wondering. The minister talked about the

briefings that he has received from the deputy minister and the assistant deputy

minister. Would the minister table those briefing documents to this committee or

to the House?

[1105]

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said, the briefings I received

prior to the CBC reports becoming public were around roles and responsibilities;

they were around policies and procedures. All of that information is on both the

ministry website and the B.C. Lottery Corp website.

H. Lali: I think the minister may have answered this

question. I was reading something, so I kind of lost track. I was wondering if

the minister could confirm whether he has met with the lotteries' board yet.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I did meet with the board of directors

of B.C. Lottery Corporation last Friday.

H. Lali: In the House the minister had indicated a couple

of weeks back — it might have been a little longer — that when he meets with the

board of directors he would actually…. After he received the briefing and had

the meeting, he would make that information public. I believe he said there was

a letter that went out yesterday. Would the minister, if he has a copy, or his

staff provide the opposition with one right now so I may have a chance to look

at it? I haven't got a copy of it.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The letter from the chair of the board

of directors was tabled yesterday in the Legislature, and I'd be happy to

provide the member a copy.

H. Lali: In his meeting with the board of directors of the

B.C. Lottery Corporation, was the Solicitor General given a brief by anyone from

the board regarding why it took four years — four years — to fulfil a

freedom-of-information request from his ministry related to money laundering?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In my meeting with the board of

directors of B.C. Lottery Corporation, the issue of the freedom-of-information

request was not discussed. We discussed the substantive issues around money

laundering generally and reporting to FINTRAC specifically.

Again, the freedom-of-information request came to the ministry and

was processed by the ministry and, more specifically, by the staff whose

particular duty it is to process those requests within the ministry.

H. Lali: So let me get this correct. We have the most

urgent matter in the Ministry of the Solicitor General that is going on right

now. The minister in the House said that he was going to meet with the board of

directors of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, which he did. He's tabled the letter.

Thank you very much for actually sending a copy of that over here.

This whole issue comes out of this request that is four years old.

It's been sitting there in file 13 or somewhere where it's been passed around

back and forth — Lord knows who to and where from. The minister says on the

record here today that he did not at that meeting with the board of directors

discuss why it took so long, four years, to act upon the freedom-of-information

request. Am I correct?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, I want to stress that all of the

documents, every single page of documents, came from the ministry, who processed

the freedom-of-information request.

[1110]

What we dealt with at the meeting with the board of directors were

the substantive issues, as I said, of money laundering generally and, in

particular, the details of the reporting relationship and the substance of the

reporting over time to the federal agency known as FINTRAC.

H. Lali: So has the Solicitor General met with or talked to

the CEO of B.C. Lottery Corporation regarding why it took four years to fill

this freedom-of-information request?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, B.C. Lottery Corporation was not

the source of any of the documents. They were involved as a third party, as the

two casino operations were. But again, the whole process is handled by

professional staff within the ministry. The CEO of Lottery Corporation did

attend the meeting with the board of directors that I had last Friday.

H. Lali: Okay. Let me ask the minister another question.

Has the Solicitor General met with the chairman or asked the chairman of the

board of directors of B.C. Lottery Corporation why it took four years to fulfil

a freedom-of-information request from the media?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The chairman of the board of directors

did chair the meeting last Friday, and again, B.C. Lottery Corporation had no

role in the processing of the freedom-of-information request. It was the

ministry staff within my ministry who had the responsibility and have the duty

to process all freedom-of-information requests to our ministry under the act.

H. Lali: All right, then. Then has the minister talked to

the deputy minister about why it took four years to fill the

freedom-of-information request?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I did discuss the issue of the time

frame for the freedom-of-information request with my deputy minister and

certainly sought to understand why it took as long as it did. I have in previous

answers explained to the member why it took the amount of time it did.

Certainly, I've emphasized with the deputy minister, and I've said publicly,

that subject to the legal

[ Page 13104 ]

obligations that are imposed on our staff under the act, it's my expectation

that we process any freedom-of-information request as expeditiously as possible.

H. Lali: Could the minister tell me, then, when it was that

he actually talked to the deputy minister and what advice he gave specifically —

not in general terms but specifically — as to why it took so long? And if he

didn't, would the minister now ask the deputy minister, who's sitting right

beside him, why it took four years to fill that freedom-of-information request

and inform this committee.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, as I've explained to the member

in earlier answers, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act puts certain

legal obligations on the professional staff that we have within the ministry

whose duty it is to process freedom-of-information requests. They have

significant duties to consider all of the sections of the act.

As I said, in this particular case it involved documents over a

very long period of time, about 1997 to 2004. It involved a number of third

parties that had to be consulted, that had legal rights under the act, and it

involved a very significant quantity of material. That was the explanation that

I was given. It also included significant time frames that involved process

within the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, such as mediation

between the parties involved.

[1115]

The Chair: Could I remind all members to direct their

questions through the Chair.

H. Lali: Hon. Chair, I'm finding this a little incredible

here. No wonder British Columbia is going to hell in a handbasket under this

Liberal government.

No one in this Liberal government talks to anyone in this Liberal

government, and no one knows what the heck is going on in this particular issue

or others. Surely the Solicitor Gen