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

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

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

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

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

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

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

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

Supplementary Question

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

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

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

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

Answer

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

In response to the recently leaked Canada’s Changing Climate Report,our caucus issued the following media statement today.

Media Release

BC Green Caucus: Response to Canada’s Changing Climate Report
For immediate release
April 2, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – “This report continues to tell the same story of our planet’s warming that science has demonstrated consistently and invariantly for the last 30 years, and our politicians continue to be as willfully blind to the evidence before them now as they were then,” said Dr. Andrew Weaver, leader of the BC Greens and award-winning lead author of four United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. “Now more than ever it is critical that politicians advance policies that are informed by this evidence and chart a path forward. Progressive parties don’t rely on increased investments in fossil fuel infrastructure for their economic vision.

“The time for using major natural gas developments as a ‘transition fuel’ has passed. If we’d gotten our act together in the ‘90s it could have worked, but we didn’t. Now we need to pull the emergency brake and reduce our emissions starting immediately. Investing in major fossil fuel infrastructure that will pollute from 2023 through 2063, in light of all the evidence, is indefensible.”

-30-

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

Yesterday in the legislature Bill 10, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019 was being debated at committee stage.

As I noted during my second reading speech, if enacted, this bill would repeal the LNG Income Tax Act as amended in April 2015, as well as the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act. The bill also creates yet another tax credit for the natural gas sector.

During committee deliberations yesterday I took the opportunity to unpack an outrageous government claim that LNG Canada would be committed to hiring locals. Well to no surprise to those of us who have been following this for a while, there is no such requirement. In fact, and further, government has no tools at its disposal to insist that LNG Canada preferentially hire British Columbians during the construction phase.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my exchange with the Finance Minister.

We will resume committee stage debates today.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I’ve been listening quite attentively, trying to get some information with respect to the jobs, because I have clearly witnessed the same language that was emanated from government, as well as LNG Canada. “We’re going to be hiring British Columbians.”

I know for a fact that right now Boskalis is dredging in Kitimat, and I know for a fact that Boskalis uses a Newfoundland company to bring in employees. That is a distance from LNG Canada, and I know for a fact that those employees are not from British Columbia. I know for a fact that those employees that were from British Columbia did not last very long on the Boskalis dredge because they were summarily fired for raising safety issues.

I come back to what the member for Abbotsford West was suggesting. Is the minister saying that she has no mechanism at all to ensure that any of these jobs are actually for British Columbia citizens other than the goodwill of LNG Canada because they said they’re going to try?

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question. I think we’ve spoken about a great deal of this over the last few hours but happy to run through it again.

We have, as I said, a job strategy with LNG Canada, a commitment around the support that will be there for local hire first, including apprentices on this project. The job numbers, as I said, we have built in when it comes to assumptions around revenue — very conservative numbers. But we certainly expect thousands of jobs for British Columbians.

I can’t speak to the specifics that the member raises. I’m happy to take that information and have that conversation. But as I said, the local hire first, including the requirements around contractors using local hire first, is a very important piece that is in place. The contractor is bound by that local hire first, which I think, again, is a very important factor in making a decision around whether local jobs are going to be in place.

Then, again, there’s the work that’s already being done in Kitimat and the number of locals — 600 people — already working since December. You know, over 45 percent of those were from Kitimat alone, in that area. That’s, again, showing the support that needs to be in place for these jobs.

A. Weaver: I recognize that that’s been read in a couple of times to the record. My very specific question is this: is there a single mechanism that the government has to ensure that the jobs will be from B.C. — yes or no?

Hon. C. James: The answer is the jobs strategy, put together and negotiated with LNG Canada and negotiated together, which requires local first, which requires the contractors to also be utilizing the local first, which requires apprentices and makes a commitment around the dollars that have already been put in place by LNG Canada.

A. Weaver: So we now have an LNG jobs plan. What are the ramifications for LNG Canada if that document is ignored? Does the government have any teeth to that document — yes or no?

Hon. C. James: I think the biggest strategy is making sure that this project is successful. That is a commitment that not only we have as government but obviously LNG Canada has when it comes to their investment. The fact that they have a number of contracts with communities across the pipeline strengthens that kind of commitment as well.

A. Weaver: Again, coming back to the question, the question was: does government have a single measure to actually ensure that British Columbians are hired — yes or no?

Hon. C. James: I think I’ve answered that question. Again, the commitment is the four conditions that we put in place. The commitment is the agreement by LNG Canada to meet those four conditions and the commitment to the people of British Columbia to follow through on that.

A. Weaver: With respect, there is a duty in committee stage to get answers, to get answers to questions. The question was very simple. There is a jobs plan. I understand that. Let us suppose LNG Canada ignores that. What avenues, what teeth, does government have that will ensure that LNG Canada does make sure they hire British Columbians first?

The reason why I raise that is that the minister said that what’s critical is the success of this project. How do you define success? Well, success involves triple bottom line. There’s a social aspect to that, and one of those is hiring British Columbians. Because both the minister and the Premier, and several others, were very proud that this was going to bring 10,000 jobs.

Yet I come back to the question, and I think we are owed an answer to this: does government have any mechanism — yes or no? — to ensure that LNG Canada actually hires local? This is not a difficult question, and in this chamber, it is a duty and a responsibility of government to provide a yes or no answer to this question. I’m afraid it is not acceptable to pivot off to some kind of loosely worded commitment letter, which has no legal standing. I would like to know what legal tools this government has to ensure that British Columbians are hired first, because they said they would.

I’ve offered you one specific example, the example of Boskalis, a dredger up there that uses a contractor to get labour in Newfoundland. That labour is coming from all across Canada and elsewhere. It is not coming from British Columbia, and I know that for a fact, because I know people who were fired for raising safety issues.

What metrics does government have to ensure that LNG Canada is hiring British Columbians?

Hon. C. James: I know the member wants a simple yes-or-no answer, and I’m not being obstructionist. I’m being upfront with the member about the process that was utilized to come to our four conditions that had to be met by LNG Canada.

This was a back-and-forth process. This was a discussion around how important it was to meet the commitments, how important it was to reach these four conditions, how critical they were to us as a government and critical to British Columbians, we feel. I talked about the four conditions. One of those are jobs for British Columbians.

We did go back and forth around the letter. We did go back and forth around a strategy on jobs. We did go back and forth around the climate action and the importance of making sure that we address that in part of our CleanBC. We did go back and forth around First Nations and a real partnership with First Nations.

Again, on the jobs piece, the member has the copy of the letter. He will make his determination about whether that, from his perspective, holds LNG Canada to meet these commitments or not.

But, certainly, from our perspective as government, when you are taking a look at a project this large, when you are taking a look at the kind of investment that’s there, when you are taking a look at the reputation of the company coming in to do a long-term project in British Columbia, and when you’re taking a look at the fact that this project will not be successful unless the communities are engaged and taking part….

I think it’s part of the example that we’ve seen with the work that they did with First Nations along the pipeline. Again, we’ve seen many projects that have not come forward in British Columbia because they did not build that community partnership. They did not, in fact, engage the communities.

This is a very different project from that perspective. They have engaged the communities, and those communities will be critical for them to be able to be successful in this project. Therefore, as I said, we feel that the jobs strategy provides that support.

A. Weaver: I’m getting a little frustrated. I’ve asked a very simple question. What tools does government have at its disposal to ensure that the company follows through with its intention to actually hire British Columbians? I’m not asking for all the rhetoric around “my four conditions.” I’m asking for the specific tools that the government can use.

I’m asking the same question, and I recognize I’ve asked it several times. I have not got an answer to this question. I have got rhetoric about other stuff. The question is very direct and very simple. What tools does a government have at its disposal to ensure that the letter that they’re trusting LNG Canada to do is used to ensure that British Columbians are hired?

The minister can just say we don’t have any, and that’s fine. But I think she owes it to this chamber here to say what those tools are. Failing to do so, I think, frankly, is not what we’re meant to do at committee stage. We need answers to provide further guidance to the people of British Columbia.

Hon. C. James: I think that the biggest tool that government has is the success or non-success of the project. From my perspective, that is the biggest tool that is in place. In order to have the success or non-success of the project, it requires a relationship. It requires negotiations. It requires building that between the partners.

In fact, if you will speak to the Premier, I know he’ll also make those kind of comments around the work that that took to get to this place. The success of the project, from my perspective, and those relationships and the negotiations are the critical tools that government continues to have in this project.

A. Weaver: This is very frustrating, because now we have a circular argument. The success of the project is defined by bringing jobs to British Columbians, and the tools that the government has available to it are the success of the project. That’s a classic chicken and the egg. What is it? Is the project successful by definition, because they’re bringing it in? Therefore, it must have people in B.C.? It just doesn’t make sense. Clearly, the only take-home message I can have from this exchange is government has no tools.

What the statements are about hiring British Columbians is nothing short of unsubstantiated political rhetoric that, frankly, British Columbians should have cleared up. It’s quite embarrassing that this government would suggest to British Columbians that they’re going to be hiring British Columbians.

I’ve given you one example. The only example that I know of that is actually ongoing now, the dredging, where that company, Boskalis, is hiring a contractor in Newfoundland. The employees up there are not from B.C. Some of them are from Newfoundland, some from the oil patch, some temporary foreign from the Netherlands. And government has yet to provide any information as to how they’re going to ensure B.C. jobs.

But it gets worse than this. My final question on this: has the minister actually suggested that their four criteria were met? They never actually once, since prior to the 2017 election campaign, defined what those criteria were. What does it mean to say that it fits within our climate targets? What does it mean to say that truth and reconciliation has been looked at? What does it mean to say that it’s a good deal for British Columbia?

In essence, the question is, then, this. Why has the minister not, at any point in the last two years, at any time, ever once, put up metrics that would say: “These are how we’re defining success, and these are what we’re looking for to ensure that our four conditions are met”?

Frankly, all we’ve been told is, “Trust us,” and that is clearly what government’s wanting, for us to trust them. But it’s very difficult to do so when I look in this document here, which I won’t use as a prop. I’ll just read the title: “Operating Performance Payment Agreement.” I don’t see any requirement in there. When I look at some of this other stuff, “LNG Investment Fiscal Framework,” I don’t see a requirement there. I see a lot of rhetoric.

The question, coming back to it: what are the metrics? What metrics did government use to actually determine that their four criteria were met? Simple.

Hon. C. James: Thank you very much to the member. The member talks about what success will be. From my perspective, yes, success is meeting the four conditions. The Premier laid them out and talked about the four conditions. We will be held, as a government, accountable for meeting those commitments to British Columbians, as we should be — as we should be and as the company should be. That’s going to be critical.

I know the member was directly involved in the discussion around LNG emissions and including LNG emissions in our CleanBC program. Again, I expect the member to hold us accountable for that. I expect him to ensure that that occurs and that the discussion occurs.

Fair return. Again, I expect members to ask questions about whether we believe that’s a fair return or if they have other ideas or other approaches.

Partnerships with First Nations. Certainly the expectation around the elected bands along the route who have signed on to the LNG agreement and the work that continues to be done, I think, again, talks about how we will be successful.

So I think it is important to come back to those four conditions. I know the member felt that that didn’t provide him with an answer, but I think it’s critical and important, and I think we will be held accountable as to whether we’ve met those conditions or not.

A. Weaver: Well, this is the problem I’m having. It is impossible to hold the government to account when they’re not forthcoming with the answers to very simple questions that I’ve articulated. The four criteria, which, frankly, are nothing more than an election slogan, are this.

One, “Proposals must include express guarantees of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians.” Well, we’ve heard today, from very extensive questioning from opposition and my further attempts to get something, that the government has no ability, clearly, no ability at all to guarantee any British Columbians any jobs. That clearly was never met. You could not have met criteria No. 1, because you’ve got no requirement of any jobs.

Two, “Proposals must provide a fair return for our resource.” Well, given that government has never once articulated since two years now what a “fair return” is, how do we know that we’ve got a fair return? I’ve suggested, through the analysis of the deep-well credits in second reading and elsewhere and through what I’ve described as a generational sellout and the giving away of this, that and the other in a desperate attempt to land what Christy Clark couldn’t, that, in fact, you’re not getting a fair return, because not once has government articulated what that return will be.

We haven’t seen the numbers, and it’s worse than that. We can’t even get information on simple questions like: “What is that $23 billion going to…? Where is it coming from?” We get rhetoric. We get no substance. So, clearly, criteria No. 2 was never met, because government actually hasn’t articulated what a fair return is.

Number 3: proposals must respect and make partners of First Nations. Well, we know that there are some, quite a lot, that have partnerships. Wet’suwet’en — still some issues, but government there abdicated its responsibility and essentially left it up to LNG Canada to deal with the Wet’suwet’en Unist’ot’en Camp, and what can they do? The only thing they can do is seek injunctive relief and get the police in there to move them. The government clearly did not do what you would expect on a leader-to-leader, government-to-government negotiation point of view, so I’m not so sure that No. 3 is being met.

Number 4: proposals must protect air, land, water, including living up to our climate commitments. Well, I’ve seen no analysis from government as to the air quality within the Terrace–Kitimat valley. As you know, Rio Tinto Alcan just did a substantive upgrade to their resource facility — increase sulphate emissions, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There’s a very problem in terms of the air quality in that watershed. I’ve heard no discussion. I’ve heard no criteria, no check — “We can do it.”

I do recall a report that was written a number of years ago where the Liberals explored what the consequence to the air quality in the valley would be, and it was very troubling. It was very, very troubling — a number of years back. It was, actually, in terms of…. It was. You probably don’t remember it. I looked at it very well. I know the author of it.

And living up to our climate commitments. Well, that has yet to be seen. Certainly we know that we can only get, with all of the policies that have been identified, just 75 percent of the way there. So how can you say that it’s fitting into living up to our climate commitments when we still haven’t articulated the other 25 percent of getting to those climate commitments? That was the basis of my reasoned amendment.

What’s happening here today is a charade. It’s literally just a charade. We have no substantive, quantitative analysis of any of these criteria. We’re told: “Trust us. We’ve met it.” We’ve clearly tried to find what metrics government’s using. They haven’t. It’s embarrassing. And so I go back to my original second reading speech, and I think what happened is that LNG Canada walked in to the new government and said: “We’re out of here unless you do this.” And they said: “What do you want us to do?” And they said: “This, this, this, this, this.” And, out of their depth in negotiations, completely out of their depth, they said yes.

LNG Canada has got a good deal here. I’m not so sure you can actually articulate how British Columbia has, and we haven’t heard a single answer to any of the questions that I have raised. This is very troubling.

With that I’ll leave it. I know that the member for Abbotsford West was suggesting a break, and I’m perfectly open to such a break now as well, if the Chair believes we should do so.

Hon. C. James: I’ll just respond to the question, and then…. I know that the members want to take a break. And, you know, I think it’s…. I respect the member in bringing forward the issues. I respect the member. We know that our Green partners are against LNG development. We understand that, and I think the member is very articulate in raising his issues and concerns. But when we take a look at the success in meeting the four conditions and meeting our commitments to British Columbia as a government who looks at how we balance our promises, economically, socially, and environmentally, and our commitments to reconciliation, I, in fact, am very proud of the four conditions that we’ve put in place and the work that we’ve done to be able to address those.

Jobs for British Columbia. Again, I come back to the jobs strategy around, around “locals first” around the support for apprentices on the project. When it comes to partnerships with First Nations — 20 bands, all of the bands, elected bands, along the route who have signed on, who have partnerships, who see this as an opportunity for economic development and for growth for their communities and opportunities for their members to be able to be working.

The fair return for British Columbians — $23 billion when it comes to support for programs and services here in British Columbia, including action around climate. I think it’s critical. And I know we’ll get a chance to talk about those as well as we go through this process and other processes through the budget.

Protection for our air, land and water, the fact that we required LNG emissions to be included as part of CleanBC and brought forward a commitment around CleanBC, over $900 million in the budget to commit to environmental protections. I think it speaks to our commitment as a government around addressing environmental issues and the fact that we’ve been able to sit down with a large company and get to a final investment decision that recognizes how important that is and requires us to live up to this.

Do I expect the member to continue to raise concerns and continue to hold us accountable for this? Yes, I do. I expect that that’s exactly what the member will do and what other members will do and what the people of British Columbia should do as well.

With that, Chair, we will take a ten-minute break?

The Chair: The member has a question. Then we’ll have a break.

A. Weaver: A brief follow-up because the issue of $23 billion was raised again. Could the minister please articulate how that $23 billion is calculated and not just generally but actually specifically? That number has been batted around a lot. It used to be $40 billion; now it’s $23 billion.

Despite asking a multitude of times, not once have I got an answer as to what makes up the $23 billion and where that number came from.

Hon. C. James: I’m happy to answer that question when we come back from recess.

The Chair: The House is recessed for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:31 to 5:44 p.m.

Hon. C. James: The member asked a question around the $23 billion and where the $23 billion came from. We did offer a briefing, an opportunity to go through that, but I know the member wasn’t able to make it. I just wanted to let the member know we can provide that opportunity, the documents around the generic LNG project and the highs and lows that we’ve been talking about. That information will be public. It’s going to go up on the site, so we can provide an opportunity for the member to get the materials and then ask questions as we go on. I expect committee stage will continue, and there will be an opportunity for the member to ask questions, if that works for the member.

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

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

Video of Exchange

Question

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

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

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

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

Supplementary Question

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

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

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

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

Answer

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

Today as I was walking into the Chamber to get ready for Question Period, I heard the Leader of the Official Opposition saying a few words in remembrance of Paul Fraser. I was shocked as I had no idea Paul Fraser had died.

After the Leader of the Opposition finished his brief tribute, I rose to offer a few words. These are reproduced in video and text below.

Paul Fraser was highly regarded by all members in the BC Legislature. He first became B.C.’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner on Jan. 1, 2008 and was unanimously reappointed twice further, the most recent reappointment was in May 2018.

Video of Statement

Text of Statement

A. Weaver: Well, that was an enormous shock. I found out literally as the Leader of the Official Opposition was speaking about the passing of Paul Fraser. I can only say that I’m at a loss for words.

Paul was, as has been articulated, a gentleman. He cared deeply about the ongoing workings in this place. He cared deeply about each and every MLA, and he worked with each and every MLA to try to help them through what are often difficult and challenging issues that come to us as we try to serve our job here.

I’m devastated. I spoke to him two weeks ago. He had pneumonia. He still wasn’t feeling well. He spoke to me about an issue that I was asking about. He provided me some advice.

I think I join everyone in this House in saying: Thank you, Paul, for all the good work you did. We will miss you.