H1120pm 12

H1120pm 12

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, November 20, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 18, Number 12 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

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

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

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

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Thursday, November 20, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... .............................................. 8077 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 8078 Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 95) Hon. G.

Bruce Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 8078 Early childhood education programs E. Brenzinger Opening of rock quarry in Alberni Valley G. Trumper International trade initiatives B. Locke Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 8079 B.C. Rail privatization bid process J. MacPhail Hon. J.

Reid Closing of beds at West Coast General Hospital J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen Services at West Coast General Hospital and hospitalization times G. Trumper Hon. C. Hansen Services at Kootenay Lake District Hospital J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen Position of northern B.C. residents on privatization of B.C. Rail P. Nettleton Hon. J. Reid Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 8082 G. Trumper J.

Kwan Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 8082 Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr411) J.

Bray Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 8082 Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr411) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 8082 Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr411)

Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 8082 Significant Projects Streamlining Act (Bill 75) W. Cobb D. MacKay Hon. K. Falcon G. Trumper J. MacPhail M. Hunter B.

Suffredine Royal Assent to Bills .......................................................................................................... ...................................................... 8105 Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 55) Public Service Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 71) Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 79) BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act (Bill 85) Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr411)

8077 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Introductions by Members J. Nuraney: I have great pleasure in introducing 28 grade 5 students who are visiting us today from Cas- cade School in Burnaby. They are here to learn about our political system and the working of the Legislature. They're accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Lori Ben- nett, and some of their parents: Roger Lau, Elizabeth Tsagaris and Yasmin Ferrigano. May I ask the House to please join me in welcoming them. Hon. M.

Coell: On behalf of the member for Victoria– Beacon Hill and myself, I would like to have the House welcome three guests who we've had meetings with, with regard to mental illness and the problems associ- ated with people suffering from mental illness: Yvonne Sproule, who's a peer support worker; Mark D'Aoust; and Chief Ishaka, who is a member and chief of the Navajo nation and may be known to some members as Terry Colburn. Would the House please make all three of them welcome. [1405] Hon. C.

Clark: Joining us today in the front row of the visitors' gallery is Terri Watson, who is the presi- dent of the British Columbia Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils. She is joined by Glenda Bilinsky, who is their first vice-president. With them is Terri's daughter, Robyn Barker, a grade 11 student. Terri de- cided to bring her today, because when Terri was in grade 11, my father — who was a teacher — chose her to come to the Legislature. She says that visit changed her life, just like thousands of teachers change lives of students every day. Welcome to all of you. J.

Kwan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a number of individuals visiting in the gallery today. They are Susie Hamilton, Colleen McCory, Elaine Hur- ley, Pagisus McGauley, Robin Cherbo and Colleen Driscoll. They're here today calling on the government to keep its hands off their health care services, particu- larly their hospital services. Would the House please make them welcome. Hon. J. Reid: Today joining us in the House I have two constituents who were here for a joint meeting of the Island chambers of commerce and the Vancouver Island coastal caucus.

We have Hugh Sinnet, president of the Parksville and District Chamber of Commerce, and Sandy Hurley, second vice-president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. I'd ask the House to help make them very welcome. G. Trumper: I have a large number of guests in the gallery today. First of all, I have Karina Austin, a grade 11 French immersion student who has been shadowing me today, which has been interesting. She is an honour student and is involved in the leadership program at her school. She had the opportunity of travelling to Newfoundland to attend a national leadership confer- ence.

She's an accomplished pianist, avid soccer player, and I believe she now has a scooter. We also have today — I think they're in the House — Bob Cole, who is the president of the Alberni Valley Chamber of Commerce; Dave Willie, who was the vice- president of the Qualicum Beach chamber of com- merce; and Maryann Washington and Noreen Pelk, who are my constituency assistants. Also in the House today we have a large delegation of people from Port Alberni regarding services to the West Coast General Hospital. I would just like to name a few of them, if they're in the House.

Bev Denning is the chair of the Save Our Services committee. Donna Brett is the chair of our community health committee, and Mayor Ken McRae is also here. Would the House please make them welcome. Hon. M. de Jong: Mayor Mary Reeves from the great city of Abbotsford is present in Victoria and in the precinct and in the House, and I hope the House will make her welcome. P. Bell: I actually have three introductions to do today. It's rare that I have an opportunity to introduce constituents, and in some ways I guess these people aren't constituents anymore, although they were at one point in time.

I would first like to introduce to the House my oldest daughter, Donna Bell, and her friend Matt Hobbs. Would the House please make them very welcome. As my third introduction, I just wanted to add that there is a very special anniversary occurring for an individual in this House tomorrow, and I'll be spend- ing the day with this individual tomorrow. It's a unique anniversary. It is actually her eighteenth anni- versary of her twenty-ninth birthday, and I would ask that the House please congratulate the Minister of Ad- vanced Education on that day. [1410] I.

Chong: I, too, would like to introduce a young student who has been job-shadowing me today. Her name is Bethanny Brouwer. She's from Mount Doug high school, my former alma mater. She is a grade 10 student who would like to one day become a teacher. I have encouraged her along the way. She is also in- volved with student leadership, and she plays soccer in her spare time. She also is a representative of the B.C. Student Voices group, which gets together on an an- nual basis throughout the province.

They deal with questions that are posed to them by the Minister of Education, and then that report is brought forward to the Minister of Education and it's acted on. Last year I believe the report dealt with bullying in schools, and this year they're dealing with choices in school. We had a great conversation over lunch, and I know she's an enthusiastic individual. I hope the House would please make her very welcome.

8078 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 G. Trumper: I have such a large number of people here today from my constituency. I would also like to ask the House to welcome John Perkis and Gary Nor- den, who are from Pelorus. Would you please make them welcome. Hon. B. Barisoff: I would like to introduce a con- stituent from Penticton, Mr. Derrick Badger. S. Brice: I, too, have a young woman who has been shadowing me today: Anthea Kuan. Anthea is here from Mount Doug.

She is a grade 10 student, and she became inspired to come down here after attending the Minister for Women's Equality's presentation on Women's Heritage Week. I would ask the House to help make her welcome. Hon. C. Clark: I would like the House to offer a very, very happy birthday congratulation to our Minis- ter of Advanced Education, who I understand today turned 39. An Hon. Member: Tomorrow. Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Speaker, more good news. In my continuing bid to find friends around the world, I have found another friend from Tromso in Norway. That's north of the Arctic Circle. She's a pen pal.

I would like to introduce to the House Eleni Figenschou. She's a Rotary exchange student who is here living in the Cowichan Valley, the warm land. She's with John Berikoff, who has been a good friend of mine for many, many years and helps me in the constituency. Today they've been down here to see the city of Victoria and the precincts and to enjoy question period. Would you please make them all very welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills RAILWAY AND FERRIES BARGAINING ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. G.

Bruce presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. G. Bruce: I move that Bill 95 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Bruce: Today I am introducing Bill 95, Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Amend- ment Act, 2003.

Part 3 of the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assis- tance Act of 1976 empowers the government to invoke a 90-day cooling-off period in labour disputes involv- ing ferries in the event of an immediate and substantial threat to the economy and welfare of the province and its citizens. The amendments to this act, which has b e e n aro u nd f o r ne arl y 3 0 y e ars , s i m p l y u p d at e re f e r- ences to related acts and to parties involved. Given the time of year and the current bargaining situation with ferries, we are dusting off this piece of legislation.

I met separately with the parties last week- end, and both are telling me they want to solve their dispute at the bargaining table. The province fully supports the company and the union working together to resolve these issues. However, at the same time, we have a duty to protect the public interest and consider the impact a disruption of ferry services would have at this important time of year. In introducing these amendments, I as Minister of Labour continue to urge the parties to do their utmost to reach an agreement.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 95 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [1415] Statements (Standing Order 25

B) EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAMS E. Brenzinger: Today I stand in the House to talk about a very successful early intervention program agency, the Surrey Association for Early Childhood Education. SAECE has been providing special needs children and kids that are at risk with quality preschool since 1973 in partnership with the Surrey school dis- trict. The SAECE program recognizes the importance of early screening and identification in childhood devel- opment to ensure that each child reaches their full po- tential.

Children who receive early intervention not only thrive in society, but they also save taxpayer dollars by avoiding drugs, jail or life on the streets. They learn to work with their strengths, and their self-esteem is de- veloped in their early years. In fact, the cost-benefit ratio for preschool programs is $7.94,

whereas pro- grams for school-aged children receive a net benefit of $1.66. With statistics like these, it gives me great pleas- ure to know that this government has created a Minis- try of State for Early Childhood Development. Further, the Ministry of Children and Family De- velopment has recognized the importance of giving parents the tools they need to provide for special needs children. As such, parents are given funding directly so that they can choose the type of service they want for their child, such as local preschool, day care, at-home care or specialized programs such as the SAECE pro- gram.

The commitment of everyone in the community is essential to ensure that children live in a world that supports and enables them to reach their full potential.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8079 It gives me great pleasure today to recognize the ac- complishments of the Surrey Association for Early Childhood Education, especially with today being Na- tional Child Day. OPENING OF ROCK QUARRY IN ALBERNI VALLEY G. Trumper: A $100 million quarry creating more than 80 new jobs for the next hundred years has been approved to open near Port Alberni. Eagle Rock Ma- terials Ltd. received authorization to construct a rock quarry for the production and export of construction aggregate under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The exciting issue about this project is that it's a joint venture between Eagle Rock Materials Ltd., the Hu- pacasath first nation, the Ucluelet first nation and Po- laris Minerals Corp. This quarry will have a production capacity of six million tonnes a year. The aggregates will be shipped to markets along the west coast of North America, primarily California. This is a really important project for the Alberni Valley as it broadens its economic base. As well as being a partnership with first nations, there is another aspect to this project. The mining industry over the past decade left Brit- ish Columbia.

Now, with the changes this government has made to taxation and regulations, the mining in- dustry is coming back to British Columbia, which is good, particularly for those resource-based communi- ties that really have had a very difficult time with the downturn in the forest industry. As Polaris said and as Norske Skog Canada once said in a public meeting, they would not be in British Columbia except for the changes that the province has made to bring invest- ment back to British Columbia. These changes have brought Polaris back to B.C.

This is great news for the residents of the Alberni Valley and for British Colum- bia. INTERNATIONAL TRADE INITIATIVES B. Locke: I rise today to tell a story of a province determined to change its image and its anti-trade repu- tation. In my short time as the MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers, I have had the opportunity to help change the image of this province and to market B.C. internation- ally. While my visit to India certainly helped me gain a greater understanding of my South Asian constituents, the journey was much more than that.

It allowed me to gain an appreciation of the signifi- cant growth opportunities that exist within the Indian economy. My colleagues and I met with government officials, small and large business folks, passionate academics and a multitude of industry leaders. There is no doubt that the contacts that were established will pay off and provide jobs for British Columbians. In addition, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Re- gion, or PNWER, is another proactive group I am for- tunate to be part of.

The PNWER region ranks twelfth among the world's leading industrial economies with an annual gross regional product of approximately $900 billion. [1420] I will be departing this afternoon for Portland to meet with fellow legislators from Alaska, Idaho, Mon- tana, Oregon, Washington, Alberta and the Yukon. PNWER's goal is to cooperate regionally to achieve economic growth. The world is watching us, and in- v e s t m e n t i s c o m i n g t o B . C . b e c a u s e o f t h i s g o v e r n - ment's actions.

Led by our Premier, B.C. is finally par- ticipating and is leading in a complex and rapidly changing world economy. In conclusion, it is obvious to me that B.C. has re- formed its image and style. We are more sophisticated. We are a province that welcomes opportunity and in- vestment, and we are a province that will make sure the natural globalization of economies works to B.C.'s benefit. Oral Questions B.C. RAIL PRIVATIZATION BID PROCESS J. MacPhail: The Premier confirmed yesterday that CP Rail has withdrawn from the bid to buy B.C. Rail. They complained that the process was unfair.

The fair- ness report into that process identified two important leaks. The report said that one leak had no impact on the outcome of the negotiations, but the report is com- pletely silent on the other leak. We don't know what w a s l e a k e d o r t o w h o m o r w h a t i m p a c t i t h a d o n t h e outcome of the bid. The whole process is now under a cloud, and important questions remain unanswered. Will the minister now, after refusing to do it yes- terday, come clean with the details of that leak so that British Columbians can get to the bottom of this mess?

And will she reassure this House that the leaked in- formation did not go to CN? Hon. J. Reid: Perhaps I'll just take a moment to explain the purpose of the fairness adviser. Reading from the very document of Charles Rivers, the purpose of this portion of CRA's assignment is to provide an independent commentary on the fairness of the process for the B.C. Rail freight division transaction. Both gov- ernments and private enterprises increasingly are rely- ing on independent fairness advisers to provide assur- ance to their constituents, citizens and stockholders that complex processes are executed properly.

This evaluation is in two stages. The first stage, the conclusion of the fairness adviser, has been — quoting from the document: "CRA has concluded that the prov- ince and its advisers designed and managed the B.C. Rail restructuring process in a manner consistent in all mate- rial respects with the current best practices usually fol- lowed in similar transactions." There's a second part to the fairness adviser. At that time, they will be talking to the proponents and settling any outstanding questions. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

8080 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 J. MacPhail: Boy, the minister is sure stepping back from the big foofaraw she claimed yesterday about how fair the process was and how this report proved it. There's a giant step backward. The process to privatize B.C. Rail does not meet the basic test of openness and transparency that this government told British Columbians it would set for itself. Two of the three proponents have written letters to the Premier to complain about the bidding process. However, British Columbians have no idea of the basis of their complaints.

They don't know what role the leaks identified by the fairness adviser played in CP's deci- s i o n t o p u l l o u t o r i n O m n i t ra x ' s d e c i s i o n t o re g i s t e r their complaints. The minister has a duty now to lay the facts on the table for the public to see. Will she table those letters of protest from both CP and Omnitrax in the House to- day? Hon. J. Reid: The member still seems to be abso- lutely confused about the role of the fairness adviser. Exactly what she is talking about is what we have asked the fairness adviser to do. [1425] The fairness adviser is doing that in two stages.

The fairness adviser is saying that the process studied to date has been a process that has been thorough, has been equitable and has been consistent with best prac- tices. The concerns that were expressed were investi- gated and were laid to rest as not being in any way a problem in the fairness and the equitable treatment of the proponents. Further to that, there is a further op- portunity for these concerns to be investigated. That is a n e x c e l l e n t p r a c t i c e o n t h e p a r t o f t h i s g o v e r n m e n t , and we stand by it. Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J. MacPhail: Well, what a difference a day makes. Now it takes so long, and the concerns were laid to rest. That is simply not what the report says about the second leak at all — not at all. The minister is only making a bad situation worse by hiding details of this situation from public scrutiny. Her stonewalling only raises more questions about a process that has already looked like the fix is in.

The public doesn't accept the government decision to hide behind the fairness adviser's incomplete report, a report that begs more questions than it answers. Yes- terday the government was hiding behind this report. T o d a y , w h e n c a u g h t o u t , t h e y s a y : " O h , i t ' s i n c o m - plete." The fairness adviser hasn't even talked to the bidders or many mayors along the line. The fairness adviser is there to protect the public, not the govern- ment. Again to the minister: will she table the analysis that the fairness adviser used to arrive at its incomplete conclusions? Interjection. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. member, you have asked the question. Now let us hear the answer. Hon. J. Reid: A thorough process involves more than one stage. What this is, is a thorough process. The very questions that are being asked are in the process of being investigated, analyzed, and a report will be issued on that. The fairness adviser was able to look at the process up to a certain point and will look at the comple- tion when the process is complete, which it is not.

There- fore, the report to date has been very clear that the process has been fair, has been well run and has worked exceed- ingly well for the protection of the public. The second

part is not complete yet, so the fairness adviser cannot complete their second stage because the process hasn't been done. I think that is absolutely ap- parent to everyone except the confused member. CLOSING OF BEDS AT WEST COAST GENERAL HOSPITAL J. Kwan: On the front steps of the Legislature today are residents of Port Alberni. They're registering their anger at a government that's betraying its health care promises. They are angry that the government is clos- ing the hospital beds in their community.

The Minister of Health continues to pretend that he's meeting his commitment of health care where and when you need it. He said it again just this week, but the people of Port Alberni know that's not true. Pa- tients arriving at West Coast General Hospital with serious illnesses are being piled on top of each other in cramped spaces. Yet the government wants to cut hos- pital beds in that hospital. To the Minister of Health: will he keep his promise to the people of Port Alberni who have come here to- day and cancel the cuts to their hospital? Hon. C.

Hansen: Actually, what precipitated the closure of 19 beds at this hospital was the fact that a hospital that was built by the previous NDP govern- ment and only opened two and a half years ago had such construction deficiencies in it that major sections of the floor already had to be rebuilt, necessitating the closure of those 19 beds. I think the member is making a big mistake when she measures access to health care by counting the number of beds.

She knows very well that the number of acute care beds throughout Canada has been declin- ing significantly, because more and more procedures are being done as a result of day surgeries and out- patient surgeries. We inherited an absolute mess in health care as a result of ten years of the previous government. We are in the process of fixing that. People are getting better access to care in this province. We see the number of major procedures and surgeries in this province in- creasing significantly.

We see the number of surgeries that are being done at West Coast General Hospital increasing significantly over the last number of years.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8081 We will continue to make sure that the residents of the Alberni Valley get access to the health care they need. [1430] SERVICES AT WEST COAST GENERAL HOSPITAL AND HOSPITALIZATION TIMES G. Trumper: My question is also to the Minister of Health Services. The Canadian Institute for Health In- formation has reported that the average hospitalization for British Columbia patients has decreased. Many of my constituents, many of whom are here today, are concerned about proposed changes at West Coast Gen- eral Hospital.

Can the Minister of Health Services explain how this information reflects the changes in the health care system and assure us, as Port Alberni residents, that support services will be available when we need them? Hon. C. Hansen: I must say I appreciated the invi- tation from the member for Alberni-Qualicum to go to Port Alberni, where I was ten days ago today, to meet with the community health committee and also to meet with the Save Our Services group, which I did on No- vember 10.

The member raises the issue of a report by the Ca- nadian Institute for Health Information that came out just yesterday, which showed that the average time a patient needs to stay in hospital has decreased in this province by 6.8 percent between the year 2000-01 and the year 2001-02. That is the largest decrease of any province in Canada, and what it speaks to is the fact that more and more surgeries are being done as out- patient procedures because of changing technology and changing procedures. The number of procedures that we did in this province last year increased by 38,000.

The number of surgeries that were done at West Coast General Hospital increased significantly over the previous year, and we will make sure that the residents of that member's constituency will continue to get the health care they need. SERVICES AT KOOTENAY LAKE DISTRICT HOSPITAL J. Kwan: Funny how it is that the people of British Columbia are always wrong, according to this gov- ernment. In this instance, the Alberni residents are wrong. They've brought forward over 30,000 signa- tures in a petition asking for this minister to keep his hands off their hospital beds.

The residents from Port Alberni on the steps of the Legislature are joined by the residents of Nelson. They, too, have come to Victoria to register their anger at this government for its broken promises in health care. They're asking the minister to keep his promise and provide core acute care services, including general sur- gery, for the delivery of safe patient care at the Kootenay Lake Hospital. Is the minister going to live up to his commitment, or is he going to continue the betrayal of his election commitment to provide health care services when and where the people of Nelson need it? Hon. C.

Hansen: What you are seeing happen throughout the province as a result of the changes, the very important and long overdue changes that we have brought to health care in this province, is that more patients are getting access to the care they need in the r e g i o n t h a t t h e y l i v e . T h a t i s t r u e i n t h e a r e a o f Kootenay-Boundary… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: …which includes the Nelson hos- pital, where you see that fewer patients have to leave that region to go to Kelowna or Vancouver to get ac- cess to care.

More surgery is being done; more special- ists are being attracted to that very region. The same is true of Vancouver Island, where we've seen increased capacity on central Vancouver Island so that patients no longer have to travel to Victoria or Vancouver to get access to care that they… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, hon. members. Hon. C. Hansen: …can now get right in the central region. That is the health care that British Columbians need — when they need it, where they live. POSITION OF NORTHERN B.C. RESIDENTS ON PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL P.

Nettleton: I was shocked by the Premier's com- ments earlier this week in question period suggesting that the people of the north are supportive of the sale of B.C. Rail. I think he used the word "satisfied." That's c e r t a i n l y n e w s t o m e a n d t h e p e o p l e w h o l i v e i n t h e north. Satisfied is not a word that's been used to de- scribe the sale of B.C. Rail. [1435] My question, then, to the Minister of Transporta- tion would be this: given the ongoing protests, numer- ous city council resolutions asking for a two-year moratorium and vigorous B.C. Rail worker opposition to the sale of B.C.

Rail, how can the Premier's com- ments be construed as anything less than a misrepre- sentation of the north — a betrayal that will bring about increased anger and further alienation of north- erners? Hon. J. Reid: There is, has been and will continue to be widespread consultation with the people across the north, the communities, the shippers and the peo- ple involved in industry — the people who believe in

8082 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 the opportunities for the north. These people are from all walks of life and, actually, all types of experiences. For example, a former NDP Premier, Dan Miller, wrote particularly on this issue, and he talks about enhancing economic growth and development in northern British Columbia.

There are a number of peo- ple who are looking at opportunities, who believe that the possibilities are there, and who are encouraging the government to pursue the partnership that will pro- vide greater investment into a rail system and, indeed, enhance the economy not just of the north but of the entire province. [End of question period.] Petitions G. Trumper: I have here a petition, of which there are over 4,000 in the building, regarding the proposed bed closures at West Coast General Hospital. I ask permission to table them. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant seeks the floor. J. Kwan: I rise to table a number of petitions today. Just like the petition tabled by the member from Port Alberni — from the community of Port Alberni, which was asking the government to keep their hands off of the hospital beds — I rise to table a petition signed by over 2,000 residents of Nelson asking the assembly to act to protect core acute care services, including general surgery and intensive care services, at the Kootenay Lake Hospital.

I rise, also, to table a petition on behalf of the people of Grand Forks, some of whom were here today, signed by 1,700 people asking the Legislative Assembly to act to save their hospital services and honour their right to health care. They wish the assembly to know that the Boundary Hospital is a vital part of their community. Last but not least, I rise to table a petition with ap- proximately 4,000 signatures. Today is International Day of the Child.

This petition calls on the government t o s t o p c h i l d l a b o u r a n d i s s a y i n g t h a t c h i l d h o o d i s a time for growing, learning and play — not for jobs. It is against Bill 37, the Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call Bill Pr411. Second Reading of Bills RICHROCK MINES LTD. (N.P.L.) (CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003 J. Bray: Bill Pr411, Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, simply restores Richrock Mines Ltd. to the corporate registry as per tradition. I move second reading. [1440] Motion approved. J.

Bray: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith. Leave granted. Bill Pr411, Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith. Committee of the Whole House RICHROCK MINES LTD. (N.P.L.) (CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr411; H. Long in the chair. The committee met at 2:42 p.m. Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved. Title approved. J. Bray: Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:42 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill Pr411, Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 75. Committee of the Whole House SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS STREAMLINING ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 75; H. Long in the chair. The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8083 On

section 1. W. Cobb: I would like to read into the record a let- ter that I received today in regard to this bill and the feeling I'm getting from my community in regard to this. It's entitled "Expediting our economic futures." It's written by Donna Barnett, mayor of 100 Mile House. She's also the co-chair of our B.C. Council of Resource Communities. "From time to time just about every rural mayor I know will complain about the federal or provincial governments interfering with their community's economic future.

It's usually related to either (1) delaying investment in economic projects in a municipality or (2) ramming something through without due consideration for the community's interests. [1445] "For the most part my experience as a rural mayor has been with governments being overly restrictive and regulation-bound to a point that potential investors coming to my community are actually discouraged by red tape. "During the 1990s, I saw a Millennium Line shoved down the throats of the lower mainland and fast ferries shoved in all of our ears.

We also saw a provincial government that tied up thousands of acres of productive recreation and forest land in what seemed to be never-ending land use consultation processes that ended every meeting with a group hug. "Recently we've been hearing more and more about the B.C. government's commitment to rural municipalities, to the 'economic heartlands' of B.C. I have to admit I was skeptical. After all, people in my area had been fighting to get snowmobiling legislation and snowmobiling trails here for years — to no avail.

"Then several months ago I heard about the B.C. government's proposed Significant Projects Streamlining Act and thought that at least one government was finally getting it. They were understanding that there are times when you just need to speed things up to take advantage of any economic opportunity that comes your way. "And just as I was telling all my friends and municipal associates in my area about how we were going to take advantage of this proposed legislation, a few municipal leaders started yelling about loss of municipal autonomy. Amazing.

Our province is the most economically beleaguered in Canada, and some people are more interested in identifying threats than opportunities. "From my perspective, as one who has been involved in politics and municipal government for more years than I'd really care to remember, I think the SPS Act is written for municipal governments, especially rural ones. This act says that I can get my MLA, or go direct to the B.C. government, and get some special attention for a new investor who might come courting us with a new mill, resort or other economic incentive.

"It says that I will be assured that if the government decides to apply the SPS Act to my special economic project, that I need to show that people in my community really want and need it. It says the same thing to a proponent that might want to try to do an end-run around municipal government — to get the B.C. government to impose an approval of a new 'significant project' without the blessing of the local government.

"I know my municipality is protected from getting a project rammed into our community because, as a local 'approval authority,' we will have every right to impose our needs and requirements on a significant project. A project proponent must show how he will deal with 'anticipated constraints' that would be identified in an area through full public consultation. I would also add that part of the SPS regulations should say if your municipality does not wish to use the SPS Act, so be it. Make it so this can only be implemented by a resolution or bylaw or council of the day. But make this optional.

Don't impose it on us. "I see the act as being a safety valve to allow for the appointment of a referee in situations that may require a sober second thought. That's the defensive side. On the entrepreneurial side, we finally have

an act that takes a can-do approach to helping municipalities cut through provincial red tape for significant projects we might want. "I certainly don't see the SPS Act as a threat. I do see the need to apply it in the spirit in which I believe it was intended: to ensure that the dominant municipal interests are included in proposed significant projects. The challenge for all municipalities and for the provincial government is to ensure that the guidelines that are developed to accompany the act are developed with municipal government representation so that our interests will be protected when the act is applied.

"From where I sit in rural B.C., I see an olive branch being extended by this government, and I see a door being opened. For once, I don't see the government trying to take something away from my community. It's up to Minister Kevin Falcon to ensure I have a say in the guidelines he plans to include in the act. We hope he takes us up on our offer. "Note: I understand that someone else also is purporting to represent my interests on another matter — B.C. Rail. For the record, MLA Ms. Kwan apparently mentioned in the Legislature that I was opposed to the leasing of B.C. Rail. This is not true.

Yes, I am concerned about who apparently is still at the B.C. Rail table and about the shippers' and communities' issues, but I am not against the leasing of B.C. Rail." It's signed by Donna Barnett. [1450] D. MacKay: I've alread y spok en in support of this proposed bill, but I do have a couple of questions that I'd like to put to the minister. The first one deals with the definition

section of Bill 75 where it talks about constraint. It says: "…in relation to a project, a measure that, unless replaced under

section 4 or 5, may impede or otherwise interfere with the completion or opera- tions of the project…." I have to ask the question: would that include the native consultation and accommodation that has been imposed on the province by the Supreme Court of Canada? Where I live, that is one of the big hindrances to any project being completed in the northern part of this province. I'd just like to know if the accommoda- tion and consultation is considered a constraint. Hon. K. Falcon: No, actually, the first nations con- sultations are a constitutional obligation of govern- ment.

No statute of this province can override our con- stitutional obligations. But I will say that one of the efforts, as the member well knows, that we are trying

8084 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 to undertake as a government is entering into as many relationships, measures and agreements as we can with first nations — trying to build mutual trust, trying to build mutual foundations of economic opportunity. In fact, while I was touring the province recently on some resort task force business, I did receive some en- couraging signals from first nations that also have eco- nomic development projects that they get frustrated with too, in terms of government process. So I think there are opportunities to work together.

To summarize, we must and still do and are required to undertake con- sultations with natives, and accommodations if required. D. MacKay: Well, a follow-up to that, then. It basi- cally means that the constitutional requirement that we have as a province to consult and accommodate could, in fact, be a hindrance to any future project in British Columbia. Hon. K.

Falcon: I t c o u l d v e r y w e l l b e , b u t t h a t , again, is why our government is working so hard with first nations to try and create opportunities where we can work together and where we can create mutual opportunities that benefit both first nations and respec- tive governments. It's something we'll continue to work forward on. Frankly, I think we've been making some significant progress, and we'll work to make con- tinued progress. D. MacKay: Thank you to the minister for that an- swer. Designated projects definition means a project that is designated as a provincially significant project.

Could you explain to me: is there going to be a dollar value attached to it before it becomes a significant pro- ject, or is it the size of the project? What's going to de- termine what becomes a designated project? Hon. K. Falcon: That is an excellent question, par- ticularly as a member representing rural British Co- lumbia. One of the things that cabinet did not want to do — and this was specifically intended — was fetter ourselves with too much detail as to what would allow a project to be considered for designation.

You know, for example, initially there were some suggestions that projects should not be considered for designation unless they were well in excess of $50 million or $100 million or what have you. W e m ad e t he d e c i s i o n e arl y o n t hat we want e d t o ensure that projects, even if appearing reasonably small in dollar value…. I'm always fond of reminding people that a $15 million project in your neck of the woods could have the same impact as a $50 million project in the lower mainland of British Columbia.

What we did is established some guidelines, and those guidelines suggest that the projects must have at minimum a re- gional economic, environmental or social impact — so they must have benefits that go beyond the location of the particular project. D. MacKay: That's good news, particularly for those of us that live in rural British Columbia because, as you said, a small project down south could in fact be a large project up north. That's good. [1455] My final question on the

definitions

section deals with a "responsible minister." I just want to know if I'm reading this correctly here. If a sawmill is being pro- posed to be built in a community and then it runs into some problems and becomes a significant project by designation, which minister is going to assume the lead role to see this thing through to completion? Is it going to be the Minister of Forests? Is it going to be the Minis- ter of Competition, Science and Enterprise? Which minister is going to take the lead responsibility on that? Hon. K. Falcon: That's a very good question. That is what cabinet will do.

Cabinet will designate the re- sponsible minister. In most cases, it will be the minister that has responsibility for that area. If it's a major transportation project, it would likely be the Minister of Transportation. If it's a forest issue, it would likely be the Minister of Forests. It would make sense to align the minister with the expertise and background in that, but it would be left to cabinet to make that determina- tion. G. Trumper: I wonder if I could have the liberty of just asking a ge neral question on this issue.

I have re- ceived quite a lot of feedback from various municipali- ties with different views on this particular bill. It does seem that the rural communities are certainly very comfortable with it. It seems to be the urban areas that are not. I wonder if you could tell me whether or not there has been any further discussion with the UBCM regarding this particular bill, which I know has some grave concerns about it. Hon. K. Falcon: There have been consultations, going back to the spring, with the UBCM, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.

I would characterize those discussions, especially at the beginning, as being largely non-supportive of the direction of the bill. I don't mean to downplay that at all. I think that gener- ally speaking, the suggestions they made to me at that first meeting, where I gave a very detailed briefing, were that (1) they would want to have much more comfort that it would only be used infrequently, and (2) they wanted a strong sense that cooperative aspects would be built into the bill. When I left that meeting, actually, a couple of things happened.

One was that we changed the name of the bill from the "Economic Development Streamlin- ing Act," which was the original name of the bill, to the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. That was to re- flect the fact that we are in fact just talking about sig- nificant projects. The second thing we did was build in many steps of process involved under

section 4 to en- sure that local governments and the provincial gov- ernment — all approval authorities — have the ability to work together to try and come up with a solution that will work to the benefit of proponents and ap- proval authorities and the government.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8085 G. Trumper: The other question I would ask of the minister is if he could clarify the process as it goes through. One of the issues that has been raised with me by municipalities is that it is "a minister" who has the power to do the designation. As you know, in other bills that have gone through, we've been very specific about the cabinet having that power to designate. I wonder if you could clarify that particular issue, which is bringing some concern to some municipalities. Hon. K.

Falcon: There would be a minister to which local governments or proponents could bring forward suggested projects for designation. That minis- ter would take the project through the appropriate re- views and determine whether it meets, at least initially, the thresholds we've set out in the guidelines.

Then that minister — if the minister decided or determined that it met at least the bar that we set, a fairly high bar in terms of the ability of the project to be considered designatable — would bring that to cabinet, who would ultimately make the determination as to whether the project would be designated. [1500] J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, let's actually try to narrow this down in terms of the generalities that the minister is just giving without any substance to refer to in the legislation at all.

On the definition of approval authority, subsection (b), it says an approval authority means "a public body, including a person or other entity, empowered by an enactment or otherwise to perform a function or duty of government…." Could the minister be very specific about what he means by an approval authority? Name the public bodies that can be overridden. Hon. K.

Falcon: W h a t t h a t r e f e r s t o i s t h a t o b v i - ously it would differ from project to project, but gener- ally speaking, it's used throughout the act to refer to the local or provincial government, individual or entity responsible for reviewing projects, issuing approvals and carrying out other actions that are required to bring a project from the conceptual stage through to and including the operational stage. That could vary from project to project. It totally depends on what kind of project you're talking about — construction, trans- portation, manufacturing. There's a whole array of them.

What this

section does is speak to the vast army of different approval authorities and entities out there. J. MacPhail: Okay, but it does include local gov- ernment. Let's see. An approval authority — could that be Workers Compensation Board? Hon. K. Falcon: No, it would not be WCB, because WCB is not an approval authority in that sense. They maintain standards set out under their statute. J. MacPhail: I beg to differ. WCB can shut down a project, so it is an approval authority. Where in the legislation does it exempt WCB? Hon. K. Falcon: No.

I would argue the member is incorrect there, because when WCB does act under its legitimate authority to shut down something as you say, that would be because it's in violation of some standard that WCB holds — either a safety standard or whatever the case may be — and that's perfectly le- gitimate. Again, as I've said repeatedly throughout this bill, this bill does not impact on standards; it impacts on review and decision processes. J. MacPhail: There's no evidence of this. No matter how much the minister stands up and makes those statements, his guarantees are not encompassed in the legislation.

He can stand up and say all he wants, but if it's not contained in here, it doesn't mean a thing. Let's ask about the Labour Relations Board. Is it an approval authority? [1505] Hon. K. Falcon: I would refer the member…. When you read this bill, it's important that you read it in its entirety so that you understand the full flavour and meaning of the bill. Under the definition of "con- straint," you would have to determine whether or not a constraint was holding up a project. Then you go over to

section 4, and the question would become whether that constraint was an unreasonable constraint. It lays out in

section 4 in quite a bit of detail that the propo- nent must consult with the approval authority, that they must meet the reasonable requirements of that approval authority. Only if there is an unreasonable- ness alleged…. Then at that point, the minister has the ability to sit down and try to see what the nature of the unreasonableness is. Then we can bring in all the other facilitators, etc. J. MacPhail: The Minister of Labour just appointed a judge to investigate the film industry because some- body filed 46 grievances. That's getting in the way of doing business in this province.

Maybe the minister wasn't aware of that. I'm not making these things up. These are people who have come to the government and complained about grievances being filed getting in the way of doing business in this province. Could the minister answer my question? Is the La- bour Relations Board an approval authority? Hon. K. Falcon: Well, again I'll say to the member: only if it is creating a constraint which is an unreason- able constraint as defined under

section 4 of the consul- tation for removal of constraints. If that board is creat- ing an unreasonable constraint that reasonable people cannot work out, then it would be something that could be dealt with. J. MacPhail: Is it an approval authority? Yes or no. Hon. K. Falcon: Absolutely, if it meets the require- ments, then it depends on the circumstances. It would have to depend on the set of circumstances you have for whether it would meet the requirements.

8086 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 J. MacPhail: Great. Government can now override an independent authority like the Labour Relations Board. Wow. Isn't that great? Land and Water…. Interjection. J. MacPhail: I just asked the minister whether it was an approval authority. He was forced to admit yes, and therefore the government can override the Labour Relations Board. There is no other conclusion to reach — none. Land and Water B.C. — is that an approval author- ity? Hon. K.

Falcon: T h e M i n i s t r y o f W a t e r , L a n d a n d Air Protection, along with every other ministry of gov- ernment, would be considered an approval authority. Again, just to anticipate the rhetoric I know will come f l y i ng ac ro s s t he w ay , we 'v e m ad e i t v e r y c l e a r u n d e r this bill that nothing in this bill affects standards asso- ciated with environmental, health or safety standards — j u s t t o p r e - e m p t w h a t t h e m e m b e r i s g o i n g t o t r y and say. J. MacPhail: Could the minister answer my ques- tion? I asked about Land and Water B.C. It's a Crown corporation.

It's not a ministry; it's a Crown corpora- tion. Is Land and Water B.C., a Crown corporation, an approval authority? Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. [1510] J. MacPhail: Well, isn't that interesting? Is the min- ister aware that Land and Water B.C. is the corporation responsible for approval of siting of fish farms? Hon. K. Falcon: I'm fascinated by that, member, but I would ask you what it has to do with

section 1, defini- tions. We're trying to talk about

definitions. J. MacPhail: I am stunned by the minister's lack of c o m p r e h e n s i o n . H e j u s t s t o o d u p a n d g a v e a b i g r h e - torical rant, in anticipation of my question, that this bill has nothing to do with environmental standards. I asked him whether Land and Water B.C. is an approval authority which this legislation allows him to override. He said yes, so I link the two. But I'll be slower. I'll go slower here. Land and Water B.C. is responsible for the siting of fish farms.

He may be aware of the massive contro- versy from the environmental standards point of view a r o u n d t h e s i t i n g o f f i s h f a r m s . H e s a i d n o e n v i r o n - mental standards would be affected by this legislation. Siting of fish farms directly impacts and is about envi- ronmental standards. What's not right about what the minister just said? Does this bill affect environmental standards, or is Land and Water B.C. not an approval authority? Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. B. Locke: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members B.

Locke: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House today a group of L.A. Matheson students. They are 27 grade 11 students from a very exciting school in my riding. They are here with their teachers: Ms. Cheryl Paul, Mr. Peter Hadow and Mr. Steve Wilson. I ask that the House please make them welcome. Debate Continued J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair, I asked a two-part question, which was probably too fast for the minister, and he answered with one answer. Let me repeat it. The minister said this is not about affecting environ- m e n t a l s t a n d a r d s .

H e t h e n w e n t o n t o s a y t h a t L a n d and Water B.C. is an approval authority that can be overridden. Land and Water B.C., responsible for the siting of fish farms, is responsible for environmental standards directly. Now the minister has said…. I've asked him which is not true, then. Let me put it in the positive. I get in trouble when I talk about truth. Is it true that this legislation does im- pact environmental standards, given that Land and Water B.C. is an approval authority and responsible for environmental standards? Or is Land and Water B.C. exempt from this legislation? Hon. K.

Falcon: The member is causing me to jump ahead a little bit, but I need to in order to edify her lack of understanding here. If that member reads

section 3(2)(a)(i), it says very clearly: "…ensure that decisions they are required to make in relation to a designated project are made expeditiously…." Sub-subsection (a)(ii) says: "…if and to the extent that it is decided that the designated project is to proceed, facilitate the expe- ditious completion and intended operations…." The critical thing there for the member to under- stand is that, as I have hammered home in first reading and as I have hammered home in second reading, we are not talking about standards. We are talking about expediting decisions. That's a very important differ- ence. [1515] J.

MacPhail: That's what I'm talking about — processes and decisions. Land and Water B.C. is the process, is the organization responsible for deciding the siting of fish farms, and it is an approval authority, by the minister's admission. In siting those fish farms, environmental impact is a major factor — environ- mental standards. I don't think there's anyone in this House who would dare to stand up and say that's not true — even those who are huge champions of fish farming, and rightly so. Maybe I'll make it clearer, then. Is the siting of fish farms…? Is aquaculture exempt from this bill?

That's a pretty simple question.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8087 Hon. K. Falcon: Again, I would say to the member that what this bill is doing is allowing expedited deci- sions. Whatever decisions need to be made have the ability, through a process set out very clearly in

section 4 , t o e x p e d i t e t h o s e d e c i s i o n s . I t d o e s n o t i n a n y w a y impact on those standards; just the decisions that are required to go through can be expedited. J. MacPhail: And how is fast-tracking the siting of a fish farm not about environmental standards? Hon. K. Falcon: Well, it's very simple. You know, right now it probably can take — who knows? — a year and a half or two years to make a decision.

If there's a belief that without impacting on the reason- able requirements of the approval authority, you could make that decision in eight months or nine months, then that ought to be allowed as long as you're expedit- ing the review and process provisions and not impact- i n g o n t h e s t a n d a r d s . W e a s a g o v e r n m e n t h a v e b e e n very clear that we will be governed by the best, sound- est science available. We will continue to do so. Noth- ing in this act will take away from that. J.

MacPhail: The minister just says that fast- tracking the siting of fish farms has nothing to do with environmental standards. Is that correct? Hon. K. Falcon: No. I'm saying that what the mem- ber is trying to do is make a correlation between the fact that you only have safe scientific standards if something takes a long time. What I'm saying to the member is that it is actually possible in government that people can accelerate that. Do you know what that actually may mean, member?

That may mean taking a file from a desk and putting it on the middle of the desk so that some attention is paid to it, so that a deci- sion could actually be made in a timely way. Why would that happen? That would happen be- cause the government has signalled, through the des- ignation of a project as being provincially significant, that this is something we want to pay attention to. So perhaps if an individual has a pile of files on their desk, they may want to reach under that pile and pull out the file and be able to make their decision, but in an expe- dited manner.

I know that's hard for the member to understand. Her government loved piles and just left things in piles, but we like to do things a bit more effi- ciently. The Chair: Leader of the Opposition, I would pre- fer that you not stand until the minister is finished his…. J. MacPhail: My apologies. The Chair: Leader of the Opposition. J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, the siting of fish farms is subject to this legislation through Land and Water B.C.? Hon. K. Falcon: To the member: correct me if I've got your question wrong. I think you said: "Is a fish farm a designated project?" Is that roughly the ques- tion?

It wasn't? We misheard your question. The Chair: Would the Leader of the Opposition like to clarify the question. J. MacPhail: Is the siting of fish farms by the ap- proval authority, Land and Water B.C., subject to this legislation? [1520] Hon. K. Falcon: Well, that would obviously…. You would have to go back to the guidelines that govern this legislation. Those guidelines are very clear in that it must have, at minimum, regional, environmental, e c o no m i c o r s o c i al b e ne f i t s . I t m u s t hav e b e ne f i t s t hat go beyond the project location.

There's a whole set of criteria there that would have to be met. Cabinet would have to determine all of those considerations and then make a decision. For the member's understanding, she should know that tonight I will not be standing here trying to pre- guess future decisions of cabinet. That won't be hap- pening this evening. J. MacPhail: No, I can well imagine that. The minis- ter was very clear in answering very specific questions from his government caucus, and he did that glibly.

Yet with the very specific category of projects, which this government has championed over and over again, the minister refuses to answer my question. Is it that they haven't contemplated this? A member of his cabi- net got in trouble over a huge aquaculture firm object- ing to the slow process of approval of an aquaculture licence. Is the memory of this cabinet so short that he thinks I'm making these questions up? All right, I'll ask this. You know, it's not my riding that's going to be affected by this. Courtenay-Comox will definitely be affected by this.

Prince Rupert, Nanaimo-Parksville and the Gulf Islands will be af- fected by this. I know none of these members is stand- ing up to say how to justify any of this. This isn't hypothetical. In fact, if the minister hasn't taken into consideration the siting of fish farms and whether they are subject to this legislation or not, then he can't speak with authority on anything else in this legislation. I guarantee some of the first requests for use of this legislation will come from the aquaculture industry.

Let me ask this, then: is this the first time the minis- ter has contemplated fish farms and aquaculture and the siting of fish farms in relationship to this legisla- tion? Hon. K. Falcon: No, I actually haven't. I will say to the member that there will be, I'm sure, lots of people that would love to bring forward projects for consid- eration by cabinet, but those projects are going to have to meet a very high test. That high test includes what I

8088 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 talked to the member about. It must have at least re- gional economic significance or positive economic im- p a c t . I t m u s t h a v e a t l e a s t r e g i o n a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l o r social benefits. That is a pretty big package of obliga- tions that it's going to have to receive. Should a fish farm licensee wish to avail themselves of this, they would have to come forward, either to their local government or to the provincial cabinet, and make a request. I can tell you that this is

an act that is going to be used maybe a handful of times a year, and there's going to be a lot more disappointed people than there are people that are going to be able to avail them- selves. That's why the act was designed that way. [1525] J. MacPhail: Well, that and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, because there's no evi- dence whatsoever about any constraint on this legisla- tion.

Here we have a minister standing up and saying: "Gee, I hadn't even thought of fish farms." His Liberal MLAs stand up here in the Legislature every time aquaculture comes up and say how it has regional benefit, social benefit, economic benefit. They stand here and champion…. The member for Nanaimo stands here and champions all those every day, and how we've got to get on with building fish farms and siting them. I t i s c l e a r l y c o m i n g a s a s u r p r i s e t o t h e m i n i s t e r responsible for this draconian legislation, but it isn't coming as a surprise to anyone else in this Legislature.

In fact, the member for Nanaimo could be standing up and asking the flip side of my question, the way he's done all the time before, saying: "Gee, I sure hope fish farms are exempt from this legislation." That's been his tenor of comment in this Legislature all along. He will make that appeal on behalf of businesses in his con- stituency. So will the member from Campbell River. This minister is standing here saying he hasn't even thought about it, and yet there's no exemption for fish farms or the siting of fish farms or for Land and Water B.C. in this legislation.

In fact, the minister says they're an approval authority that can be overridden as long as the circumstances are okay. Well, every Liberal MLA in this Legislature has risen to justify the circumstances of the siting of fish farms. What about administrative tri- bunals? Are they exempt as approval authorities? Hon. K. Falcon: Well, again, that's going to depend on the circumstances of the case. If the administrative tribunal is quasi-judicial in nature, then clearly it would not apply. If it's, say, a licensing function, then clearly that may apply.

It totally depends on the situation, and that would of course be governed…. Again, as you get through sections 3 and 4, you will see that there would have to be some form of breakdown in the consultation process, where they're having difficulty getting approval from the respective approval authority. M. Hunter: I appreciate a moment ago the Leader of the Opposition attributing to me support for the aquaculture industry. She's quite correct. It is actually an environmentally sustainable and environmentally responsible industry, and I'll continue to support it. But I want to get back to

section 1 of Bill 75. I do appreciate there's been some canvassing of what might an approval authority be under paragraph 1(

b) of this bill. I'd like to kind of shift attention a little bit, because I think I understand, from the answers given by the minister to the Leader of the Opposition, the kind of areas that we're talking about in terms of a public body that could perform the function or duty of government. I'm a little less clear about

section 1(d), a public body which is empowered by an enactment as a duty of local government. What might that be? Would it, for example, be the greater Nanaimo water district? Is that an example? Perhaps the minister could answer that and give other examples that would help clarify what is meant by this particular section. Hon. K. Falcon: It could in fact be a water district, or it could be a corporation set up by a local govern- ment to undertake certain activities on its behalf. [1530] M.

Hunter: I guess a similar clarification I would ask of the minister is with respect to paragraph (f), "any other prescribed entity." What does the minister imag- ine would be such an entity, and could he clarify who would prescribe such an entity and how that prescrip- tion would be made? Hon. K. Falcon: That really speaks to the question that if you discover an entity you were unaware of, you would have the power, through prescribing regulation, to identify that particular entity. M. Hunter: I'm not sure I understood the answer.

I can understand and I appreciate there may be an entity out there that isn't covered in paragraphs (

a) through (e). Let's imagine entity X is out there. The prescription. How is that entity prescribed? You said through regu- lation. Can you just expand on that a little bit? The pre- scription would be by the Lieutenant-Governor-in- Council. Is that what I understand? Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you to the member for Nanaimo. You would find that power described under

section 12(2)(a), "Prescribing an entity as an approval authority." J. MacPhail: Carrying along the lines of the mem- ber for Nanaimo, we now know this government can override a water district authority. What about the Building Code Appeal Board? That has a direct rela- tionship to construction projects. Can this legislation override that? Hon. K. Falcon: Again, we've moved past

section 1, and we're into

section 3 and

section 4. I need to walk this member through, because you keep raising questions. J. MacPhail: Point of order, Mr. Chair. Maybe the minister misunderstood. He's claiming that I'm beyond

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8089

section 1. I'm asking whether the Building Code Ap- peal Board is an approval authority. The Chair: I'd like to remind the members, as well, t h a t I h a v e b e e n g i v i n g l e e w a y o n b o t h s i d e s o f t h i s issue, with the member and the minister. I understand where we're going. Hon. K. Falcon: Again, the definition of approval authority is broad by its very nature, but it's brought to bear by the clarifications that are given under

section 3 and under

section 4. [1535] J. MacPhail: I am honestly taken aback by the un- willingness or the inability of the minister to answer these very specific questions. These are actually boards — authorities — that deal with projects, so this shouldn't come as a shock to him. Has the minister contemplated the Building Code Appeal Board in the drafting of this legislation? Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, all of those are in fact contem- plated, and those would be part of the reasonable re- quirements of an approval authority that come into play anytime you have a major project. That's very much contemplated. J.

MacPhail: So it is an approval authority. That's the question I asked. Interjection. J. MacPhail: No, Mr. Chair, it isn't good enough for the minister to say that it depends on the circum- stances. We know that. If the Building Code Appeal Board is doing its job and someone complains about how that's taking time, can that be designated as an approval authority according to

section 1 of the legisla- tion? Hon. K. Falcon: It could be considered an approval authority, and depending on the circumstances of the case, it would be required to expedite their particular decision-making. Again, that would depend on the cir- cumstances of the case, as laid out in sections 3 and 4. [R. Stewart in the chair.] J. MacPhail: How about the Community Care Facil- ity Appeal Board? The minister has said this bill is not about environmental health or safety standards. There's no exemption for the community care facility act.

This act actually deals with the construction of community care facilities, and it's an administrative tribunal. There are no exemptions for administrative tribunals. So is the Community Care Facility Appeal Board an approval authority? Hon. K. Falcon: The first question that would obvi- ously arise is how on earth that would be a provincially significant authority project, so that in itself would rele- gate it to the fact that it's very unlikely to meet…. J. MacPhail: That's interesting. Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, thank you.

It's unlikely to meet the standards and the guide- lines that are set in place — t hat i t m u s t hav e at l e as t regional economic benefit or regional environmental benefit or what have you. Again, I would just encourage the member to actu- ally read the act.

The other thing I would say to the member is that were a project to be built, whatever the case or type of project the minister wants to talk about, the decision-making authorities that do the review and decision-making authorities would be required or could be required to expedite those decisions — not impacting the standards but just expediting those deci- sions through — so we can get timeliness associated with that particular provincially significant project. J. MacPhail: Listen, Mr. Chair. I have to tell you that this minister better….

We better either adjourn this legislation so that he can actually be briefed on these matters, or else he should stop being so cheeky on be- half of the people of British Columbia. These questions have come from people around the province who are faced with this situation exactly. [1540] Maybe the Minister of State for Long Term Care would like to intervene, because community care facili- ties in some areas of the province are the only signifi- cant building projects going on.

That's exactly what the member for Cariboo South was talking about when he was saying that there's a big difference between lower mainland projects and projects elsewhere. He was quite polite to answer that member's ques- tion, to say: "Oh yeah. Don't worry. Smaller. It's not a dollar value." Now he stands up and says: "Oh, I can't imagine how that would be significant." Perhaps he'd like to talk to the people of Williams Lake. The Community Care Facility Appeal Board deals with approval processes and must take into considera- tion environmental, health and safety issues. Why isn't it exempt, then? Hon. K.

Falcon: I can only gather, because the member keeps going on about care homes, that she has a particular interest in ensuring that care homes are expedited in British Columbia. I don't want to take away from that concern at all. I mentioned to the mem- ber that I think the provincial Significant Projects Streamlining Act actually stretches a fairly high bar, but if the member wants to recommend and bring for- ward projects such as that so that the processes can be expedited while preserving the standards, then I would encourage her to do that. J.

MacPhail: Can the minister point to any place in this legislation where rules set out by independent tri- bunals are exempt from Bill 75 — anywhere?

8090 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 Hon. K. Falcon: Member, again, you have to read the legislation, but it would not be. You would first of all have to determine whether or not it was a con- straint. If it became a constraint on the project, then you would go to

section 4(1) in which you would have to see whether the project can be facilitated or the con- straint can be…. I'll read it into the record: "…must consult with the approval authority having responsibil- ity for that constraint in order to arrive at a means by which the completion and operations of the designated project can be facilitated in a manner that is consistent with the reasonable requirements of the approval au- thority." [1545] J. MacPhail: Here's the problem. The bill stands as it is. There are no regulations coming — none.

That's what we were told in our briefing by staff — no regula- tions coming for this legislation. There are no regula- tions to tell us or the public or anyone how cabinet will use these powers — none. The minister standing up and stating what he just said has no substance in the legislation whatsoever. His words can't be backed up by statute. The minister has said it's not about compromising environmental, health or safety standards. I've just given him three examples where that's a distinct possibility: fish farms, building codes and community care facilities. Those are just three. He can't point to a single

section in the bill where those concerns are addressed.

Section 11 exempts only two acts from this legisla- tion. Everything else, by

interpretation, applies and is open for application. The way laws are interpreted, it very clearly says if there's a list of exemptions, then it means everything else is included. All of these bodies I brought up are deemed to be included as being able to be overridden. Let me actually quote from a piece submitted to the Vancouver Province on November 10 after the legisla- tion was introduced. It was written by Dave Hanley of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Did the Liberal bench get that? The Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

He writes: "It's imperative for risk-takers and investors that the regulatory burden be unburdensome and pre- dictable. Bill 75 does the opposite. It makes the ap- proval process unpredictable, unfair and potentially costly." I'd be happy to read his entire letter into the record, but that is not taking anything out of context. Can the minister point to the

section where it lays out how cabinet will decide to override an approval authority? Hon. K. Falcon: Well, first let me respond to the inaccuracies of the member opposite. In fact, if she read

section 11 in its entirety — and I will, so that she's forced to listen to it.

Section 11(1) states: "If there is a conflict between this Act and any other enactment, this Act prevails." Subsection (2) says: "Subsection (1) does not apply in the event of a conflict between this Act and (

a) the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the regulations made under that Act, or (

b) the Environ- mental Assessment Act and the regulations made un- der that Act." Now, that member should know that the Environ- mental Assessment Act sets up environmental assess- ment review processes which consider all relevant en- vironmental reviews — including, in fact, federal ones — because the Environmental Assessment Act coordi- nates and harmonizes with the federal government. That is a very broad, sweeping piece of legislation, and it states right there in

section 11 that it is covered. So enough of that. The other criticism that member makes is from somebody from the Taxpayers Federation who I've actually never heard of. I will point the member to some other letters that have come in — from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, for example. The president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, John Winter, says: "This is a bold and creative solution to address this province's needs for economic investment." The cham- ber also goes on to say that this legislation is necessary to put teeth in the government's heartlands economic strategy.

The ICBA came out and said: "Red tape is not just bad for big projects; it's bad for all projects. This new act should be the first step to streamline the entire pro- ject approval process. We can't underestimate the eco- nomic losses caused by layers of bureaucracy and pa- perwork." From the Business Council. "This act is a very im- portant tool for potential investors wishing to invest in the province," said Business Council president and CEO Jerry Lampert.

"It sends a clear signal to the in- vestment community that process and red tape will not get in the way of investment, jobs and opportunities that are significant and beneficial to all British Colum- bians." [1550] We've got more letters. I've got stacks of letters — from the British Columbia Construction Association. J. MacPhail: Would that be Mike Geoghegan? Hon. K. Falcon: That would be Mike Geoghegan, in fact. He recognizes…. Interjection. Hon. K. Falcon: I can't hear, because the member across the way is yelling. Interjection. The Chair: Order, please. Could we let the minister respond. Hon. K.

Falcon: "Our members," he says, "work in every municipality in B.C. Reducing the regulatory burden and red tape they deal with on every project is critically important to them. To the extent that Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, achieves this purpose, our organization is strongly in support."

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8091 What is the common message coming out of this? The common message is that investment capital in Brit- ish Columbia and, indeed, around the world actually has choices. It's something the previous government never understood, you see, because they chased in- vestment capital out of British Columbia. As we have the world looking to British Columbia and as we get closer to 2010 and people are knocking on our doors, we want to make sure we're rolling out the red carpet, not rolling out the red tape.

Sadly, over the last decade, under that member's government, we created an environment of red tape and process that was so ridiculous that we literally chased away companies. In the late nineties alone we lost over 500 corporations and 30,000 people just to Alberta. You know, I make no mistakes. J. MacPhail: How many of them have come back? Zero. The Chair: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. K. Falcon: As a matter of fact, I'm glad the member asked that question. Interjection. The Chair: Order, please. Hon. K. Falcon: If the member actually looks at the migration patterns…. The Chair: Order.

Minister, could you sit down for a moment, please. Hon. K. Falcon: Sure. The Chair: Could we please allow the member to finish speaking. We'd all like to hear the answer. Hon. K. Falcon: In conclusion, I was just pointing out that we are seeing the positive news already com- ing in — the October job reports, where half of all new jobs in the country were created right here in British Columbia, the strongest numbers since 1976. Net mi- gration is coming back to British Columbia, and we're seeing the growth in biotechnology and high technol- ogy and industries right across the great breadth of this province.

This bill will send another signal. It'll send a signal that if you have a major project with wide envi- ronmental or investment or economic benefits to Brit- ish Columbians, we will promise this: process and red tape and the review and process provisions are not going to get in the way of those benefits being realized by all British Columbians. J. MacPhail: Well, I can hardly wait to see this gov- ernment tout the job numbers when they come in, in December.

I hope the government touts them exactly the same way they did at the beginning of November, because every single economist who spoke to the job numbers said they were flukes. There's a reason for that, and it has to do with the firefighting activity that occurred in October. I actually put it to the government that they issue news releases and claim credit for the job numbers the first week in December the same way they did in November. Maybe the Finance minister's information is wrong in his statistics, but the interprovincial out-migration is on the increase.

I'm sorry — I just took that from the Minister of Finance's numbers. Maybe the minister of state has his own numbers, which are different from the Finance minister's numbers, but I don't think he does. [1555] I love the fact that he likes to deride the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I love that fact. I did ask a spe- cific question on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and the minister didn't answer it, so I'll repeat it. Can the minister point to the

section where it lays out how cabinet will decide to override an ap- proval authority? Where is the predictability? That question is from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Hon. K. Falcon: Having already stated repeatedly that the bill will not affect environmental, health or safety standards, I'll walk the member through

section 4 so that she understands completely that a proponent must deal with the reasonable requirements of an ap- proval authority. Should there still be a problem and the proponent is having difficulty with the reasonable requirements of an approval authority, then the minis- ter may try and intervene and sit down with them and see if they can work out whatever that unreasonable or reasonable requirement — as the case may be — is. Then the minister has the ability to bring in an in- dependent facilitator. That independent facilitator can then do a fact-finding.

They can talk to all the parties involved, determine what the information is and then come back to the minister with recommendations. There is still another step before a minister could issue direction to actually replace a measure. That min- ister must, depending on whether he has been author- ized by cabinet to do so or may return back to cabinet for such authorization….

He or she must consult with the approval authority and consult with the proponent prior to making that replacement measure — again adding a whole number of steps and processing to this to ensure we are working cooperatively together to get reasonableness and timeliness. J. MacPhail: My question was: how is cabinet going to do the approval? The minister stood up here and said, "I'm not going to through project by project and guess how cabinet's going to make the decision," so I asked him for the guidelines of what will be the process for cabinet to reach a decision. Hon. K.

Falcon: Recognizing, member, that we're now on

section 3, which I'm happy to do…. I do feel we should at least get through our

definitions, but I will answer that. Under

section 3, if the minister brings

8092 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 forward a recommendation to cabinet, cabinet would review that recommendation and make a determina- tion as to whether to issue a designation on a specific project. That's outlined, for your convenience, in sec- tion 3(1) and 3(2). B. Suffredine: I'm going to ask a few questions about the general concept of the projects, but before I begin the first question, I want to clarify. I noted that the Leader of the Opposition said just a moment ago that the job numbers were up because of the fires in October.

Being from a riding where almost 50,000 acres burned, I'm pretty sure the fires were out by then. I think they were out in September. I just wanted to be sure it was clear on the record that August and Sep- tember were the times when the fires were burning. If the job numbers were up, the jobs were finished by that time. Interjection. The Chair: Order, please. Order, please. B. Suffredine: Now, what I'd like to do is just get a picture of this for constituents.

I am getting inquiries from people about what the general nature of this leg- islation is and why it should be there, so I'm going to give an example — and it's only an example — for il- lustrative purposes. There was recently a proposal in Nelson where someone produced some pretty exten- sive mapping and documentation for a project — a major ski area just on the edge of Nelson that probably would involve investment of between $50 million and $100 million if it were to go ahead. I guess step 1 is: does that concept fit the nature of a project that might be eligible for designation under this section? [1600] Hon.

K. Falcon: As I mentioned earlier to the mem- ber for Vancouver-Hastings, the challenge with sort of taking a one-off example I know next to nothing about is that it's very difficult for me to prejudge any decision that cabinet may want to consider when making a des- ignation. So I would suggest to you that a number of things would have to be in place. The identity of the proponent and the financial ca- pability of the proponent would be important. The position of the local government would certainly be of interest and some sense as to what kind of support there is in the business community, etc.

I think all of those characteristics would probably want to be in place. B. Suffredine: Assuming that it met the criteria described by the minister — t h a t i t a p p e a r e d t o b e a significant project, would create significant employ- ment in the community and was eligible — can the minister illustrate some of the types of things that might be considered as constraints that a developer would be coming to the ministry for and saying: "These are the types of things that are making our project un- workable. Would you help us?" Hon. K.

Falcon: I can speak from some knowledge o f t h a t f r o m t h e r e s o r t s i d e o f t h i n g s . T y p i c a l l y , w h a t happens when someone applies under the resort appli- cation is that they initially start dealing with Land and Water B.C., but very quickly a proponent will find themselves dealing with multiple ministries of gov- ernment and then also multiple — and I do mean mul- tiple, in the dozens — permitting provision require- ments that they have to go through. In dealing with various ministries of government, you often have governments working at cross- purposes.

That can be both provincial government and local government, so it can create a lot of confusion. There's no timeliness associated with decisions. You are required to invest often hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in studies, with no sense what- soever as to whether your project is even going to get a green light. Those are typically the kinds of barriers one would find in undertaking a project like the one you've men- t i o ne d .

A g ai n, a s I s ay , i t 's d i f f i c u l t — and i n f ac t no t just difficult but irresponsible — for me to comment or to pretend to understand what decision a future cabi- net would make on a project. I hope that helps edify you a little bit. B. Suffredine: I wasn't intending to do more than illustrate the principles in asking the question, but I'm sure the minister understands how most people grasp things in terms of real concrete examples they can re- late to. Finally on this, you spoke in terms of timeliness and projects being delayed.

I think it's fairly important to the average person whether eligibility under this act would in any way affect the obligation of, say, a pro- ponent in the example given to comply with standards such as the Building Code or health standards. Is there any possibility that they would be held to a different standard, or are we simply speaking of the timeliness of getting a response? Hon. K. Falcon: No, that proponent would be held to the standards that are in place. J. MacPhail: Just for the minister's clarity, I'm ask- ing questions about

section 1(

c) now. It says that in this act, approval authority means "…(

c) a local govern- ment." That's just in case there's any confusion on what

section we're on. Local government is defined as an approval authority that can be overridden. Can the minister tell us…? He talked to the member from Al- berni a bit about the consultation that went on with local governments. I'm going to present to him a much different version of what he said. I'll probably read it into the record, into the correspondence. But who did he consult with about including local governments? Who was on the UBCM committee he consulted with, or what local mayors did he consult with?

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8093 [1605] Hon. K. Falcon: Back in April, I met with the table officers, I believe they call themselves, from the UBCM. The president at that time was Pat Wallace, and the vice-president was — the current president, actually — Frank Leonard. I don't recall all the names of the other table directors. I know Marvin Hunt was one of them. I'm afraid I forget the other few that were there. That was back in April.

I also had several meetings with the Council of Re- source Communities, which represents 38 mostly rural resource communities, and elicited largely pretty strong support from that group. J. MacPhail: That's interesting. Did he consult with Mayor Colin Kinsley as part of any of those groups? Hon. K. Falcon: Mayor Kinsley is part of the Coun- cil of Resource Communities, so yes, he was part of the consultation. J. MacPhail: Let me just talk about Mayor Colin Kinsley. It's very interesting, because I want to turn to an

article from the Times Colonist, November 16. It says: "And according to communications materials rubber-stamped by the Deregulation minister, 'the Council of Resource Communities, a group representing 38 communities, was strongly supportive of the proposed legislation.' The news release announcing the legislation even included an encouraging quotation from Prince George mayor and council co-chairman Colin Kinsley." Then this

article from the Times Colonist by Sean Holman goes on to say: "I phoned Kinsley to check up on his support for the streamlining act." This

article was on November 16, this past Sunday. The

article goes on to say: "When I reached him in Toronto, he told me he was surprised to hear the legislation 'will take away from the rights of municipalities…. From my discussions with Minister Falcon, that's absolutely not true, nor would municipalities stand for that. So I think some careful dialogue and discussion needs to take place about what this legislation stands for, because I would never stand for the kind of things that were said to me about taking away local government authority.'" Let's clear up a few things for Mr. Kinsley, the mayor.

To the minister: does Bill 75 give cabinet the ability to override local governments — yes or no? Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, let me comment on your comments on Mayor Kinsley, because you're referring to an

article written by Sean Holman. I understand he used to work for your government. I think that…. J. MacPhail: No. Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. J. MacPhail: He worked for the public service. Hon. K. Falcon: Oh, yes, of course. Let me just say this. Can I answer the question? May I answer the question? Interjection. The Chair: Order. Order, please. Can we let the minister answer the question, please. Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you. I appreciate…. Interjection. The Chair: Order, please. Order, please. Would the Leader of the Opposition…. Interjection. The Chair: Order, please. Order, please.

Would the Leader of the Opposition please let the minister answer the question. J. MacPhail: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. He delib- erately attacked a person who was a public servant, a n d h e ' s s u r r o u n d e d b y p u b l i c s e r v a n t s . W h a t ' s t h e difference? The Chair: Can we please have the debate focused on the

section at hand. Please let the minister answer the question. Hon. K. Falcon: I would actually refer the member to Mayor Colin Kinsley's most recent comments I just saw in the paper, perhaps even today. I believe the comments of the mayor, and I paraphrase, were that he felt the UBCM is overreacting to the concerns raised in this bill and that he sees the positive benefits of the streamlining bill for both his area in Prince George and the province as a whole. By the way, I also had a long conversation with Mr. Kinsley over the weekend, and he confirmed that. J.

MacPhail: Does the minister take pride in pitting one set of mayors against the other? Is that what he's saying here — that he can talk to Mr. Kinsley and he can get Mr. Kinsley to back up his legislation? Let me ask the question, then: did the minister promise Mr. Kinsley that this legislation wouldn't override local governments? Did he make that promise to him? [1610] Hon. K. Falcon: I've made no promises to anyone. I've been very clear about what the intent of this bill is. I'd be happy to go over that again in great detail with the member.

I would just again remind the member that in all her discussions about things, she needs to know this: this bill does nothing new. Actually, gov- ernment has always had the authority to override local government. I refer you to

section 874 of the Local Government Act. It's already there. I hate to shock the member, but it's there. We can override all their plan- ning, their OCPs, zoning bylaws or what have you.

8094 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 What we did here is said: "Look, if a project is deemed to be in the provincial interest — that there's provincial significance associated with that project — then let's build into place a means by which we can cooperatively ensure that red tape and process and review processes are not going to get in the way of that project." It does not guarantee certainty of outcome.

It may, in fact, get a fast "no" to a proponent, and that's okay too, because as the Premier is fond of saying, most business people would much rather have a "no" in 30 days than an "I don't know" in 30 months. Right now in British Columbia you're much more likely to get an "I don't know" in 30 months. We as a government believe that those disciplines we're imposing on ourselves as a provincial gove

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1120pm 12
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1120pm 12
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	18dd6297f19fb4ee3195f9302c22317ba15d324b

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