2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Mining industry in B.C.

MacKay

Racism awareness

Thorne

B.C. history poster contest

I. Black

Marlene Swift

G. Coons

Canadian citizenship

Rustad

Asante Centre for Fetal Alcohol

Syndrome

Sather

Oral Questions

Government action on forest

industry

C. James

Hon. R.

Coleman

Macdonald

Simpson

Funding for post-secondary

education

Fleming

Hon. M.

Coell

J. Kwan

Seismic upgrades for schools

Cubberley

Hon. S.

Bond

Petitions

D. Thorne

Second Reading of Bills

Local Government (Green

Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 27) (continued)

Simpson

Horgan

Thorne

Fraser

Robertson

Puchmayr

L. Krog

Hon. I.

Chong

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 33)

Hon. W.

Oppal

L. Krog

Ralston

University Amendment Act, 2008

(Bill 34)

Hon. M.

Coell

Fleming

Trevena

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children

and Family Development (continued)

Simons

Hon. T.

Christensen

Farnworth

[ Page 12347 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, over the lunch hour members of the opposition and members of government met with the executive of St. John Ambulance of British Columbia. I thank you for hosting that lunch.

I'd like to introduce them now: Mr. Stuart Clyne, chair of the British Columbia and Yukon Council, St. John Ambulance; Mr. Larry Odegard, chief executive officer, St. John Ambulance, British Columbia and Yukon; Mr. Logan Stewart, vice-chancellor of community services, priory of Canada, St. John Ambulance; and Mr. David Harris, chair of the Victoria branch, executive committee of St. John Ambulance.

St. John Ambulance will mark its 125th anniversary of volunteer service and first-aid training in Canada and its 97th anniversary of volunteer service in British Columbia. St. John Ambulance branches are located in 26 British Columbia communities, and the members of this organization have served their respective communities with professionalism and dedication.

St. John Ambulance is Canada's leading first-aid trainer. At cultural, community and sporting events throughout the province, these volunteers are on the scene to provide first aid and health safety–related volunteer services on an as-needed basis until medical assistance arrives. St. John volunteers serve British Columbia communities by providing over 12,000 volunteer hours a year.

Please recognize St. John Ambulance and our guests for the service they do for British Columbia.

[1335]

Hon. I. Chong: Today I have a special introduction, and that is for my administrative assistant Linsey Cole. She is the cheerful voice and friendly face you encounter when you contact my office here in the Legislature.

Linsey will be taking a few days off and next week as well, because on Sunday, May 18 she will be getting married to her fiancé Chris Tupper, who works for the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

I would like to wish my administrative assistant the very best as she embarks on this new journey with her new partner in life, and I wish the House would please give them their warm wishes.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I have two sets of introductions today. Visiting the Legislature is the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region executive leadership group. They've had a full morning of meetings, with more meetings with ministers to come.

Joining us today are State Representative George Eskridge of Idaho, PNWER president; speaker pro tempore Jeff Morris from the Washington State House of Representatives and president of the Energy Horizon Project for PNWER; Senator Lesil McGuire from the Alaska State Legislature and PNWER vice-president; John Leech, executive director and registrar of the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of British Columbia; Neil Windsor, professional engineer, president and registrar of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta; his counterpart Derek Doyle, professional engineer, president of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia; John Hansen, president of the North West CruiseShip Association; and Matt Morrison, executive director of PNWER.

Also visiting the Legislature is Chris Sands, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Washington D.C. — a great partner of PNWER. I ask the House to give them all a great Victoria welcome.

J. Horgan: Members of this place will be familiar with my alpha and my omega, spouse Ellie. Joining her in the gallery today is my youngest son, the able and always charming Evan Horgan. Would the members please make them very, very, very welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Today visiting the Legislature are 11 team members from the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. They work in the customer service and information branch. They are Wayne, Danna, Belinda, Cynthia, Andrea, Claire, Kevin, Cynthia, Kristina, Terry and Mila. I would ask all members of this House to give these very dedicated public servants a warm welcome to the House.

D. Hayer: I have two special guests today from my constituency: Hanif A. Karmally, CFO of the Teal-Jones Group, and John Pichugin, manager of engineering and forestry from the Teal-Jones Group. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Also visiting us today is Rosie Llewellyn-Thomas from Fort McMurray, Alberta. She is visiting her daughter, my administrative coordinator Marnie Llewellyn-Thomas. She's been enjoying Victoria for the past two weeks, and I ask the House to please make her very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) MINING INDUSTRY IN B.C.

D. MacKay: This is Mining Week. British Columbia has been one of the world's major mining regions since the 1800s, and today we continue to be a key international player in the mining industry.

The Hudson's Bay Company started producing coal on Vancouver Island in the 1840s, and the discovery of gold along the Fraser River in the 1850s saw a gold rush that resulted in the settlement of many parts of our province that we call home today. Most of the early mining activity took place underground until the

[ Page 12348 ]

1960s, when open-pit mining production increased tremendously.

[1340]

In 2007 we saw $416 million spent on mineral exploration throughout our province. That's a remarkable 1,300 percent increase over 2001. We saw 1.25 million metres of drilling, an increase of 51 percent from the previous year. Today we have ten metal mines, nine coalmines and over 30 industrial mines in production. As reported in Pricewaterhouse today, production from those properties generated $6.9 billion. That's a lot of money.

Today there are 20 new projects under environmental review. Some 54 percent of Canadian exploration companies are based right here in British Columbia, and 28,000 people in 15 communities are employed in the mining sector. Once again, I would remind everybody that wages and benefits within this sector average $101,000 annually.

Mining is part of what British Columbia was and continues to be. Mining Week is an opportunity to acknowledge and recognize the importance of this sector to the economy of our province.

RACISM AWARENESS

D. Thorne: Today more than ever, youth are aware of societal issues and are tremendously keen to take action on those issues. Hillcrest Middle School in my riding has two students who have done just that recently. They have sent me a letter, which I'm going to read to you, but I just want to say first that these two students researched the problem of racism and then embarked on a campaign to collect signatures for a petition that I will present later.

Their youthful idealism propelled them to walk their neighbourhoods, talk with people and ask for their signatures. They are aware that government does take measures to address the problem of racism, particularly amongst youth, but they believe that more can be done. I'd like to now read their letter.

"We are grade 8 students of Hillcrest Middle School in Coquitlam, and we have put together a petition to make the provincial "ministry of racism awareness" happen. When collecting signatures, we realized that it was much harder than we thought it would be. Therefore, we only have 69 signatures, but we still hope that you will put this to the correct people. We started this petition to create the first step in the process.

"We did this to get the government to realize that they are not putting enough effort into racism awareness, and more effort needs to be put into this huge problem. We're hoping that this step will make the government take the rest of the needed steps.

"Our concern of racism is that every day people are discriminated against and made to feel inferior by people that don't know how it feels to be left out in the dark and to not have any support by a group of people who should be giving them the most support — the government.

"We'd like the government to spend as much time and money as they do to organize other things, such as the Olympics and other events. For starters they could create posters and presentations in schools as a lot of racism takes place in our schools. Billboards and notices, or even special fairs or other events, would be perfect. Please, we want to thank you very much for any support and help that you might offer."

That is signed by Mathew Brown and Connor Wright, and they are the representatives from the grade 8 class at Hillcrest Middle School. I just think they've done a tremendous job.

B.C. HISTORY POSTER CONTEST

I. Black: Yesterday in the Legislature the Office of the Speaker held a celebration to showcase the winners of the BC150 poster contest. The contest, which is entitled "Discover Your Community: History in Art," was launched to support the celebrations of the 150th anniversary of the Crown colony of British Columbia.

Students from across the province were invited to submit a poster depicting a historical event in their local communities. I'd like to congratulate Tessa Warhurst of Lillooet, Lisa Xie of Vancouver, Derrick Van Viegen of Port Alberni and Eric Kim of Vancouver for their first-place entries.

But how in good conscience could I stand here representing the riding that includes the City of the Arts, Port Moody, and not celebrate local students who also submitted some very, very impressive displays? Two local students, in particular, fared really well.

They are not only in the same grade and in the same school, but they are also identical twin sisters. Ariana and Saskia Vaisey from Summit Middle School were the first and second runners-up respectively in their grade category. Both girls submitted original work commemorating the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which also happened in Port Moody.

[1345]

Ariana's poster illustrated a poised Agnes Macdonald, wife of Prime Minister Sir John A., as she rode the rails across the country for the very first time. Saskia's poster portrays the Golden Spike Day, the party that celebrates the completion of the railway — a party that we still continue to celebrate at our annual Golden Spike Days in Port Moody. It's the July long weekend. Do mark your calendars.

A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to meet these amazing young women when I paid a surprise visit to their school to present each of them with their BC150 prize packages, compliments of the Speaker's office. This contest was a great opportunity for our young people to learn about our history, to contemplate our heritage and to celebrate our province.

Please join me in congratulating all of those who took the time to participate.

MARLENE SWIFT

G. Coons: Today I'd like to take a couple of minutes to honour one of my good friends and constituents Marlene Swift, whose story of strength, courage and survival should stand as an inspiration to us all. First I'd like to congratulate Marlene as being one of the six

[ Page 12349 ]

people recognized last week with the Courage to Come Back Award.

Marlene's story of poverty, violence, addiction and abuse could have easily led to an unhappy situation, but because of her extraordinary will to overcome, her endless forgiveness and the force of her character, she has triumphed over her many challenges.

As a youth she was born into a family troubled with alcoholism and violence, and she suffered from sexual abuse at the hands of family acquaintances. At age 16 she tried to escape her family through marriage, but it proved no better than what she had left. Driven into alcoholism and drug abuse, her partners were violent, her children were taken from her, and her life was filled with darkness.

The tragedy that changed everything happened in 1983 when Marlene was working as a cab driver in Prince Rupert. One November morning her passenger turned on her with a knife to her throat and ordered her to drive out to a deserted stretch of highway. She was brutally raped, tossed out of the cab and left for dead. She managed to flag a passing motorist who took her to the hospital, but her deepest wounds were beyond anything that the doctor could do. She was afraid to leave her house or answer the phone.

However, this tragedy would prove to be one that drove her to triumph. Marlene's assailant pled guilty, and Marlene was determined to turn her life around. She began to face her pain and conquer her addictions. Today Marlene is a voice of hope for people who are struggling with their own demons. In her work as project coordinator for Prince Rupert RCMP victim services, Marlene is truly an inspiration to many of us.

I'd like to conclude with a few of Marlene's own words to those who suffer from addictions: "Life is worth living without the addiction and the addictive behaviour, because you are worthy."

CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP

J. Rustad: Citizenship is something that's often taken for granted. So when I spoke with Karen Muir, a grade 12 student at Nechako Valley Secondary School in Vanderhoof, I decided to share her comments. Karen recently attended a 4-H event in Ottawa and wrote the following:

"They were all nicely dressed, for this was an especially important occasion. The older children were wide-eyed, while the babies slept in their mothers' arms. The adults appeared to be a bit tired but excited. This was the end of a long journey.

"The people I speak of are a group of new Canadians I met while attending a citizenship ceremony in Ottawa. The background of the group was varied. Some were refugees, some joining family, and some just fell in love with Canada. Regardless of their history, they were all elated and excited to become a Canadian citizen.

"Upon taking the oath and receiving the citizenship, they knew they'd be gaining the freedoms they had been waiting for, such as the freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of speech. These new Canadians received the freedom to even run for office if they so choose. When I considered this, I found myself joining the new Canadians in their happiness over being Canadian.

"Even compared to other developed nations, we have incredible rights and freedoms, yet we rarely take a moment to appreciate them. Some of the refugees were escaping religious and political prosecution. I am thankful that I can't imagine what this would be like. I sure appreciate being Canadian-born.

"During the ceremony I was moved to tears by these people and by the ceremony. Seeing the faces of these new Canadian citizens reminded me of how great it is to be Canadian. Seeing how truly joyful they were after receiving their citizenship is a moment and emotion that I'll never forget."

Please join me in thanking Karen Muir for sharing her experience with us.

[1350]

ASANTE CENTRE FOR

FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME

M. Sather: FASD, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, describes a full range of disorders and effects that can occur in a person whose mother drank during pregnancy. In 1993 citizens from my community of Maple Ridge began a coordinated and strategic process to address the issues of FASD. Named after FASD treatment and research pioneer Dr. Kwadwo Asante of Maple Ridge and funded with a $136,000 provincial grant, this grass-roots-based group implemented their community action plan, creating the FASD Society for B.C in March 1999.

A not-for-profit society, the Asante Centre in Maple Ridge — under the direction of the executive director, Audrey Salahub — has created a compassionate and knowledgable community that works together to prevent FASD and to support individuals and families living with FASD to reach their full potential. With a professional team that includes pediatricians, psychologists, speech-language pathologists, clinical counsellors, social workers, nurses, family support workers and research, they and the staff of the Asante Centre bring extensive knowledge, expertise and hands-on experience to all aspects of their work.

Services provided by the Asante Centre include diagnosis and assessment, educational workshops, counselling and family support. Individuals with FASD and their families experience a multitude of difficulties that persist throughout life. Everyone with FASD is unique, and with the assistance of their dedicated staff, the Asante Centre is able to meet the specific needs of these unique individuals and their families.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FOREST INDUSTRY

C. James: Yesterday I was in Kamloops with hundreds of forest workers as the city's sawmill closed down. It's a story we've seen over and over again under the B.C. Liberals' failed forest policy. It's a story

[ Page 12350 ]

that the Minister of Forests has tried to ignore and downplay, even though these are permanent job losses and permanent closures. Instead of helping, instead of bringing forward a real plan, the Minister of Forests accused us of spreading false hope.

Well, I've travelled the province. I've listened to workers and their families. I've listened to communities. They know it's not false hope. They're looking for leadership, but all they get from the Minister of Forests is a minister with no hope.

My question is to the Minister of Forests. If he can't get the job done, if he says his hands are tied, why doesn't he step aside and let someone move in who will do the job?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, maybe I could get the Leader of the Opposition to take the opportunity to read Hansard from yesterday, where I talked not about hope or false hope…. I talked about being honest with British Columbians. That's something you could start….

We're really concerned about the workers in Kamloops and other areas of the province of British Columbia, but I never heard a thing or saw a thing in any media interviews by the Leader of the Opposition where she told that worker who was on television last night, who wanted to get his grade 12 education, that there was a tuition plan in place by this government for that worker.

I never saw anything where you said to the person who was talking about being an older worker and wanting to transition to retirement that there was a plan in place for them to be able to transition.

I saw one quote from the member opposite talking about the fact that we need to do silviculture. Maybe she should go read the silviculture plan to find out that we did 257 million seedlings last year, and we're investing $161 million in silviculture the next….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister. Minister.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

[1355]

C. James: Well, that's exactly the problem. We've just seen it illustrated here today. If the minister would stop talking and start listening, he'd hear from forest communities that this government has done nothing to help them — nothing.

I've been to communities like Mackenzie, like Prince George, like Kamloops, like Nanaimo and seen firsthand the devastating effects of this minister's hands-off approach. He should resign.

I've talked to the workers who are losing their family-supporting jobs, worried about whether they're going to be able to pay their mortgages. I talked to a worker just yesterday who told me about the fact that there were lockers being cleaned out every single day at the school, because families are leaving because they've lost any hope.

B.C.'s forest industry is collapsing. This government is ripping the heart out of communities, and the Minister of Forests refuses to hold himself accountable. Again, to the Minister of Forests: will he own up to his failure, his failed hands-off approach, and step down today?

Hon. R. Coleman: In Kamloops Daily News , May 10, 2008, the Interior Logging Association says that government is helping thousands of forestry workers in Interior communities to bridge the unprecedented challenge facing the forest industry. It goes on to say, "ILA manager Wayne Lintott…said the association is satisfied the provincial government is doing what it can to address the crisis by adjusting policies," and giving loggers input into those changes.

I know the member opposite has a policy that says we would rather not have seen $2 billion come back to our companies in British Columbia so that they could sustain themselves in bad times. They would much rather have a 30 or 40 or 50 percent duty being paid to the United States out of the pockets of our forest industry, which would help nobody in the province of British Columbia and would destroy our industry all together.

We're not interested in your policies, hon. Member. We've got good policies in forestry, and we'll continue to have some.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members: through the Chair.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: Let's take a look at what this government's policies have brought to British Columbia — nearly 40 mills closed, 13,000 jobs lost in this last year alone, communities across this province on the brink of collapse. That's what this government's policies have brought to British Columbia.

The entire industry has lost faith in this minister. They don't want someone who has thrown in the towel. They want real leadership and a real plan, but we're not going to get that from this minister. He's given up, and he's admitted that to all of British Columbia.

My question is to the Premier. This isn't about false hope. This is about leadership for communities. Would the Premier fire the Minister of Forests today and actually give some hope to the industry in British Columbia?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I never give up, and I'll never give up….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: We'll never give up on the fact that since 2004, over $5 billion or $6 billion of capital has been invested in B.C.'s forest sector — the highest

[ Page 12351 ]

investment in capital for efficiencies and operations in the history of the province of British Columbia.

We won't do what the opposition believes we'd do, and that's just to sell the industry down the river by abrogating the softwood lumber deal and putting them back into punitive duties going into the United States, just destroying our industry's future. We will not do that. We will not give up on our…. We will not give up.

I know the member opposite never wants to recognize that we put in place $129 million for retired workers for tuition and for other training and job creation in the province of British Columbia.

[1400]

N. Macdonald: Yesterday we had the minister trying to avoid questions by sitting down. Today we see bluster.

What is clear to all British Columbians who are watching is that it seems that…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: …the only forestry job that this minister is willing to fight for is his own. For the 20,000 others, he couldn't care less. This is the province's most important industry, and it is in complete collapse. Everyone in the province knows that.

In Mackenzie alone, four mills have gone down in the last seven months. This year 13,000 jobs have been wiped out, and there's been no provincial money. There's been federal money, but no provincial money.

The minister designed and delivered a meaningless seven-page coastal strategy, and then he refused to curtail raw log exports. He handed over private land so forestry companies could become realtors at the expense of communities. He has failed to fix first nations forest and range agreements. Failure, failure, failure.

If anyone in this House deserves to be fired, it is him. The Premier should be doing that today.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm sure the people of Revelstoke would appreciate the fact that the member of the opposition from their community would rather sell the Downie Street mill down the river than actually stand up to his own party on the abrogation of the softwood lumber deal.

You know what the high-value cap did for the Downie Street mill. They've told you that, hon. Member. You know darn well that those jobs are a lot more stable in your community because of that deal, and you want to sell off the forest sector. It's entirely up to you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, $129 million to help people transition to early retirement and millions of dollars for tuition for workers to go get retraining while this downturn takes place. While we do that, we'll keep the industry stable so we can meet what the analysts say will be, frankly, a terrific….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, to the member opposite who just said what he did: I was an RCMP officer for eight years, and that insult of me personally would never bother me, because I've heard it all.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: There are reasons, and there are excuses. Every day we come here, and we hear excuses. Let's be clear what the reasons are. The reason that forest worker deaths and injuries have increased is B.C. Liberal forest policy. That's the reason.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: The reason that the value-added sector has collapsed is B.C. Liberal forest policy. The reason that raw logs are being exported at a record level is B.C. Liberal forest policy. The reason that forest-dependent communities are abandoned and left on their own is B.C. Liberal forest policy. The reason that over 20,000 jobs in 46 mills have gone is B.C. Liberal forest policy.

The excuse we hear each and every day — tough markets. Well, British Columbians are sick of the excuses. They are sick of this minister. The Premier should get up and fire him today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Just take your seat, Minister. We're not starting until it's quiet.

Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Not telling British Columbians the truth. Housing starts are at an all-time — decades — low in the United States. That's not telling the truth to the people of British Columbia. Having a dollar that's gone to par from 85 cents where every one cent takes $130 million out of the bottom line of forest companies in British Columbia…. That's being dishonest with British Columbians.

[1405]

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, let me talk to you for just a second about B.C. Liberal forest policy. In 2005, $1.939 billion in capital investment in the forest

[ Page 12352 ]

sector in the province of British Columbia — big numbers every year. I've got all kinds of analysts' reports and comments with regards to the future of our sector. We're going to stand with our sector and continue to work for solutions with them for the long term and with the communities for the long term. This industry has a great future in the province of British Columbia if we weather this storm together.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: In October 2005 in this House, the opposition asked this Forests Minister to put together a select standing committee on forestry because we believed at that time that the crisis in the sector was going to deepen, that more forest workers were going to lose their jobs, that more mills would close and that more forest-dependent communities would be hurt. That was 32 months ago.

What did this minister say? "No way." It wasn't necessary. We were just being Chicken Little. That's what he said. Well, the chickens have come home to roost. This minister also said — and this is a direct quote from 32 months ago: "The reality is that we're going to move very quickly. Very shortly there are going to be some things done out there that will assist our forest sector…. It's pretty critical that we move…expeditiously."

Talk about false hope. Talk about being dishonest with the people of British Columbia. It's 32 months later, and this minister still doesn't have a clue what to do. Will the Premier do the right thing? By any measure, this minister has failed. Will he make him job loss 13,001 in the forest sector and take that job away from him?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again, the member opposite refuses to recognize what the government of British Columbia has done for the people of the province with regards to forestry. We're not going to go….

You know what their policy was. Go buy the Skeena Cellulose pulp mill, blow half a billion dollars out of the taxpayers of British Columbia, and leave nothing but a wasteland behind it in the northwest area of the province. Their other policy was that they were going to have a jobs and timber accord and create 21,000 jobs — and created zero jobs.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, take your seat.

Members, take some time to listen to the question and listen to the answer.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: The opposition were in government when they totally ignored the beetle epidemic in the Interior of the province of British Columbia. They put no plan in place.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: I always know that I'm getting closer to a nerve, the louder the heckling gets to me across the hall.

This is what we've done. Tens of millions of dollars for the coastal forest action plan, including FPInnovations, which is finding new markets and new uses for things like hemlock, which is an important species for the future of the coast of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: We're talking about permanent mill closures, permanent job losses — communities where their entire forest sector is shutting their doors, communities that this minister has told in the public domain: "There's nothing I can do." He said in here: "There's nothing I can do."

We deserve a minister who knows that his primary job is to make sure he is doing something in this time of crisis and that his primary job is to protect forest workers and their communities to get them through this crisis. The people of British Columbia deserve better.

[1410]

So my question is to the Premier, not to the Forests Minister. I challenge the Premier today to stand up in this House and defend this Forests Minister. Is he the right person for this time? Is this the minister that the Premier wants to take this forest industry forward, or does he want to continue to see it melt down under his leadership?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, I love it when they editorialize my comments. I said that there's not much I could do about the U.S. market or the dollar. That is a true factor.

These members opposite are disingenuous to British Columbians if they think they can go down to the United States tomorrow and have them build another million houses. The reality is that they abandoned British Columbians in the 1990s with the pine beetle. Today we spend $642 million in communities across British Columbia to fight the pine beetle.

Nothing — not one dollar — invested by the NDP in fighting the pine beetle, only so they could devastate the land base, sell out those communities and then stand up in this House and think that they're on the side of the angels. I got news for you, Mr. Speaker. The largest amount of capital investments in history is taking place in our forest sector. Our industry is well positioned with modern mills, modern ability to compete, and they will compete in the future.

[ Page 12353 ]

FUNDING FOR

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

R. Fleming: The chair of Vancouver Community College, Mr. Mark Stock, wrote to this minister about how this minister's cuts imperil excellent programs at that institution and will eliminate 400 FTE student spaces and over a thousand individual student spaces at that institution.

Vancouver Community College is looking at closing the American Sign Language and deaf studies department, yet it is connected to one of only four interpreter training programs in all of Canada. When will the minister admit that his last-minute cuts to colleges like VCC are causing chaos and unacceptable cuts to programs, and when will he do something about it?

Hon. M. Coell: The Ministry of Advanced Education has the highest budget it has ever had in the history of British Columbia. It has a $68 million increase in its budget this year. We've invested over $1.5 billion in capital infrastructure, the highest infrastructure program in the history of the province, and the members continue to berate a system that is doing just great.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Week after week out there in the system and across British Columbia, we hear about programs resulting from this minister's cuts, adult basic education programs being eliminated in north Island, engineering and business programs being eliminated at UBC Okanagan, cuts to CNC in Prince George. Last week it was SFU's seniors program.

He says it's unacceptable. He says he's concerned, and he does nothing.

So here's another example. We have a severe shortage of trained interpreters in B.C. and Canada. Maybe the member opposite can remember that not too long ago his government issued a gilded statement, and one of the great goals, goal 3, was to build "the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities."

Does the minister tacitly agree with the cancellation of this sign language training program? Does he think it costs too much? Or will the minister finally step in and do his job and start saving these critical programs before they're gone forever?

Hon. M. Coell: I don't know why the NDP disagreed when we doubled the number of doctors, but they did. I don't know why the NDP disagreed when we've nearly doubled the number of nurses, and we're still focusing on nurses. We're focusing on skilled trades and training. We're focusing on graduates…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1415]

Hon. M. Coell: …and they still vote against it every time.

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, there is a $68 million increase in the ministry's budget to our institutions. I'd like to ask the member why she voted against that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Well, I'd like the minister to actually answer the question. Dale Dorn, the VCC president, says they're faced with a $5.5 million budget shortfall.

Here's another proposed program suspension that the minister might be proud of. The education and employment assessment program for women specializes in working with marginalized women to give them basic literacy and skills training that they need to get access to the workforce.

Will the Minister of Advanced Education today stop denying that his cuts are actually hurting the community and eliminating valuable programs that are pertinent to the marginalized community and the immigrant community?

Hon. M. Coell: Over the last few years we've added thousands upon thousands of new seats in the institutions in this province. Only the NDP could think that a $68 million increase is a cut.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

SEISMIC UPGRADES FOR SCHOOLS

D. Cubberley: Many parents in British Columbia recall the Premier's 2004 promise to launch a complete seismic upgrading of B.C. schools at high risk of collapse in an earthquake. There are 300 B.C. schools at high risk. They recall the Minister of Education's promise to fast-track the 80 highest-risk schools over three years.

Three years have passed. Only a handful of the 80 schools have been dealt with, and all this minister can say to worried families is: "It's taking more time than we thought. It's more difficult to do than I realized." The truth of the matter is that this government has simply not put its money where its mouth is.

[ Page 12354 ]

So my question to the minister: when will this government give seismic upgrading of schools for vulnerable children the same priority that this government gives to making Olympic facilities happen and building a convention centre?

Hon. S. Bond: This government has put its money exactly where its mouth is with a $1.5 billion commitment to seismic projects. You know, it's really ironic that this member would even stand up and ask such a question.

Let's listen to this quote: "British Columbia's biggest stash of liquor is safe from an earthquake, but the government says it doesn't have the money to reinforce a school just down the street. The liquor distribution centre on East Broadway was seismically upgraded shortly after a $2 million plan to upgrade Vancouver Technical School was cancelled."

That's your record on seismic mitigation.

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member for Saanich South has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: Once again, the minister puts more energy into changing the subject than she does into going after the money to honour her promises. This is pathetic for a government that…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Cubberley: …came into office and cut capital funding by 50 percent for schools in its first year and has never restored that funding. It's hypocritical to promise action and then do nothing. It's hypocritical to stand on a platform with parents and advocates and acknowledge the vulnerability of children and promise to fast-track action and then do nothing.

This minister….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Member.

D. Cubberley: This minister knows the funding isn't in the equation to meet the government's commitment to seismically upgrade these schools. So my question to the minister is this. Is this sheer incompetence, or is it outright hypocrisy, or is it a blend of both? Why did you lead families to believe you'd move fast when you weren't prepared to pay for it? Will you, in light of the tragedy in China, finally honour your promise and fast-track seismic upgrades at B.C. schools?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: This is the first government in the history of British Columbia that has put together a seismic mitigation program, a 15-year plan, and $1.5 billion to accomplish it. Not only that, let's talk about the capital investment by this government. Since 2001 this government has invested over $3.1 billion in school infrastructure.

Every member in this House is concerned about what happened in China, but I can assure you of this. We made a commitment. We're moving forward with that, and by the end of this year, we will have almost a hundred schools that are in the position to be under construction meeting the commitment that we made.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

D. Thorne: I'd like to present a petition to make a provincial ministry of racial awareness.

"We the undersigned want a ministry that is aware of racial stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination. We want this because every day thousands of people are discriminated against because not enough is being done. We want this ministry to create laws that will help stop racial discrimination, prejudice and stereotyping. We would also like this ministry to make programs and advertisements, especially against racism for schools."

Mr. Speaker: I remind members just to read the title.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 27 and, in

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

[1425]

Second Reading of Bills

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

(GREEN COMMUNITIES)

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to be able to rejoin the debate in regard to Bill 27, the green communities bill. Yesterday I had the opportunity to talk a little bit about the role of local communities and to make some connection to concerns that I know have been raised by numbers of organizations in regard to Bill 27.

[ Page 12355 ]

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

What we know, of course, is that our local communities, local governments, play an integral role in planning. They play an integral role in terms of dealing with issues that will be essential to dealing with questions of climate change, primarily looking at issues related to sprawl, to land use planning, to how they build compact complete communities.

Those are all initiatives that it's going to be essential for local governments to get on top of, to continue to improve in terms of best practices on, and those are issues that are going to have to be addressed by local government. We see, increasingly, many local governments heading down that road. Vancouver has done some good work in that area, as have a number of other communities around the province which have very effectively looked at that, including places like Maple Ridge.

As I noted yesterday, the planning process seems to work best at the local government level. Local governments have the staff that they commit to that. In fact, they engage communities very directly, whether it's through outreach consultation or through the public hearing process.

Of course, as we know, local government is the one level of government that…. It's very accessible for the general public to be able to get at their mayors and councillors and be able to do the work to engage the mayors and councillors in terms of discussion around what it is that they're interested in advancing.

The problem here is that we may see the provincial government, through Bill 27, heading in a direction that I believe begins to not only download additional responsibilities onto local government to deal with climate change initiatives, begins to advance those initiatives related to the 2012 objective of carbon neutrality. There's no commitment, and we see nothing in this legislation that talks about resources being applied that support those communities in terms of doing that work.

There just aren't significant dollars to be able to do the work around beginning to do retrofits to improve infrastructure, to enhance the planning process for those communities that maybe aren't larger and don't have the same levels of resources that some of our bigger communities do. So there's a great concern that this is a bill that will lead to additional downloads.

There's also a concern I hear that it's a piece of legislation that leads to further edicts from the provincial government to local governments. We know there is a great amount of concern about the download and the sort of direction and the removal of powers from local government.

We only have to reflect back to Bill 30, around private power projects, where the government took away the authority of regional districts and local governments to plan and look after the interests of their own communities. They took that away, and they handed that power off to the Utilities Commission. That's raised great concerns. We've seen it with other bills, like the streamlining act, that have — again on matters of controversy — taken away the authority of local government to look after the interests of their citizens.

The other concern, of course, that we have seen around this — and it's a concern that is compelling because of the conduct of the government to date — is the issue of consultation and who this government talks to about their plans and initiatives. We have certainly seen that as a challenge. We saw it again in terms of the lack of consultation that happens largely around private power projects with communities. When there was disagreement and there was consultation, the government used Bill 30 to rip up that authority.

[1430]

We've also seen it most recently in many of our rural and northern communities, of course, with the fuel tax. There we have seen community after community that we've talked to and municipal association after municipal association address this issue. What they continue to say isn't that they don't want to be a participant in getting at the challenge of climate change. What we don't hear them saying is that they don't want to pay a fair share. What we hear them saying is: "We want to be dealt in, in part of the discussion, and we want to be engaged in this process."

Of course, what we know is that they have been excluded in large part. They have not been part of this process and the discussions that now go on, as I understand that Mr. Whitmarsh has his PowerPoint out talking to some people…. Well, what I hear from those communities is: "It's all good and fine, but it's a bit much to come and consult us after the fact. We are looking to be engaged in these discussions before the decisions are made, and we're looking for decisions where we see our voices reflected in those decisions and made by government."

But that isn't what's occurring, and what has been a consistent problem throughout the whole climate change initiative — if I can call it an "initiative" — by the government over the last 15, 16 months or so has been this incredible level of secrecy.

So what this bill should be doing but what it's not doing. This bill should be providing greater expertise for local governments to be able to deal with these challenges, but there is no assurances in this bill that that will, in fact, occur — that they will get the access to the resources for that expertise, whether those resources be provincial officials who can provide that insight or support to be able to contract externally to bring in advisers who can help them to develop some of those strategies that will begin to deal with improved greenhouse gas emission reductions. But there are no assurances of that.

We should see in this bill a fundamental commitment to the issue of consultation and community engagement. That should be a guarantee in this bill that we will have consultation, that we will have community engagement that's meaningful and that that will involve all the players in the community who want to be part of the discussion about how to achieve the objectives that we all have.

It's not about saying that the objectives change. The objectives are there. They're in place. That's not what's

[ Page 12356 ]

at debate. The debate is: how do we get to achieve those objectives? That is a legitimate thing to be consulting around, to be engaging communities around, to having a discussion around. There are no guarantees in this bill, at all, that we're going to see that.

Finally, certainly what we should see in this bill that we don't see here is the commitment of resources that will help to ensure that those communities that have been asked to be carbon-neutral by 2012, that are going to be asked, I believe, to carry the bulk of the responsibility for the climate change initiatives of this government…. There is no commitment that, in fact, resources will be provided to support those efforts.

As we have heard to date, there certainly is no commitment to ensure that the additional costs that will inevitably come with that to local government…. That's to be expected. There will be additional costs, but there's no commitment here from the government to ensure that those costs don't detrimentally impact on the delivery of legitimate and important services to British Columbians. We need an assurance that that will be the case, and the provincial government needs to step up and make those commitments and begin to look at the way that it helps to ensure that they are engaged.

This bill should be about building the partnership between local government and the province on the issues of climate change and greenhouse gas emission reductions. It should be about building that partnership, but I don't see the partnership in here. I don't see the partnership in here when it comes to the critical issues, to the core issues that need to be addressed, because the bill doesn't talk to those issues.

Sadly, on this one it appears more than likely that the government will be as silent on these questions of consultation. I would hope the minister would stand up when she does get a chance to close debate on this and say that we're going to hear more about consultation, more about engagement. I would hope the minister is going to do that when she does get her chance to close debate, but I don't know whether we're going to see that.

We need to have the government stand up and say: "Yes, we're going to change our ways. We're going to start talking to British Columbians. We're going to end the secrecy. We're going to start with local governments and local authorities, and we're going to start by opening up the doors in Bill 27." But Bill 27 today doesn't do that. The silence, I'm afraid, will continue as we've had silence for over 16 months from this government on the question of engaging British Columbians in trying to find solutions around climate change.

[1435]

That's the reason I believe we're starting to see an increasing amount of concern by British Columbians about the government's initiatives here, and they're concerns that are problematic, because if we all want to achieve successful resolution in terms of British Columbia's commitment, we can only do that if all British Columbians are part of that solution and part of that strategy.

Today the vast majority, everybody but 24 or 25 cabinet ministers and their staff, seem to be left out of this discussion, and that's not going to get us where we need to go. If this bill is supposed to complement climate change initiatives that have been put forward by the government elsewhere, if it's supposed to help get us to those solutions, then it's got to deal people into that conversation. Local government is a great place to do that and deal them in. Sadly, this bill is quite lacking in that area. It raises concerns.

I look forward to committee stage, when we get the opportunity to discuss in more detail how the minister explains that and how the minister will open this process up. With that, I will take my place.

J. Horgan: As always, it's a pleasure to rise in my place and represent the citizens of Malahat–Juan de Fuca speaking today on Bill 27, the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act.

Before I begin my remarks, I just have to commend the minister. I think she's the fourth minister to bring in a bracketed act that has the word "green" in it. Just in case anyone is missing it at home, the government wants you to think they're being green, so much so that they're bracketing the word and putting it on the front of everything they pass out. I don't think there's anything wrong with good labelling, good branding, pretending to be doing something that you're really not.

If that is the government's objective, I give them full marks for labelling all of their legislation so that, in case the backbenchers on the other side are curious, they'll know what they're standing up to vote for, because they certainly don't speak about the bills in this place. That's the objective of the opposition, in most instances.

In this case, I have just two things I want to focus on with the minister. I know she is very familiar with the regional growth strategy here in the capital region district as a former municipal official herself and responsible for the Community Charter. She'll know full well that the regional growth strategy here on southern Vancouver Island has been a hard-fought document with communities working together to come to some resolution about where growth will occur, where growth will not occur, what types of developments we want to see in and around the capital region.

Nowhere in this region are these issues more important than they are in my community of Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Hon. Speaker, you will know that I live in the city of Langford, the fastest-growing city on southern Vancouver Island, where innovation is not something that the citizens there shy away from. In fact, they embrace innovation. Were it only an opportunity for the member for Oak Bay to come to Langford periodically and to see that innovation on the ground, she wouldn't be forced to say such things as she did in debate yesterday.

I just want to read just one paragraph from her comments yesterday in starting off second reading. The minister said as follows: "This is certainly what has been mentioned and connected to the 2007 and 2008 Speeches from the Throne as well as the Premier's

[ Page 12357 ]

annual address to the UBCM convention, particularly last fall. As a government, we must rise to the challenge before us, and we want to tackle these important issues head-on. But we know we cannot work in isolation."

So that's the minister's objective, and who could argue with that? I know those that are watching at home or those very thoughtful people that are in the gallery, my family included, would say that that's a laudable goal and a laudable objective, and I certainly wouldn't want to dispute that.

But then I look at the reality of the past number of years in our community, particularly in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, and I have to take members back to that dark day in January of 2007 when the Minister of Forests, without any consultation — I am advised by the minister after canvassing this issue with her in estimates — with first nations in my community, without any consultation with the capital regional district, arbitrarily made a decision to release 28,000 hectares of private land from tree farm licences on Vancouver Island.

Now, on the surface that seems like a trivial and insignificant thing, but when you put that action….

[1440]

Hon. K. Falcon: I seek leave to introduce a group.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca for ceding some time here.

Madam Speaker and friends, I want to address the fact that we've got a visiting group from Cloverdale Catholic Elementary School in my riding who are visiting here today. I want to welcome them. It's a group of grade 5 students, 28 of them, along with their teacher Miss Doreen Brady. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that introduction of the kids in the gallery, and I hope they're enjoying the debate here today as well.

I was speaking about the regional growth strategy and the decision by the Campbell government to…. I cede the floor to the member for Langley.

M. Polak: I couldn't let this opportunity pass. I wanted to welcome the students here today and acknowledge that Cloverdale Catholic Elementary is my former elementary school. It's very nice to have you here today.

Debate Continued

J. Horgan: Again, my best wishes to the member for Langley, to the school group and to her alma mater.

Where were we? Regional growth strategy, Western Forest Products, tree farm licences — a lot of acronyms. That's the RGS, the RFLs and the WFPs. All of that adds up to a classic and complete contradiction of what the objectives of Bill 27, the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, is supposed to be all about.

The minister, upon introducing this bill this spring, would have known full well of the debate raging in my community about the prospect of urban sprawl, this expansive development all the way up and down the Strait of Juan de Fuca unencumbered by any rules or responsibilities. It's an unincorporated area.

The minister responsible for unincorporated areas, you would have thought, might have been aware of this fact when the government made this decision. She certainly would have been aware of this fact when she tabled a bill which she alleges is designed to reduce urban sprawl and to create what she called "compact communities."

Now, what, hon. Speaker, in your opinion and in the opinion of those in this place, is a compact community exactly? What would that be? Would that be a community that's been emptied by job loss in the forest sector? Would that be Mackenzie? Would that be a compact community — getting smaller and smaller with each day of Liberal government as jobs are shed from the forest sector?

Or would it be a massive development on the west coast of Vancouver Island in and around Shirley, Otter Point and Jordan River where there is no infrastructure of any consequence? There's a two-lane road, a ribbon of highway that stretches along the beautiful wild west coast of Vancouver Island.

According to the government on that side of the House: "It makes good sense" — says the Forests Minister — "to release lands to developers that were traditionally used for resource extraction, for forestry, and that were contemplated in the regional growth strategy as no-go zones."

There will not be development on these lands, because they were resource lands. If you look at a map of southern Vancouver Island, it's pretty clear. We have the capital regional district water supply in the Sooke Hills. That area of land is off limits to development. We have forest lands that have been harvested two and sometimes three times over the course of the past 100 years, regenerating for jobs in the future, regenerating for habitat, wildlife on southern Vancouver Island.

But then we come to this Legislature where up is down, black is white, the bizarro world of British Columbia where the government can say on one day it's okay to Western Forest Products to sell vast tracts of land that they put into a tree farm licence as part of the contract 50 years ago to protect and preserve forestry on Vancouver Island…. It's okay to throw that out the door, because we've got the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act that's going to somehow protect us from urban sprawl on Vancouver Island. Unbelievable.

This side of the mouth says: "Fill your boots, Western Forest Products." This side of your mouth says: "Oh, don't worry about us. We're green. We've bracketed it on all of our bills. It says so right there —

[ Page 12358 ]

'green.' Couldn't be more green if we tried. We even print it on our underwear when we get up in the morning."

"We are the greenest government in the history of mankind," says the B.C. Liberal Party. Hogwash. Hogwash, I say. Absolute hogwash.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: How can the member for Shuswap actually applaud the prospect of massive development up and down the west coast of Vancouver Island with no infrastructure? Volunteer firefighters are now moving out of the community because the forest jobs are gone. They're moving out of the community.

There's no forest protection. There's no sewage protection. We're going to be burning greenhouse gases driving back and forth, back and forth.

[1445]

Interjections.

J. Horgan: I often enjoy sparring with the member for Shuswap, and I'm just delighted that he's been able to join us here while my family is watching because we do exchange discussions over the dinner hour about how engaging and droll he sometimes can be.

In any event, I'd like to get back to the substance of this bill. I want to take the opportunity, because the Minister of Labour has a small part to play in this as well, and I'm glad I caught her attention on this issue. Some months ago an announcement was made by the head of the public service that the government was looking for some 300,000 square feet of office space that was going to be located in downtown Victoria. We're going to put more offices in downtown Victoria.

Well, local representatives of local government in my communities, in Langford and Metchosin and Colwood and Highlands, sent a letter off to the government saying: "Why wouldn't you put office space where people live? Why wouldn't you try and reduce the commute? Why wouldn't you take steps to reduce our impact through transportation on greenhouse gas emissions?"

The response from the Minister of Labour, who I do hold in high regard, was: "We don't know where our employees live, so we can't track and monitor where they're coming from."

Well, I'm a government employee standing in this place, and on my paycheque is my address. I'm fairly confident that with the IT, the information technology, capacity in the province of British Columbia…. I know it's not as simple as pushing a button, but it's pretty darn close. Let's find out where our employees live. We wouldn't be violating any privacy issues. We send paycheques to people every day. Let's find out where they live.

Let's see if we need 300,000 square feet of office space in downtown Victoria. Or would we be better served, would it be a more cooperative, more green approach, to look at the whole region and say: "Let's build some office space in Langford so that we're not commuting back and forth. Let's take our government employees and seat buildings where they live"? That makes sense to me. I know it makes sense to the Minister of Labour, but unfortunately, we don't know where our employees live.

I, for one, live in Langford just down the road. I have to commute here every day, and I do it happily because this is the place where I work. But government employees that live in my community don't have to get on the bus every day or don't have to get into the Colwood crawl and drive into this place. They could work in their communities if a progressive, thoughtful government was truly green and wasn't just bracketing it and branding it as something that they think they are. Maybe if they tried to be green, we would have green policies rather than just greenwash.

Although I know that the Minister of Labour is listening intently, I'm hopeful that she will review the process and review the concept of building more office space in Victoria so more people can commute. Let's build it where people live so that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

If we're not going to do that, at a minimum, why don't we…? I'm a broken record on this, and I know the member from Oak Bay–Gordon Head has heard this more times than she cares to. I'm going to tell her anyway, because it's my opportunity. As you know, I've got half an hour, plus or minus school visits, to say my views on behalf of the people in my constituency.

What we want to see in Langford, Colwood, Metchosin, Sooke, Highlands, up the Malahat into Shawnigan and beyond, is commuter rail service on Vancouver Island. Why wouldn't we want to get people out of their cars and get them into a train? It's clean. It's green. It's efficient. Upgrading the railbed would have no impact whatsoever on the commute. The train tracks are already there.

In fact, the train runs every day on Vancouver Island, and this will come as a surprise to many people. It leaves Victoria at eight o'clock in the morning and goes north. It goes in the wrong direction. It goes north to Comox nearly empty every day and comes back at night nearly empty every day, rather than switching the service around and bringing commuters into the city in the morning, getting them out of their cars and demonstrating a true commitment to green technologies.

We don't get that. We get brackets on bills: the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act. A lot of branding, a lot of talk, a lot of bluster, a lot of blow but not a lot of progress on issues that are important to people in my community.

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to thank the minister for bringing this forward. Certainly, we want to at least hear the government talking about progressive policies and hear the government talking about green initiatives, but I implore both the Minister of Community Services and the minister responsible for the public service to genuinely sit down and think about: how do we work in the capital regional district?

[1450]

We have a regional growth strategy that says we're going to be developing in Langford and in Colwood.

[ Page 12359 ]

Why wouldn't we take that opportunity and build office space that can be filled by public servants so that they're not in their cars? They can bike. They can walk. They can find other means of transportation. For those who must come to this place, into the downtown core, into the capital region, why not use the train?

I don't think a day goes by since I was elected that someone doesn't come up to me and say: "Keep fighting for that train, Member. Keep fighting for commuter rail on Vancouver Island." It makes sense now more than ever, I would argue, in a time of climate change. My friend from Victoria-Hillside talks about these issues all the time.

Improving transportation in the southern part of Vancouver Island is absolutely vital to our economy. It's vital to our environment, and it seems to be only lip service from this government. This bill, bracketed as it may be, does very, very little to get us to the objectives that we all want to see here.

There's a group called the Communities for Commuter Rail, and they meet in my area of Langford and also in View Royal. It contains members of local government. The minister will know them — members from the councils in Langford, View Royal, Colwood, the mayor of Sooke participates, and from Victoria and Esquimalt. All councils are represented on this committee. They meet monthly to advance the cause of commuter rail.

Has anyone from the provincial government ever joined us at that table in two years? No. We've made presentations to government. We've advised the Minister of Transportation. Certainly, the Minister of Community Services is aware of this committee. We work diligently every month to try and bring forward initiatives that will advance commuter rail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the capital region. But the province of British Columbia is not at the table.

The minister, in this legislation and in her remarks, said that she wants to be a leader in developing this consensus. As I take my seat, I invite her to come to the next meeting of the Communities for Commuter Rail. It's on the 21st of May. I'll drive out with her in her Smart car, if she wants to. We might even take the bus, if that's okay with her. Or, if I can get shoes big enough…. She can maybe borrow the Minister of Finance's running shoes, and we can take a hike on the Galloping Goose Trail.

If the minister wants to really get something done in this community, and I know she does, come to our committee meeting. Go to the Minister of Transportation and say: "Let's get that train going now, not sometime in the future. Right now."

D. Thorne: Well, I can't really say that it's a pleasure for me to stand today, but I felt I couldn't let the moment pass without getting up and speaking on behalf of the residents in my community of Coquitlam-Maillardville and for the whole city of Coquitlam, which I know for a fact is reeling under the onslaught of the downloading occurring over the past few years upon the cities and municipalities of our province.

Bill 27, the Local Government (Green Communities)…. My colleague has made me see those brackets like I never have seen them before. He's right. Those brackets are everywhere, in fact, and I'm not going to miss a bracket again in my time in this House, I can assure you. The city of Coquitlam and other municipalities across the province are reeling with the new responsibilities that are being downloaded.

This has been going on for several years now. I think the first bill…. I was still on city council at that time. I think it was Bill 75. I might be wrong on the title, but it was the first bill that basically really made city councils sit up and take notice of what was happening in Victoria around not just the lack of consultation on what was going on but the fact that the downloading was occurring at the same time as their powers were being, perhaps, not necessarily taken away but eaten at around the edges.

So these three things — the lack of consultation, the downloading of the costs and the inability to fight back, to have the power to make the final decisions…. This sort of axis of evil, you might say, coming from Victoria down to the municipalities has gotten to be quite a concern for the communities.

[1455]

I've noticed over the last few days that the members on the other side of the House keep…. When we speak or when we make a comment on this side of the House, even to articles in my local paper made by members from the other side of the House, the word "disingenuous" has come up again and again. I hadn't heard that before in this House. So I would like to use that word myself today, because I feel this is another in a long line of bills that kind of fit very well under that description.

When you talk about the province giving local governments the discretion to reduce or waive DCCs for developments, all kinds of developments — developments designed for dense housing, for affordable housing, those with low environmental impacts and all of those kinds of new words, the sustainability words that we're all getting used to using, the green words, if you would, the bracketed green words…. I mean, it's wonderful when you read them. If you didn't look behind the words, you would think: "Well, this is great. This is very nice."

But if you look behind the words, the financial burden that this has put onto the cities and the municipalities — or could put on if they choose to exercise their discretion — is a huge financial burden. The municipalities and cities are the least able to afford this kind of requirement.

So to say that we're giving the province, that we're going to give the government the discretion to reduce or waive charges for any kind of development…. I think that's rather disingenuous, if I'm pronouncing that properly. It's not a word that, I have to say, I ever used in public before today. It's a word that I actually haven't heard in this House until the past few days. But I feel that that fits very well under there.

My understanding, as a city councillor for many, many years, is that we always had that ability. If we wanted to waive DCCs, that was up to us. We could do that. So to suddenly be coming out and being, you

[ Page 12360 ]

know, kind to the municipalities, giving them the right to do this…. Really, what they're giving the municipalities the right to do is pay for all of this. The only way that municipalities get their funding is through taxes and charges, and DCCs and other development types of charges exist to provide funding for necessary infrastructure that must always be built to support new development.

New development costs cities money. There's no doubt about it. We did study after study to ensure that, because developers always say: "Well, this will be great for the city." Well, generally speaking, it's not great for the city financially. It doesn't pay for itself. You have to charge DCCs and other charges to developers in order to have water and sewer hookups, parks, schools, roads, intersections and all the inspections that have to be done when development is being done.

Discretion to waive those charges…. All it means is that if you're going to put those services in — and by law, you have to; there certainly will be no new development if services aren't put in — you have to probably raise taxes in order to balance your budget.

So that's terrific. That's where that word "disingenuous" comes from. That's why I think it fits there. The provincial government can then wipe its hands of any mess that occurs in the community. Their taxes are being raised by the city councillors. The province has nothing to do with it. The province is behind it, though. Does that not fit under the meaning of that word?

On the one hand the province is encouraging local governments to have density and environmentally friendly developments, but there's no help, no support to help accomplish any of those worthy goals. There's nobody here that isn't in favour of environmentally friendly developments. I'm sure there isn't a member on either side of the House that would stand up today and say: "I am opposed to environmentally friendly developments."

[1500]

Density. That's another one of those green words. Aren't we all in favour of density? I can tell you that city council of Coquitlam is in favour of all those things. Their problem is that they just don't know where they're going to get the money to accomplish all those things and provide all the old, traditional, expected services.

Libraries. Don't we all expect libraries and fire halls? You know, roads are a given. But what about libraries and parks? They're not necessarily a given, are they? In the city of Coquitlam we could build out Burke Mountain totally with 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 people over the next ten or 15 years expected in Burke Mountain, the second-largest development in the history of British Columbia. Yes, we have to have roads and intersections and the schools. We know there will be schools, and there'll be water and sewer as well. Most of that is already in.

But libraries, parks…. We don't have to have those things. If we are expected in the cities and municipalities to pay for all these new green developments, then how will they do it without raising taxes? I did want to get up today and raise that point on behalf of other people in the city who can't get up and raise that point.

The other thing I wanted to talk a little bit about was the lack of consultation in general. Over the past few years, it seems to me, there is less and less consultation taking place on behalf of the province of British Columbia in general, but also — and specifically speaking to Bill 27 — with the municipalities.

Several examples. My colleague — I always think of him as my colleague from the Malahat, but I know that isn't his proper title — talked about Bill 30 and the independent power projects as an example. I mentioned Bill 75. There are a few other bills that have come along, which really were a bit of a shock to the cities and municipalities over the past four or five years.

The recommendation that by the year 2012, cities would need to have carbon neutrality — where is the support for that? There's a huge cost to the cities and the school boards in trying to bring up standards so that they will have achieved carbon neutrality. They don't have the ability to access cash and money to fund these things the way the provincial government does. They don't collect taxes to pay the costs of these kinds of programs.

You know, the government calls it the carbon tax. We call it the gas tax, the fuel tax. Where was the consultation with communities around that? That's going to be a huge burden on the community.

Again, when I give it the first read, I look and think that this is an open bill, that this is a transparent bill, that this is moving us in the right direction. But I know that's not true. It's moving us in the opposite direction — away from openness, transparency and more meaningful community consultation at a time when the opposite should be happening.

There are parts of Bill 27 that would certainly be recommended, were this bill to give a commitment to more openness, transparency and consultation before we brought in these kinds of bills and if we were truly trying to move, as my colleague mentioned, in an overall green direction by the government rather than bits and pieces with certain ministries moving along in this direction and certain others pulling them back. It's like the old adage: "Two steps forward and one step back." I feel that this bill is contributing to that movement, or lack of movement, and it really concerns me.

I will conclude my comments there. Thank you for letting me put out what I know are the feelings right now at the city of Coquitlam and in my riding.

[1505]

S. Fraser: I rise today to speak to Bill 27, the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

It sounds pretty good on the surface. Official community plans and regional growth strategies must contain greenhouse gas reduction targets. Mandatory exemptions to development cost charges are given to small, self-contained residential units, and local governments are given the discretion to waive or reduce DCCs.

[ Page 12361 ]

Now, the first clue that there's a problem here…. They are sort of weasel words here — "given the discretion." That usually is a key and a cue for downloading — just downloading, offloading responsibility. Again, giving responsibility sounds good, but when there are no resources to go with it, that's just a form of downloading.

So we're looking at requirements under legislation that will make local governments be, in theory, carbon neutral by the year 2012 — again, I think it's a laudable goal — and then giving them the discretion to cut their development cost charges — local governments. It won't be discretionary if under law, local governments must be carbon neutral by 2012. What this means is they will be forced to reduce one of their basic forms of revenue streams to provide vital and essential infrastructure.

If the Liberal government had maybe asked somebody in local government or if any of the members opposite, the government members, who were in local government actually thought back to when they were a councillor, an alderman, a mayor or a regional district director, they'd realize: "Gee, this won't work."

This particular bill was developed like many Liberal bills, most Liberal bills — in total isolation and without any consultation. It's sort of a siloed approach, where it sounds good on its own — more responsibility to local government and the discretion to waive a basic income stream that is essential, which is made much more essential by the pattern of downloading of services and responsibilities onto local governments.

We've seen this over and over again. We've seen the gutting of the manufactured home park act that basically put a huge amount of pressure on local governments to try to fill that vacuum and address homelessness issues that would be created by this government's abandonment of those residents and people living in manufactured home parks. So we've seen a cost associated with that go to local governments — a downloading, if you will.

We've seen costs around everything from septic inspections downloaded onto local governments. We've seen environmental inspections downloaded onto local governments. We've seen changes in laws like the Private Managed Forest Land Act back in 2004, I believe it was, which basically took away the ability of local governments having any say over an industrial activity that could direly affect their community. Local governments have been given the dubious distinction of having to deal with the problems created by these things with absolutely no resources.

Others too — I mean, no consultation around the implications for local governments around, say, the trade agreement with Alberta, TILMA, that was being debated by my colleague earlier today.

The gas tax. I don't know of any community, any mayor or any councillor that was ever consulted about a gas tax, which is punitive when you take into account that it is aimed at some and gives exemptions to some of the worst polluters and industry. Doing what's right, but downloading it onto communities and an abdication of responsibility at the provincial level by this government.

[1510]

We've seen it with independent power producers, the sellout of our rivers. Again, local governments have to face the problems associated with that and, in some cases, have been removed from the process of having any ability to have a say over those projects, even though they may certainly affect the quality of life in the community but also other river uses that are integral to the community.

We've seen it with aquaculture. This government has again taken away the ability of local governments to have any say over whether an aquaculture initiative is to be brought forward even within their boundaries — and resort community status. I could go on and on and on.

This government has made an art form of downloading problems and challenges onto local governments without any consultation, removing the ability of local governments to even have a say in a lot of initiatives when they are directly affected and are given no resources to deal with that, because local governments can't just invoke taxation. There's nothing allowed under law for mayors and councils to do that.

If mayors and councils and regional districts are made responsible for being carbon neutral by 2012 and the means they're given to do that is the ability to cut their revenue and remove their development cost charges, that will make it more difficult to accomplish many of the basic infrastructure projects and needs that communities require.

Again, how does Bill 27 actually work on the ground? It may come as a surprise to the government members, but there are municipal associations — like on Vancouver Island, I represent Alberni-Qualicum, west coast, Pacific Rim. The mayors and councils from Port Alberni, Qualicum Beach, the regional districts in the area, Tofino, Ucluelet, all of these communities…. They all go to a convention as such, and they do resolutions that reflect the needs and the will of the communities. It's very grass-roots, and it's a very important thing. What they do is try to bring these resolutions forward to the provincial government.

So I'd suggest to government members that they could go to these conventions and maybe listen to what is required and needed from the grass roots, from the community level, and then maybe use that in their decision-making. That would be wisdom — I would call that — but we don't see any wisdom here.

I'm being somewhat cynical in my statements, but these government members and ministers are not listening. They ignore resolutions. They ignore dire warnings from local governments to back off and allow a consultation on things like TILMA, like the gas tax, on run-of-the-river projects — on the whole range of issues that I suggested earlier.

Then there's the Union of B.C. Municipalities. That's a compilation of all the regional associations. They get together with these resolutions, and then they bring forward sort of an umbrella for the whole prov-

[ Page 12362 ]

ince — municipal resolutions that address the dire needs of communities.

In some cases they oppose government, whichever government is in power, and in some cases they will applaud government decisions. What we're seeing, though, is a complete ignoring of the needs of local governments.

I've been a mayor. I was the mayor of Tofino from 1996 to 1999. I know the challenges that go along with running a local government. The challenges since then have quadrupled, have increased geometrically because of this government's ignoring of local government needs.

The provincial government, the B.C. Liberals, listen to those that pay them, and they ignore local governments. Any government that ignores the grass roots, the mayors and councillors and regional district directors of this province will do so at their peril. The problem is that's a political peril. The problem is that damage is done.

[1515]

If we're seeing communities being forced to reduce DCCs to meet emission targets set arbitrarily by this government without any consultation, that's a problem. Reducing emissions is something that I think we can all agree we need to do. You will hear that from mayors, from councillors and from regional district directors. But how you do it must be in an inclusive way, and that simply hasn't happened.

This is like the gas tax. There has been no consultation. There has been no thinking out of the box from this Liberal government as to what the fallout of these decisions will be to local mayors and councils and ultimately to the people of British Columbia.

I'm a big fan of local governments. Local governments, I think, in many ways represent one of the best forms of democracy. Mayors and councils can't go in and get a quart of milk in less than an hour or two. It takes a long time because the issues are on the ground. The wisdom and advice gained from local officials is invaluable for any government to make an informed decision, but that has been ignored by this government. They have slapped local governments in the face — figuratively, if not literally.

Bill 27 is the siloed approach. The idea, the goal of reducing greenhouse gases or emissions, is certainly laudable. It's the process — how this bill came to be — that is flawed. It is consistent with Liberal policy, mind you. A Liberal government does not listen to local governments. They do not even pay attention to resolutions that come out of government associations or local governments. They sort of foist legislation onto mayors and councils and regional districts without any consultation whatsoever. A recipe for failure, yes. A recipe for disaster, quite probably.

If we're looking at green initiatives — and this is supposed to address environmental concerns — how siloed is that? When you look at government policy that has removed 120,000 hectares so far, since 2003, from the tree farm licences just on Vancouver Island and at the same time brought in

an act that allows much lower environmental standards, all at the request of industry friends of this government, and allowed the wholesale liquidation of the forests and the export of that fibre, those trees, to other jurisdictions and took local governments out of the picture with that act….

It was

section 21 or 23 — I don't recall now — that specifically removed local government's ability to have any say over those lands if it affected the bottom line of the companies involved, the companies that have contributed greatly to the B.C. Liberal Party. Now, this is a problem.

So you're going to try to reduce emissions? Great. If you wipe out all the green stuff, it's all irrelevant. You can't do these things in isolation. You're going to download the costs of trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to local governments and remove the ability, in some cases, for them to collect development cost charges to do that. It is counterproductive. At the same time you've taken away the ability of local governments to have any say over the removal of the green stuff, if you will — the plant life on this planet, the trees that produce our atmosphere.

You can reduce carbon emissions all you want, but if you simultaneously wipe out all the green stuff for short-term gain of political friends and cronies at the expense of communities, it's all for naught. Although the bill has some merit on the surface, in some ways this bill is a greenwash.

[1520]

It is pretending that the B.C. Liberals are actually green when they've actually created laws to wipe out the forest base on Vancouver Island, on the coast, and become major shareholders in the companies that are doing that after they created them. That's a big problem. We know that has led to another court case.

The new relationship is at stake. There are many things here that are linked to this green bill, and "green" is in brackets. I wonder if it should have been in quotation marks. It might have been more appropriate.

There are other concerns I have with the bill, and it's the result of the process. A bill brought in, like all bills from the Liberals, is in isolation. It's a siloed approach. So while they're bringing in a bill with no consultation that deals with trade laws with our neighbouring province of Alberta — TILMA — without any consultation, we're seeing that this bill being brought in hasn't even taken into account the potential for conflict with their TILMA bill.

Article 6(1) in TILMA says: "A party may adopt or maintain a measure that is inconsistent with Articles 3, 4 or 5…provided that the party can demonstrate that…(

b) the measure is not more restrictive to trade, investment, or labour mobility…."

Bill 27, in how it's administered or attempted to be administered with no resources given by local governments, could be challenged under TILMA, the trade agreement. Now, that's simply bad management. You've got a government that has a left hand and a right hand that have no links. There is no communication from one bill to another, from one ministry to another. That drafting of legislation in isolation and in the vacuum of this government, without any consultation with local governments, is a recipe for disaster, and all British Columbians will suffer for that.

[ Page 12363 ]

Again, referring to

article 6 in TILMA: "Anything innovative that local governments want to do on climate change will be vulnerable to challenge under TILMA." Unlike the Premier's climate change plan, local governments don't have the resources to create a whole secretariat. Local governments are fighting to deal with the massive download that this government has already foisted on them over the last seven years. Local governments won't have the ability and don't have the ability to hire a secretariat or hire experts. They're going to have reduced revenue streams if they cut their development cost charges.

The folly of this legislation, Bill 27, is completely consistent with the folly of just about every bill this government brings in.

In closing, this bill does not complement any other climate change initiative. This bill, I think, should have required government to consult with local governments, to listen to resolutions that come out of municipal associations or the Union of B.C. Municipalities — fundamental involvement of all levels of government in an attempt to address needed environmental changes.

[1525]

If this government believes they can do things like Bill 27 in isolation, in a vacuum, siloed without any consultation and ignoring the local government officials that have the wisdom from the grass roots, then they are simply failing as a government. It is essential for governments to be inclusive and bring in legislation that can work. They can't do that if they do it in isolation. On that note, I shall end my chat today.

G. Robertson: I rise to echo many of the comments of my colleagues here on the opposition side in our general support for the intentions and aspirations in Bill 27, the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act. However, it is important that we express our real concerns with many of the elements in Bill 27 that have real problems.

I'll start on the positive side with some acknowledgment that it is good to see the directive in this bill that OCPs, official community plans, and regional growth strategies must contain greenhouse gas reduction targets. We need to be reducing our greenhouse gas emissions dramatically across the province, and it's crucial that that happen at a community scale which over two-thirds of emissions are connected to. So it's positive to see that here within the bill.

The general guidelines attributed to that through this bill, as well, are important in that they encourage local government in setting these targets and achieving these goals. Right away as we get into the details of this bill and the directives — specifically on local government without assistance, without support, without resources to help these local governments implement and achieve the targets — we see real challenges with the viability of the bill and its intentions.

We have a real challenge here, as my colleagues have stated, around the downloading that is imposed again on municipal governments by this bill. We have continually raised issues here around the development cost charges. These will only exacerbate the fiscal imbalance that we see for local government. Local government does not have the resources to address the critical need to reduce carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions. By pulling away the development cost charges from local governments, it will only make things worse in many situations as local governments are starved out.

Clearly they're unable to escape the costs associated with development and those costs that are typically covered by DCCs. However, with DCCs being exempted or excluded from local government revenue, that means a shortage of funding.

One has to wonder what the purpose is. There's a noble intention in ensuring that development is greener and that there is a provision for smaller, self-contained residential housing units. However, if all of these good intentions conflict with the ability for local government to actually implement and survive on the scrawny budgets that only property taxes and the charges and levies which they are empowered to collect provide, then we're going to have problems down the road here. We're not going to achieve the targets that have been set and that by this bill are being imposed on local governments.

[1530]

We have a number of other conflicts here. My colleagues have mentioned — and I will add my voice — the concern around TILMA and the challenges that we will undoubtedly see with TILMA and in particular

article 6, the legitimate objectives in the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement with Alberta. Again, TILMA has the potential to get in the way of actions taken by local governments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

It is conceivable that a company from Alberta could come into B.C. and claim that a municipality and its rules are restrictive to trade or investment and are designed to favour local companies, specifically because they, in doing so, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

So we've got a significant conflict arising here between forcing local governments to reduce emissions and the TILMA coming into play, which could torpedo the opportunity for local governments to implement initiatives that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions because they interfere with trade or investment according to the TILMA. Anything innovative, anything creative that municipal governments want to do on climate change is potentially vulnerable to a challenge through the TILMA.

We will, obviously, raise this in our debate specific to TILMA and the bill that is being debated in the House on that agreement. But it surfaces here related to Bill 27, because in Bill 27 we see these targets being mandated. Of course, municipalities will have real challenges with that if they are also being mandated to comply with the TILMA.

My colleagues have also mentioned the lack of consultation as a fundamental breach in terms of Bill 27 coming into practice. Given the significance of Bill 27 and the number of changes, and significant changes,

[ Page 12364 ]

that Bill 27 makes to a number of different acts, including the Community Charter, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, the Greater Vancouver Water District Act, the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter….

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Given that all of those acts are amended by Bill 27, there should be significant consultation done with municipalities about the potential impacts through these acts on their activities and their jurisdictions. We haven't seen this consultation. Many municipalities have raised these concerns.

I will clarify that there was consultation on Bill 27 with the UBCM. However, there have been many local community organizations that have raised concerns and are calling for Bill 27 to be held up — to be hoisted as such — until there is adequate consultation with communities around the province regarding the potential impact of this bill, and I will refer specifically to a number of organizations in my riding and in the city of Vancouver.

Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver voiced their strong concerns and disagreement with the content of Bill 27 and, fundamentally, the lack of consultation with these organizations, focusing their concerns around the downloading of costs onto the community, particularly the potential impact of that when funding is shifted, required to be funnelled into provincial responsibilities like providing transit rather than civic infrastructure and amenities.

These are meaningful concerns, and the opposition, of course, will never shirk our responsibility, our duty, to represent the voices of local governments that aren't being heard in this chamber. Again, that consultation was not done adequately enough with respect to Bill 27. That is a big concern that we're going to raise here.

[1535]

The other big issue that I'll raise now in terms of conflicts here and problems that Bill 27 creates at a municipal level is that the targets that are being imposed and the mechanisms within this bill that are in place to create so-called green communities have no support for retrofitting and investment in new and cleaner infrastructure.

It's one thing to impose the rules. It's entirely another thing when there's nothing not only within the act itself to support communities in achieving the targets and complying by those rules, but beyond that, there is very little in the budget this year or the service plans for the ensuing years that support communities in the dramatic investment that has to happen to retrofit the municipalities and all of their infrastructures to be carbon-neutral or, beyond that, to be carbon-smart.

These kinds of initiatives require real money, and they require the support from the provincial government. Municipalities do not have the financial resources to embark on the kind of reconstruction and retrofitting that's critical for us to achieve the emissions targets and to reduce our footprint.

This support has to come in part from the provincial government. We would like to see it, as well, from the federal government, but this provincial government in particular — in setting these big targets, in putting forward legislation that requires municipalities to achieve these targets — has to show up with resources, with the money and with programs that will enable communities to achieve these targets and to reduce their footprints.

It's a great intention to make every community around the province green. It's quite another thing to claim that on paper, to impose it in law, but to fail to support it with meaningful resources.

With that, I look forward to third reading of this bill and to understanding in detail how this government sees it possible for local governments to achieve these targets without those supports and with the conflicts that the opposition has raised here in this act that, clearly, make it more difficult for our municipalities to achieve the targets.

C. Puchmayr: I rise, certainly, with some caution on this bill, Bill 27. Again, it's one of these bills that comes out with — if I can use the term — airy-fairy words in it. It's the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act. Whenever I hear those types of flowery words with "green" after them, I have some concern.

Since I've been here in this grand chamber, grand hall, for almost exactly three years now, I've learned about how bills are named by this government. The name normally represents the opposite of what is in the context of the bill or completely the opposite of the direction they're going. I'll just give you a couple of quick examples.

There was one in 2003 called the B.C. Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act. You read that, and you think that that is some great news. We're talking about legacy, and we're talking about heritage. We've now through legislation prevented B.C. Hydro from even producing its own power source, and we've opened the door for multinationals and foreign companies to come in and build independent power sources that are going to cost British Columbia very, very significant amounts of money because they have guaranteed contracts at rates far, far greater than what we were supplying and developing power for through our own power system.

[1540]

Another one is the health care protection act. Bill 29 had similar types of words in it, and Bill 29 literally gutted the retention ability for health care workers in British Columbia, put thousands of health care workers out of work, tore up contracts, reduced their incomes and just had absolutely devastating effects.

That bill also was a bill that was challenged at the Supreme Court of Canada and was ruled to be an illegal act. Government had to reverse on it, and the cost of doing so was millions of dollars.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the bill under debate is Bill 27, the local government act.

[ Page 12365 ]

C. Puchmayr: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will talk about the bill itself. I was just giving a parallel, but I respect your ruling.

Bill 27, the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. It sounds good, just like a lot of other bills have sounded good.

Now, when we look at the choice between whether the municipalities can or cannot charge DCCs right now…. DCC, the true development cost charge, is a charge for new development going on to sites, which is strictly so that when a new development comes into a community, that development will pay for roads, for sidewalks, for sewer and for sewer hookups.

When you're going into an area where you have new lands that are being developed, a DCC can charge for infrastructures. Some of those infrastructures are schools. Some of that infrastructure is for libraries and certainly for roads and other amenities that are required.

If you pass legislation which says that they may or may not…. The thing is, if you don't charge DCCs into new development areas, who will pay for that cost? That's the question one needs to ask. Who will pay for that? There are two sources of revenue that are true sources, that are positive sources of revenue — positive meaning that you can adjust it to bring in revenue. One is a DCC, which brings in revenue, and the other one is property taxes.

Granted, municipalities have parks and recreation, where they have skating facilities. They rent lacrosse floors in most communities. They rent soccer pitches. Those actually just offset some of the costs of maintaining them. Certainly, in my community those do not make a profit for the city. They go towards maintaining and keeping some access to those facilities available for the public.

So it isn't that you can build a whole number of arenas in your community and make a lot of money at selling or renting ice time. That's not why it is done. It is done to allow people affordable ice time and venue time in the communities.

Let's say a council gets on and decides that they don't want a developer to pay any DCCs. They can now do that. A council can actually be elected that says, "We're going to allow development into that area," and the developer doesn't have to pay a cent of DCCs. Well, the roads still have to be built. The sidewalks still have to be built. The sewers still have to be hooked up. The sewers still have to go in. The water pipes and infrastructure have to go in. The telephone poles or underground wiring have to go in.

Those are all huge costs to the municipality. In some cases, those development cost charges equate to 10 to 15 percent of revenue for the city so that they can offset the cost of building a new library or building a new pool or upgrading a facility so that it has a greater capacity. Take that away from a municipality, and there's only one place to go — that is, to reach that talon deeper and deeper into that poor taxpayer's pocket and grab from it.

[1545]

What I'm seeing now in my community, and it's alarming to me, are seniors who tell me that they can't even afford to pay the taxes in the city. It's not just my city; it's not just New Westminster. It's Burnaby. It's Vancouver. It's Langley. It's Abbotsford. It's up in the Interior as well, where seniors have their homes completely paid for. But just in order to pay, on a fixed income…. It's not only seniors. There are some single parents, and there are some families that are struggling, trying to pay a mortgage.

Just focusing on the seniors, some have their homes completely paid for. They're having difficulty in paying that tax bill. There's the water bill, and there's the property tax bill. Just in order to pay that…. Imagine adding another 15 percent on to that. Imagine adding that on to that bill every year, when the tax increases are…. I know our council, when I was on it, tried to keep them as low as possible. We tried to sustain. In New Westminster when I was elected to council, we were the second-highest-taxed municipality in B.C., second to West Vancouver. We brought that down to about 13th, I think, by the time I left council, but we had to bite the bullet.

So now you have it where you're still trying to maintain an affordable tax base, and you allow this type of legislation to go in. You have a council that comes in and decides it's a free-for-all — no DCCs. Where is that going to come from? Out of the pockets of the taxpayer. A lot of times those taxpayers end up selling their homes and moving out or moving to another area. Eventually, they'll be selling those homes, as well, and moving to another area.

So it's not a direction that we should be going in, unless…. There have to be some incredible safeguards in place, and there has to be, certainly, some incredible consultation that goes with that.

I want to talk a little bit about consultation or the lack of consultation. The UBCM has had concerns in the past with this government on the TILMA issue, and some of TILMA is woven through here. I was at that meeting at the UBCM, and it was almost a unanimous vote in opposition to where the government was going with the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement.

It had incredible impacts on municipalities, and it exposed them to a significant liability with respect to a possible action by a company that deems, maybe, that they're not treated fairly. It could cost a municipality a significant amount of money.

So now you have no DCCs in one area, and then you have TILMA in another area. Basically, you've handcuffed communities so that they're not even able to function in the best interests of their constituents. Even by doing so, they could be exposing their constituents to a liability that could create, overnight, an incredible increase on their tax base by virtue of a ruling against the municipality. So that, certainly, is not a way to go when you're dealing with municipalities.

Municipalities. To me they're the grass roots of politics, of government, of school boards. Municipalities — every little community has a regional district or

[ Page 12366 ]

a municipality. People can read the local paper, or they can go to the local council meetings. They can become active. They see their councillors walking down the street. They can talk to them about issues that concern them. There's a real direct link between the people on the street, the people that live in the neighbourhoods and the city council.

Once you get to this level, you find that you can be away from your constituency for one third of the year — you're over here in Victoria — and then you're rushing back on Fridays to try to deal with constituency issues.

[1550]

So this is sort of the finger on the pulse. The ear on the rail is the interaction between the grass roots of democracy, which is municipal, civic and the regional district. They have a very good link. They can deal with issues that vary from community to community. They can deal with them in such a way that they can bring an issue to the forefront. They can deal with it. They can work with council on it, or they can work with their local governments on it. They can bring those things to fruition for a better quality of life in that community.

That's what it's all about. It's having a democratically elected council that has an ability to interact with its citizens for the sole purpose of having a better quality of life for your community.

This is at risk, and it troubles me that it's at risk. It troubles me that sometimes there just isn't enough time to go through the details. I spent most of this morning working on my TILMA response, and the bill was pulled this afternoon. We had one responder. I don't believe our lead on it was even completed yet. No, he wasn't. And so on to the next bill.

There needs to be debate. There needs to be discussion, especially when legislation comes in that could impact the very grass roots of our community — the people at home, the people that live in our community, the people whose children go to school in our community, the people whose children play organized sports in our community and the families that we're trying to ensure have a quality of life that's affordable so that they can live in the community and play in the community and, hopefully, work in the community as well.

It concerns me when legislation comes in that sounds green. I look at the results, and sometimes I worry that the only green will be the greenbacks that come out of people's pockets as they're taxed so that a developer can make a profit without paying the full shot of his development into an area that needs DCC application.

People say that they quit making land a long time ago, but they never quit making people. Well, that's true in a sense, but when you develop land, when you take a piece of land that…. You have an acre of land and you decide: "Well, I'm going to put 16 housing units on there." Well, you've actually created 16 housing units from that one piece of land. When you have a piece of land and you go up 24 storeys, you've actually created that floor space 24 times, up to the clouds in some cases.

So there is a way of developing, and there is a way of responsibly developing, but that developer that builds those developments needs to pay their fair share. They certainly in the last little while when the real estate market took off…. I know when I was on council, developers used to always come and talk about how they were paying too much for development cost charges and how they were paying for schools and they didn't feel they should. You know, they're always trying to find a way of maximizing their profit.

Well, when those developments quadrupled in value and they still paid the same fees to the city to build them and they still paid the same DCCs, they didn't come running back with a bucket full of money to say: "We feel that we owe you this. Here you go." So this type of legislation needs to get some real honest scrutiny, and we need to look at the long-term impacts of this on our community.

We talk about the carbon tax. It's not a carbon tax as far as I'm concerned. It's just another tax grab. Let me give you an example, and this is something that the municipalities are grappling with right now. The municipalities are concerned because they've gone…. I remember the morning of the throne speech when I was coming to Victoria, the price of fuel was $1.10 a litre. That was the morning of the throne speech. It jumped about ten cents a litre immediately, because the government sent the message to the oil companies: "Hey, we agree there should be a higher price for fuel." So they sent a message to the oil companies.

[1555]

This morning it was $1.35 a litre. So that's a 24 percent increase. The price of a litre of fuel has gone up 24 percent before even a penny of this so-called carbon tax has kicked in. Not even a penny has kicked in, and already there has been a 24 percent increase before the first 2.4-cent increase is even there.

I'm thinking: well, we have to…. Certainly, people are becoming more efficient, and people are becoming conscious of what they're driving, and those are good things. But you look at Shell Oil. Last year their profit — after taxes, after paying for research, after drilling, after everything — was $70 million a day. That's after everything. That's after tax, after everything — a profit of $70 million a day.

Why don't we put a carbon tax on them? The last budget actually gave them a cut. They gave them exemptions, and they gave them moneys back. Why aren't they paying from the profits that they're making? Why aren't they paying the carbon tax?

Why is the municipality…? They have to provide fire trucks. They have to provide police services. In my municipality we have our own police force, we have our city works yard, and we even have our own towing service. We contracted in our towing service. It was a great initiative, very well received, and it's actually making a little bit of money for the city as well. But again, now this so-called green tax is just going to be another tax grab from people who can least afford it.

Interjection.

[ Page 12367 ]

C. Puchmayr: The member for Prince George–Omineca was heckling from the corner there. I hope he stands up and talks about how he supports that in his community.

I've spoken to people in his community that have to drive many, many miles, and sometimes in weather that is inclement at its best in the middle of winter. Some of them drive over an hour a day just to take their children to a bus stop so their children can be taken to school. Talk to them about how great this carbon tax is and the signal that it sent to the oil companies that, in my opinion, have literally been gouging the people of British Columbia. I hope the member….

Interjection.

C. Puchmayr: You know, this is a House for debate. While I'm debating, I know there's a bit of chatter in the corner there from the member for Prince George–Omineca. I challenge him to stand up and make his comments here in front of the cameras to the people that are watching at home and defend that tax, defend the cuts to the oil companies and defend the cuts to the banks. They really need them. When we have the highest child poverty rate in Canada again, here's a member that's defending tax cuts to the banks and oil companies and doing it through heckling rather than getting up in this noble debate and speaking in this debate.

You know, that's where this government has been on so much of the legislation. So many of the bills that we have introduced have gone without any member on the other side rising and defending some of these atrocious pieces of legislation that they're bringing forward — atrocious, draconian. Some of them, I challenge, will end up in court again. There's a piece of legislation where homeless people can't vote. I challenge you. I predict that that will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. Relevance, please. Debate is on Bill 27.

C. Puchmayr: I will, absolutely, Madam Speaker. This will even affect the homeless people in my community — this bill, Bill 27, the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act — because there are people that are homeless in my community, and there are service providers in my community that also have to pay taxes.

The service providers. We have some incredible service providers in my community that deal with homelessness and mental illness, and they've done such an incredible job. I worry now that we're going to lose some of them when something like a DCC comes in place or is waived and when all the rest of the buildings in New Westminster have to pick up the tax burden for the fact that that DCC isn't in effect anymore.

[1600]

I worry about all the good work of all of the non-profits that are still paying rent, that are renting places that have triple-net arrangements where when the taxes go up, their rents go up. So this will have an effect on all of those components in my community.

This talks about regional planning. It talks about regional growth strategies that need to be green. You know, I'm proud to come from a community, a city, that certainly took some leadership on regional planning, on strategic growth planning. New Westminster has always been a leader in that, and there are results from it.

One of the results is that at one time — and I would venture that it's still accurate today — we had the second-highest transit ridership. We have two SkyTrain lines that intersect into New Westminster. We have the Millennium line, which was built in the '90s by the NDP. Certainly, it received criticism from the other side and from some of the political pundits.

But you know what? For what it cost to build that and the growth that it's actually creating outside of the green belt, outside of the farmland, outside of the wetlands…. The growth in the northeast sector of Burnaby is extremely positive. It shows that someone had vision and foresight.

Why did they have that vision? Glen Clark didn't have a crystal ball and say: "Let's build it there." What Glen Clark did or what that government did was looked at the livable region strategic plan. They looked at the 2021 growth strategies plan, the plan that won a United Nations award for development of growth in British Columbia in the Lower Mainland area, an area that is very challenging because it has some of the best farmland in the world.

It's challenging because it has a potential of a very dangerous airshed from the Cascadia airshed. It has a border on one side, mountains on the north, and it has an ocean on the west. So they engaged in a plan that preserved green space, preserved wetlands and preserved the farmlands. It concentrated the growth in the area.

Well, New Westminster was in a growth area. They came to New Westminster, and they said: "Here's the growth that you need to have in your city. You need to have some growth in order to fulfil this plan."

We endorsed it. New Westminster endorsed it. It cost the city to have growth, because growth does not pay for itself. If it did, New York and Los Angeles would never have been at risk of total collapse, as they have been in the past, because of the massive cost to running those cities and the infrastructures.

New Westminster engaged in that. We looked at the plan. The provincial government looked at the plan and the strategic transportation policy. The West Coast Express was part of that policy as well. They built HOV lanes over the Port Mann. They did the connector from the Alex Fraser Bridge. They built the Barnett HOV system as well. That was because of growth.

This talks about strategic growth, but you know where the strategic growth is now? The strategic growth now exists with this new, appointed transportation board, which used to be TransLink. Their first 30-year plan is one that they can develop without any consultation, behind closed doors — secret meetings. So that's where your growth is now.

[ Page 12368 ]

Again, I look at this, and I go: yeah, this sounds really good, but where are the regional growth strategies? They haven't come out yet. The regional growth strategies are going to come out. If this new and improved TransLink, with interests in business and land development…. How do we know it's not out in Chilliwack? I hear there's a lot of