British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, November 6, 2003 (37th Parliament, 4th Session) (H1106pm-05) (H1106pm 05)

H1106pm-05

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, November 6, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 18, Number 5 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection ............................................................................................................................ Hon.

Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition .......................................................................................................................................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole..............................................................................................................................................

Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ........................................................................................................................................... E. George MacMinn Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk ...............................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk.................................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................................................................Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian ............................................................................................................................................................................ Joan A.

Barton Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hans ard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria. Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636.

Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ..........................................................................Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L)............................................................... Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon.

Bill (L)...............................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L) ...........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L)....................................................................................North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ..............................................................................East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ...................................................................

Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).....................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).......................................... Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L) ........................................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Brenzinger, Elayne (L)..................................................................Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L)............................................................................... Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L) .................................................

Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L) .............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L)............................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L) .................................................................. Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) ............................................................... Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ..............................................................................Yale-Lillooet Clark, Hon.

Christy (L) ....................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ................................................................................Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ..........................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)................................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon. Gary (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L) ........................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon.

Kevin (L) ............................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ......................................................................Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L)....................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)..............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

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

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

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).........................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................... Peace River South Les, John (L)............................................................................. Chilliwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ............................................................. Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) .................................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L).........................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................. Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ............................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) ..............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ..................................................................................... Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L)............................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L).............................................................

New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) ............................................ West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L) ...................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .......................................................

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

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

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

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

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

Gillian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ................................................................ Dennis MacKay Burnaby North................................................................................ Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds.............................................................................. Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon ........................................................................John Nuraney Burquitlam............................................................................................

Harry Bloy Cariboo North..................................................................................... John Wilson Cariboo South........................................................................................Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ................................................................................

Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas ....................................................................................John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke .....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .............................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .........................................................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Delta North.............................................................................................Reni Masi Delta South...................................................................................Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .....................................................................................Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove....................................................... Hon.

Rich Coleman Kamloops ......................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson.......................................................... Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country .................................................................John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ...................................................................Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley.................................................................................. Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca.......................................................................

Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ......................................................................Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................... Ken Stewart Nanaimo .............................................................................................Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville.....................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston......................................................................... Blair F.

Suffredine New Westminster .................................................................... Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast .......................................................................................... Bill Belsey North Island.......................................................................................... Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................... Hon. Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour ..............................................................

Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head......................................................................... Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .......................................................................Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North ...............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South ..........................................................................Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley...................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain......................................................Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood ...........................................................Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast............................................................Harold Long Prince George North ................................................................................. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................. Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca .................................................................

Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre ..........................................................Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East ............................................................................ Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands..................................................Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................... Susan Brice Shuswap ................................................................................

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

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

Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings......................................................................... Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................... Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway............................................................................ Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara...................................................................... Val J. Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey..................................................... Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena ............................................................. Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill ...............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.....................................................................................Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary ......................................................Hon. Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................... Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi................................................... Hon.

Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .....................................................................................Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Thursday, November 6, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... .............................................. 7873 Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ......................................... 7873 Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act (Bill Pr410) B. Penner Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr411) J.

Bray Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ............. 7873 Down syndrome E. Brenzinger Kermode bear R. Harris Remembrance Day T. Christensen Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7874 Referral of queries on income assistance time limits J. MacPhail Hon. M. Coell Income assistance regulations and access to benefits J. Kwan Hon. M.

Coell Closing of St. Mary's Hospital P. Nettleton Hon. C. Hansen Food choices in schools R. Stewart Hon. C. Clark Access to long-term care for new residents of B.C. V. Anderson Hon. K. Whittred Promotion of B.C. business D. Hayer Hon. R. Thorpe Ministerial Statements......................................................................................................... .................................................... 7877 Violence in schools Hon. C. Clark J.

Kwan Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................... 7879 Western Pentecostal Bible College Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill Pr409) B.

Penner Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... .......................................... 7879 Western Pentecostal Bible College Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill Pr409) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 7880 Western Pentecostal Bible College Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill Pr409)

Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... .......................................... 7880 Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 56) B. Penner Hon. J. Murray J. MacPhail R. Hawes J.

Les Reporting of Bills ............................................................................................................. ........................................................ 7886 Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 56) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 7886 Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 56) Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................... 7886 Significant Projects Streamlining Act (Bill 75) Hon.

K. Falcon J. MacPhail R. Sultan J. Les D. MacKay

7873 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. Next week, at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, Canadians pause to remember those who gave their lives for our country. As the House isn't sitting next week, I would ask all members to stand and observe a moment's silence in their honour. [1405] Thank you, hon. members. Please be seated. Introductions by Members Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge three special visitors from New Zealand.

Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Graham Kelly and Mrs. Kelly. His Excellency is the newly appointed High Commissioner of New Zealand to Can- ada, and this is their first visit to British Columbia to dis- cover the many opportunities of our bountiful province. Also, please welcome Ms. Anne Chappaz, who is the newly appointed consul general of New Zealand to British Columbia, located in Vancouver. We hope Con- sul General Chappaz enjoys her posting in Vancouver and also avails herself of the splendour of this prov- ince. Would the House please make them welcome. R.

Masi: It's my very great pleasure today to intro- duce 40 fine young representatives from North Delta Senior Secondary, home of the Huskies. Would the House please make them all welcome. S. Orr: In the gallery today we have a young man who has been my legislative assistant for almost the past year. He is moving on to greener and more excit- ing and wonderful pastures that only his age can enjoy, so I would like this House to make him feel very wel- come and wish him well on his way. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: The member for Victoria-Hillside seeks the floor again. S.

Orr: And this gentleman's name is Ivan Watson. There you are. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, in the gallery today we have two representatives from the Captioning Group, the company that works with Hansard to provide the excel- lent closed captioning that we see on our television broad- casts and webcasts: the company's president, Tammy Stretch, and its business development director, Kurt Rich- ter. Would the House please make them welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills CANADIAN PENTECOSTAL SEMINARY ACT B. Penner presented a bill intituled Canadian Pen- tecostal Seminary Act. B.

Penner: I move that a bill entitled Canadian Pen- tecostal Seminary Act, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time. Motion approved. B. Penner: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. Bill Pr410 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. RICHROCK MINES LTD. (N.P.L.) (CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003 J.

Bray presented a bill intituled Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003. J. Bray: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time. Motion approved. J. Bray: The bill will place Richrock Mines back on the corporate registry. I move that the bill be referred to the Select Stand- ing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Con- duct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr411 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) DOWN SYNDROME E. Brenzinger: I'm pleased to rise in the House to- day to speak about National Down Syndrome Aware- ness Week. There are three different types of Down syndrome, and most cases are not inherited. In fact, about 95 percent of all cases are not passed on geneti- cally from parents. Down syndrome is caused when a baby is born with three copies of a specific chromosome instead of two. It is important to understand that all of the chro- mosomes of this person are normal, but the fact that a person has an extra chromosome is what causes Down syndrome.

The extra chromosome comes through a faulty cell division process. Every cell in a person with Down syndrome will contain 47 chromosomes instead of 46. A host of complicating medical factors can aggra- v a t e l i f e e x p e c t a n c y f o r p e o p l e w i t h D o w n s y n d r o m e .

7874 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 Down syndrome children are at an increased risk for a wide range of medical problems that could potentially include congenital heart defects, increased susceptibil- ity to infection, respiratory problems, gastrointestinal disorders and childhood leukemia. [1410] Some studies have shown that as many as 60 per- cent of Down syndrome children will experience some form of hearing loss, and that will affect speech devel- opment. With early detection, children with Down syndrome should be able to hear and speak normally.

Fortunately, not every baby with Down syndrome de- velops health problems, and most of these health prob- lems are now treatable. It is very important to note that those afflicted with Down syndrome are active, contributing members of all our communities. Anyone who has experienced pro- longed interaction with Down syndrome–afflicted people will tell you that they bring a positive, loving interpreta- tion of life to those of us clouded by the travails of daily living. During this week we have an opportunity to highlight the unique abilities, strengths and contribu- tions of Canadians living with Down syndrome.

KERMODE BEAR R. Harris: This past September, at the UBCM, I hope most of the members took the opportunity to spend some time at the trade show. It is there that you would have had a glimpse, some of you for the first time, of a unique feature of British Columbia — that is, what we in the northwest call Moksgm'ol or, by an- other name, the Kermode bear. What is it that makes a black bear white? Quite frankly, it's genetics. The product of a recessive gene in the black bear means the Kermode bear is neither threat- ened nor endangered. That's important.

Its habitat is not only the central coast; it roams extensively throughout the Nass and Skeena regions. It's been spotted to the east around Burns Lake and as far north as Stewart. Tsimshian legend states that the Creator, to remind people of when ice and snow covered the land, put the white bear on the planet. The raven was said to have flown amongst the black and brown bear people, turning every tenth one white. He then decreed that these bears would live in peace and harmony forever — and they do. In the past, B.C. has had a number of powerful symbols of our province. Most noticeably, it would be the orca.

Now the people in communities in the north have put forward the idea of embracing another pow- erful figure to represent our province and country to the world at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Moksgm'ol is unique to British Columbia and effectively represents the diversity and cultures of the people who call this province home. It's a powerful symbol of strength and determination, whether in athletics or in everyday life, a trait that speaks to the human spirit. The Kermode already has global recognition.

It provides us with a vehicl e to communicate to the world the high sustainable standards and values we as a government have set for our resource industries. When each of you thinks about the 2010 Winter Olym- pics and the visual image you would like the world to have of our province, look to Moksgm'ol, the Kermode bear — the spirit of 2010. REMEMBRANCE DAY T. Christensen: I rise today to mark an important date for all Canadians, Remembrance Day.

Each year on November 11 we recognize and remember the Canadian men and women who fought so bravely for our nation and for the principles of freedom and democracy upon which our society is founded. Many men and women gave their lives to protect these two fundamental princi- ples. It is because of their commitment and sacrifice that we in this House are able to freely debate the issues that confront British Columbians today.

As Canadians, we often take for granted our way of life, our freedom to participate in cultural and political events free from persecution, and our right to live un- der a democratic government. The Canadians who have gone off to war have gone in the strong belief that such rights and freedoms were being threatened. On November 11 we will remember the hard- fought campaigns and battles and the courage and heroism of our Canadian troops. We will remember Vimy Ridge, we will remember Juno Beach, and we will remember the Korean War.

We'll think of the thou- sands of Canadian men and women who have partici- pated in peacekeeping mission s in Bosnia, Afghanistan and the many other parts of our world where war has been more recent or continues to be a threat. The records of wars recount the battles and the strategies, the leadership and the courage of our sol- diers, but we must also remember that with every bat- tle, extremes of temperatur e, mud, mind-numbing fa- tigue, fear and death were the daily realities.

While most of us, in my generation in particular, can hardly imagine such hardships, we must try to understand what the combatants experienced and learn from the survivors. [1415] On November 11 we will at tend memorial services in our constituencies around British Columbia and reflect on the past. For all the conflicts fought in far-off lands, there is much to remember. Foremost are the people — the men and women who served wherever they were needed. They faced difficult situations bravely and brought hon- our to themselves, their loved ones and their country.

They were ordinary Canadians from all walks of life, backgrounds and ancestries who, brought together by a common threat, made extraordinary sacrifices. We honour and we remember them, lest we forget. Oral Questions REFERRAL OF QUERIES ON INCOME ASSISTANCE TIME LIMITS J. MacPhail: Can the Minister of Human Resources please tell this House what directive has been given to

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7875 ministry staff when answering questions from the pub- lic about the impact of his changes to welfare? Hon. M. Coell: If the member could be a little bit more succinct. I'm not sure what she's asking. J. MacPhail: Let me just clarify my question for the minister. I'm surprised he doesn't know. Here's what the opposition has obtained in an e- mail, Mr. Speaker — a confidential e-mail. Here's what it says.

It's from a manager at the Ministry of Human Resources last week, telling staff to refer all questions about changes to income assistance to spin doctors at the public affairs bureau. To the Minister of Human Resources: why are his staff being told to refer ques- tions from the public about income assistance to the B.C. Liberals' spin shop? Hon. M. Coell: Again, if the member could be a little bit more succinct. Maybe she could read what she's got in front of her. J. MacPhail: I'd be happy to, Mr. Speaker. I would be happy to. It seems that the minister is actually afraid to confront what this is. Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members, order. Let us hear the question. J. MacPhail: M r . S p e a k e r , I ' d b e h a p p y t o r e a d i t , but I'm going to ask my question as well. "Over the last few weeks we are increasingly being asked for information, opinions and statistics re the upcoming time limit expiration. I have received calls from students and advocates, and that makes me think you are probably also getting questions. "Please do not provide any information to the public regarding potential numbers of clients being cut off or the effect of time limits on caseloads.

Refer any questions to Mike Long at the public affairs bureau, through Melanie Brownlee. "The reason for this, likely obvious, is this is a very hot news story, and we can't speculate on how the policy will affect people or the numbers. That's up to the public affairs branch. "Thanks, and if you have any concerns, let me know." Openness and accountability was the promise. Censorship and secrecy is the reality. I have read the entire e-mail into the record, and let's be clear. It says that it's up to the public affairs branch to get the Liberal spin out. Why has…? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Order, please. Order. Would the member now please put her question. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. MacPhail: Why has the Minister of Human Re- sources placed a gag order on his own staff? Why can't the public depend on non-pa rtisan civil servants for straight answers to simple questions? Why is he refer- ring it to the spin branch, the $7 million spin doctor branch called the public a ffairs bureau? Why doesn't his staff just tell the truth? Hon. M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, a minister is usually responsible for his or her ministry, and I think I've been very open in answering your questions.

I've actually been very open to the media, and I'll continue to do so. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. INCOME ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS AND ACCESS TO BENEFITS J. Kwan: The minister says he's been very open. He has not been open to this House when questions were put to him about how many people were going to be kicked off income assistance, but we'll give him an- other chance. The memo to the staff is very clear. Questions from the public are not to be answered by professionals in the ministry. They are instea d t o b e a n s w e r e d b y t h e political staff in the Premier's office. Interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, hon. members. Let us hear the question. [1420] Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, let's give the member the courtesy of listening to the question. J. Kwan: Well, the minister won't answer any ques- tions about what's going on and what's going to hap- pen on April 1 when the two- year rule kicks in. Let me ask him this. He has a chance to be open right here, right now. How many British Columbians have al- ready been denied income assistance as a result of his new rules? Hon. M.

Coell: One of the primary jobs of the Min- istry of Human Resources is to help people back into the workforce — find employment. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. M. Coell: We have a number of programs: the job placement program, the training-for-jobs program,

7876 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 the community assistance program, the bridging pro- gram for women, employment programs for persons with disabilities, direct purchase into ministries, con- firmed job supplements. In the Fraser Valley area we spent $21 million this year and found 6,000 people jobs. In the interior of Brit- ish Columbia, our interior region, we spent $14 million and found 5,200 people jobs. In the north area, an area that has…. We spent $5.8 million and found 2,000 jobs for people. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. M.

Coell: In the Vancouver coastal area we spent $18 million and found 4,700 people jobs. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: So much for openness and accountability from this minister. He will not answer the question put to him. He puts out spin, spin, spin. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Kwan: We know that under the Liberals there has been unprecedented politicization of government com- munications.

It's one thing to have an army of partisan spin doctors to protect the Premier's image, but to direct British Columbians who have legitimate questions about the impact of government policies on their lives to politi- cal staff so that they can be spun is shameful. Will the minister just answer my question? He must have the data. It's a simple question. I'll say it slowly for the minister. How many British Columbians…? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the question. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

Please put your question, hon. member. J. Kwan: Let me put the question to the minister. How many British Columbians have already been de- nied income assistance as a result of his new rules? No spins. If the minister can't give me the answer, perhaps what I have to do is go out into the hallways and ask Andy Orr the spin doctor for the answer. Hon. M. Coell: Just to finish what I was saying, on Vancouver Island we spent $16 million on training programs and found 5,600 people jobs. The members of the opposition have always w a n t e d t o s e e p e o p l e f a i l .

This government wants to see people succeed, and people are succeeding in Brit- ish Columbia, despite the NDP's ten years of bad rule. We're working with people on income assistance to find employment that pays three times what it does to be on income assistance. We're also protecting the most vulnerable, and we will continue to do that. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. CLOSING OF ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL P.

Nettleton: I have an ongoing concern with the way this government repeatedly fails to sit down and work with people to find solutions and answers to problems, instead choosing to close doors, shut facilities down and sell them off to the lowest and meanest bidder. [1425] A case in point is the impending closure of St. Mary's Hospital in New Westminster due to a shortfall of $13.4 million — this after the Premier received a plea for help from a hospital board member. His response was to quickly audit the hosp ital and just as quickly shut it down. My question is to the Minister of Health.

Why couldn't the ministry get together with the board of St. Mary's and hammer out a plan whereby they might save the hospital and avoid disruption and hardship to patients well into the future? Are there no problem- solvers in cabinet or in the B.C. Liberal caucus? Hon. C. Hansen: I assume that was directed to me. I would refer the member to the Ministry of Health Services website. The George Morfitt report is linked to the website. I think once he reads that report, he will have all the answers to his questions. FOOD CHOICES IN SCHOOLS R.

Stewart: A s t h e f a t h e r o f f o u r s c h o o l - a g e d c h i l - dren, I share a concern with parents across the prov- ince over the nutritional choices that children and youth are offered at schools. There's currently much discussion in the media about this issue, an issue that was raised recently because of a decision of the Coquit- lam school board. I ask the Minister of Education if she can tell us what she's doing to ensure that young peo- ple learn healthy eating habits. Hon. C.

Clark: We are working hard to make sure young people have the tools they need to be able to make the right choices about what they should eat. It's important from a provincial perspective. We are work- ing to help kids have a healthier lifestyle by bringing in minimum amounts of time that kids are required to be physically active in schools, for the first time in a long time, and minimum standards for physical activity as well as awards programs to encourage physical activ-

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7877 ity. This, though, is something school boards have a great deal of responsibility in, too, so we will be bring- ing school boards together with other interested parties for a healthy schools summit to talk about what we can do to try and make sure kids are able to make all the good choices they need to make in order to grow up healthy and able to tackle their school work. Junk food is a big issue, I know, that's been raised by many, many parents.

It's a big issue in school dis- tricts, and it's something that I think we need to tackle on a provincewide basis to make sure every child has the encouragement they need and the tools they need to make the right choices. ACCESS TO LONG-TERM CARE FOR NEW RESIDENTS OF B.C. V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. Seniors moving to Alberta must wait three full years before they are eligible for long-term care and health benefits,

whereas seniors moving to British Columbia are eligible after one year. Still, a year without long- term care to a senior can be a long time and can affect their health. Can the minister please tell my constitu- ents who have asked about it if there are any plans to change this waiting time for seniors who recently have moved to the province? Is there any interministerial cooperation in this regard? Hon. K. Whittred: As the member indicated, long- term care is not a Canada Health Act service, and therefore there is a wide variety among provinces.

In B.C., however, I am pleased to say that for people who have high care needs and would be assessed at a com- plex level, the waiting period is only three months. I think that is among the most generous in Canada. I'm also pleased to say that under the new health accord, which is being negotiated as we speak by ministers of Health, both home care and end-of-life care are part of that package. I am anxiousl y awaiting the outcomes of those discussions. PROMOTION OF B.C. BUSINESS D. Hayer: My question is to the Minister of Compe- tition, Science and Enterprise.

As a member of the Se- lect Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, I have heard ma ny submissions regarding next year's budget. One concern that has been raised…. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. member. Order, please. We cannot hear the question. Please start over. [1430] D. Hayer: One of the concerns that has been raised is in relation to the governme nt's ability to attract busi- ness and investments to B.C. Tax reforms and fiscal responsibility are not enough. We need to get the mes- sage out there and tell the people in other jurisdictions what B.C. has to offer.

Can the Minister of Competi- tion, Science and Enterprise tell this House what is being done to promote and attract and show B.C.'s advantage to the rest of the world? Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, our government com- mitted to leading-edge marketing missions around the world, and those would be led by the Premier. Sec- ondly, we said we were going to globally market the investment opportunities in British Columbia, and we were going to work very hard to grow export markets for British Columbia wood products and British Co- lumbia technology.

In the last month and a half the Premier has trav- elled to California, to Texas and to New York, telling the American investors that British Columbia is open for investment. The Premier today is en route to India and has just spent four days in China. I have just come back from Korea and Taiwan. Let me tell you the mes- sage that I received from the chamber of commerce in Korea. They said they're glad to hear that British Co- lumbia is once again open for investment and open for business. That's what they're saying in Korea.

Since my return from Korea, I've met with a major Korean company here in Victoria looking to invest in British Columbia. In Taiwan the wood frame construc- tion code has been approved, and we're moving for- ward to build homes in Taiwan using British Columbia 2-by-4s and value-added wood products. In China the Premier a nnounced yesterday a dream home project with the Chines e investors that are going to build an additional 205 homes using British Colum- bia wood and wood technology. British Columbia is moving forward. [End of question period.] Ministerial Statements VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS Hon. C.

Clark: I rise to make a statement today respecting a number of violent incidents that have oc- curred in and around schools in British Columbia over the past several weeks. As Minister of Education and as a parent of a child who will soon enter the public school system, I am concerned about student safety. Following one such incident that occurred in West Vancouver on October 21, I instructed the superinten- dent of the West Vancouver school district to report to me outlining the circumstances preceding that incident, including the actions taken by school district officials and staff.

I have now received the report prepared by superintendent Geoff Jopson. The report is thorough and provides clear information about the district's pro- cedures and policies. I'd like to thank Mr. Jopson for the excellent job he did in preparing this report. The report includes highly personal information about the students involv ed. Under the provincial

7878 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the confidentiality of this information must be protected. There are also ongoing criminal proceedings and a pub- lication ban that must be respected. As a result, I am advised that the report cannot be released to the public. I do, however, want to speak in general terms about the policies and procedures followed by the West Van- couver school district and provide the House with the course of action our government is taking to keep stu- dents in schools safe.

It is evident from the report that teachers and administration of West Vancouver school district work hard to provide an inclusive and welcom- ing environment for all of their students. Staff teach appropriate behaviours and in volve children's parents, other agencies and the police, where necessary. Schools in the district also have a code of conduct for student and staff, based on the principles of respect and responsibility. This code was designed by the people it affects in the school district , and it has been clearly communicated to parents, students and staff in the dis- trict.

Unfortunately, the tragic incident of October 21 is a reminder that behaviour cannot be legislated, and we must continue to work as a community to improve the safety of every student in every classroom. I want to assure this House that our government is acting to make schools safer places to learn. Our gov- ernment is now working with educators, parents and students to develop new provincial standards of con- duct for schools that will help keep students safe. These school safety standards will clearly outline provincewide expectations and provide examples of good practices.

I expect these standards to be com- pleted by December 15, if not before. [1435] I believe that students need to be directly involved in helping to design these standards and resolve issues of violence and harassment in our schools. I will be meeting with student leaders next week to hear their views on what is needed in the new school safety stan- dards. Their comments will be considered as I develop the final standards. My review of the report confirms for me the impor- tance of communication between schools and parents.

Parents must be informed in a timely manner of any threat of violence or violent incident in their child's school, because parents need to be assured that schools and district staff are managi ng the situation. That's why I am instructing that the school safety standards provide a process for informing parents of a threat of violence or a violent incident. The report also makes clear that schools need to work closely with parents on issues of student safety. The roles and responsibilities for parents and schools must be clearly defined and communicated.

That's why I'm instructing that the ne w school safety standards outline a policy and procedure for defining and com- municating the roles and responsibilities of parents and schools. As well, effective today, the Ministry of Education will have a new webpage on school safety available for parents and educators. We've been working with the B.C. Confederation of Pare nt Advisory Councils to update and translate their Call It Safe guides for parents on dealing with violence in our schools.

These publica- tions will help ensure that parents know what to do if their child is the victim of bullying, intimidation or harassment. The reality is that the causes of bullying or violence in society are complex. The solutions will be no less complex. To ensure safe schools, we must work to- gether as communities — parents, students, educators, law enforcement officials and local agencies. Earlier this year the safe schools task force, chaired by the member for Vancouver-Burrard, provided us with the direction we need.

The task force identified specific areas of concern, communicated with parents and staff regarding those concerns, and came up with recommendations to improve safety for B.C. students. In September our government responded to the task force report and took action with our safe, caring and orderly schools strategy. A key compon ent of that strategy re- quires all school boards to report annually on violent incidents and how they were handled at the school. Parents need to know that they can entrust their children to our schools and th at their children will be safe there.

Any violence in our schools needs to be dealt with immediately and stopped before it escalates. Many schools and districts already have excellent policies and practices in place. Our gove rnment is acting now to build on those strengths, to work in partnership with all members of the education community and to create a system where all students are free from physical harm. J. Kwan: I rise to respond to the ministerial state- ment. The opposition certainly shares the concerns that the minister outlined with respect to student safety, and particularly, we're concerned about safety for all of our community members.

As the members in this House know, the Leader of the Opposition has a son in the school system, and as a new mother I will soon have a young daughter in the public school system as well. The incidents that have occurred of late are trou- bling indeed, and they are tr oubling for all of us as legislators, as individuals in our community. Specifi- cally, on the West Vancouver district incident that oc- curred on October 1….

It is my understanding that irrespective of the minister's request for the report, the West Vancouver school district and the school would have prepared a report in any event, as it is their prac- tice currently to do that. They would have done that, and I have no doubt in my mind and I have every con- fidence that they would have done a thorough job of investigating the incident and the issues surrounding that unfortunate situation — acting, of course, on their own accord without the minister's direction.

Having said that, as we well know, the minister just stated that she will be embarking on the recommenda- tions that arose from her task force — the task force that she outlined, the gove rnment's safe schools task force. She stated that the key component is to ensure that there are strategies in place which require all school boards to report annually on violent incidents

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7879 and how they were handled. For your information, Mr. Speaker, it is also my understanding that currently schools do report to school districts at school board meetings all serious incidents regarding violence that take place in school. [1440] I must caution that it's one thing to collect more data and to collect more information, but it is another thing for government to actually act on it in a way that would assist the school system in trying to prevent some of these situations.

Of course, one of the most important things that is needed — as teachers will tell you, as school trustees will tell you, as parents will tell you and as some stu- dents have told us — is adequate resources in the edu- cation system. Underfunding in the education system does not help the situation.

Pressures from government — just recently we were talking about the Minister of Human Resources cutting off income assistance for people come the next fiscal, including families with children, where they will lose some financial support, $100 to $200, including those with single parents — will put more pressure on the family unit and, I think, create more troubling situations that may well occur in the school system. It does not help when you have a government that put forward an ill-fated pension plan for the police officers that caused some of the schools to lose their police liaison.

It does not help for the government to fail in their commitment of providing 75 percent of the traffic fines to municipalities for policing — for that commitment to not be fulfilled.

It does not help for the Minister of Children and Family Development to cut funding from his ministry that provides for preventative measures in our com- munities for addressing children and youth at risk and programs that provide for special needs in our school system, to identify children who are at risk who may actually run into problems down the road and who might run into issues with conflict with the law or sub- stance misuse challenges. To cut those kinds of fund- ing, where effective preventative actions could be taken, does not help the situation at all.

All in all, I would urge this minister and this gov- ernment to look at their budgeting policy and their programming policy to ensure that there's adequate funding in the education system to fully assist in trying to prevent violence in the school system and in our communities. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill Pr409. Second Reading of Bills WESTERN PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 B. Penner: I move that the bill now be read a sec- ond time. Motion approved. B. Penner: I'd like to just offer some very brief re- marks on second reading.

This bill is very straightfor- ward. It simply amends the title of an existing statute from

An Act to Incorporate the Western Pentecostal Bible College to the new name of Summit Pacific Col- lege, so it's extremely straightforward. However, I have received an inquiry regarding the

preamble to the bill, which refers to a petition having originated this process. There's nothing untoward about that process. Petitions are available from the Clerk of the Legislature's office, and it simply is a process by which individuals who are seekin g amendments to private bills or statutes may seek to initiate the process. In this case, the act that we are pr oposing to amend was origi- nally passed in 1967 by this Legislature.

I'm advised that Western Pentecostal Bible College, as it is still re- ferred to, has been in operat ion since that time and has made a valuable contribution to the lives of many peo- ple not just in the Fraser Valley or British Columbia but across Canada. It is the intention, I believe, of the people at the col- lege to expand their horizons and appeal to a broader cross-section of individuals, and that explains their application for a name change for their institution.

Having made those brief remarks, I move, by leave, that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith. [1445] Leave granted. Bill Pr409, Western Pentecostal Bible College Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith. Committee of the Whole House WESTERN PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr409; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:46 p.m. Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved. Title approved. B. Penner: I move that the committee rise and re- port the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:47 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

7880 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill Pr409, Western Pentecostal Bible College Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 56. Committee of the Whole House FLOOD HAZARD STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 56; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:48 p.m. E. Brenzinger: I ask leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members E. Brenzinger: Today I have 20 educators and ad- ministrators from Shanghai visiting the Legislature. Bruce Hardy of Options, which is a non-profit agency in Surrey, hosts the Shanghai delegation. Can I ask the House to please welcome them all. Debate Continued On

section 1. B. Penner: I have a number of questions on this bill, but my questions are mostly general in nature. I think it's most appropriate to ask them under

section 1. This statute and this amendment will be much celebrated in the part of British Columbia that I come from. People in Chilliwack-Kent have been asking for some time to have greater flexibility and to be given greater responsibility, as well, in terms of making deci- sions about what height to build various buildings at — particularly homes and residential dwellings.

For too long, there's been a ve ry prescriptive approach taken, not giving people enough flexibility to make decisions for themselves. [1450] My question to the minister is: to what extent will individuals now face the legal liability in the event there is a flood hazard or a flood situation, as opposed to the province? Will this bill insulate taxpayers gener- ally, or at least go some distance towards insulating taxpayers, from costs that might be associated with dwellings that are damaged during flood events if in- dividuals choose to build their homes at less than the recommended flood-level height? Hon. J.

Murray: Owners who develop buildings that are below the guidelines established will accept liability accordingly. B. Penner: That's certainly a philosophy that I sup- port — one of giving people the information they can use to make informed decisions, but then at the end of the day having individuals be responsible for their own decisions and not necessarily turn to taxpayers for compensation as a result of decisions they may have made that have resulted in difficulty.

However, I do believe that it makes more sense, rather than elevating buildin gs on the valley floor, to put our resources behind im proving protection along various watercourses — whether it be the Fraser River, Chilliwack River or various creeks throughout British Columbia — so that we reduce the bed of the river as opposed to raising up the dikes on the side of the river or increasing the height of various buildings. The cost to society generally of elevating every single structure to what may now be deemed a safe height in terms of flood is extremely expensive and is prohibitive.

The member for Chilliwack-Sumas will be very familiar with this, because he and I have both been concerned in the past about increased costs to changes at the University College of the Fraser Valley in Chilli- wack, for example, as a result of the previous govern- ment's very prescriptive, heavy-handed approach to floodplain regulations. In fact, it made that project so much more expensive that it did not proceed for a long period of time, and our government now is finally making that project move forward. My question, then, to the minister. I note that sec- tion 1 deals with dike maintenance and the like.

Will her ministry continue to have responsibility for dike maintenance once this legislation is enacted? Hon. J. Murray: Under this amendment the inspec- tor of dikes will still be there to provide expertise and set standards for the maintenance and protection of the important dike infrastructure in the province. B.

Penner: The minister will be well familiar that other MLAs and I and other mu nicipal leaders, in fact, throughout the Fraser Valley have been very upset at what we see as foot-dragging on the part of the De- partment of Fisheries and Oceans when it comes to approving gravel removal in significant quantities from the Fraser River and other watercourses. The recent flood event we had in Pemberton, and to a lesser extent in the Fraser Valley, demonstrates to all of us very clearly what the risk is that we face if we do not adequately manage the wild watercourse that we have through the Fraser Valley.

Doing nothing is not an option, and, frankly, I don't think building the dikes higher is an option. Furthe rmore, I sincerely doubt the viability, from a financial perspective, of elevating every single structure up as much as five, six, seven, eight metres off the ground. Rather, it makes greater sense to get back into that ri ver on a regular basis in an environmentally responsible way to extract gravel dur- ing times when the water level is low. [1455] Dike maintenance is clearly one important aspect here, but so is regular maintenance of that watercourse,

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7881 whether it's the Fraser River or other bodies of water. We've recently, as I said, had a serious situation with heavy rains. For example, some houses were very nearly displaced and destroyed as a result of the failure of an unmaintained dike in an area near Wilson Road in the Chilliwack River valley.

If not for the quick ac- tion of the provincial emergency program — and, I'm told, the expenditure of perhaps hundreds of thou- sands of dollars — with crews working around the clock, homes and property would have been lost, and more property would have been lost than already was. As it is, I believe an acre of land or more was washed out to sea during that event, just in a few days. Now that work has been done and that dike, even if it's not high enough — and certainly it isn't high enough in that area to my liking….

I think it's impera- tive that proper maintenance continue, lest we as tax- payers lose that initial investment that's been made over the last two weeks and that riprap and other rock work that's been put in place get undermined and washed out. I note that the dike that failed a few weeks ago was initially put in place following a similar flood event in around 1990 but had apparently not been maintained adequately, if at all, since that time. The result is that taxpayers have now lost that initial investment made in 1990.

At least an acre of property has been washed out to sea, and we very nearly lost some homes and other small cabins and dwellings in the vicinity. I'm looking for some indication from the minister: what is the scenario contemplated under this legisla- tion for maintaining the dikes we have and improving those that still need some improvement in order to ensure safety in various parts of British Columbia? Hon. J.

Murray: Under the Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, the Mi nistry of Water, Land and Air Protection will be working with the smaller diking districts and with the larger, more well- resourced diking districts to help negotiate the transfer of the dikes that are under the authority of the smaller diking districts, which sometimes don't have the re- sources to maintain them to an acceptable level. Those dikes then create a vulnerability that is the weak link in the chain for a larger diking district.

In many cases, it is in the interests of that authority that is more well- resourced to accept responsibility for the dikes belong- ing to smaller diking districts. This will be done on a voluntary basis, however, when the authority sees it's in their interest to do so. Water, Land and Air Protec- tion will facilitate those transfers over the coming seven years. With respect to orphaned dikes — those are dikes that are not under the responsibility and authority of a diking district — the ministry will continue to maintain responsibility for those. There are 50 at present.

Through our policy internally, we'll develop plans for managing those on a risk priority basis. We will no longer be adding orphaned dikes to that inventory. Those are dikes that are typically built at a time of emergency and then are not the responsibility of an existing diking authority. We will not have more or- phaned dikes. We will continue to manage and be re- sponsible for those that exist today.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. [1500] J. MacPhail: This bill, as I understand it, the Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, is about mov- ing from the provincial government enforcing stan- dards when it comes to the building and maintenance of dikes to now prescribing guidelines that the diking authority is to follow. My questions will flow from the most recent ex- perience our province has gone through, the terribly difficult and challenging times our province has gone through as we saw just recently.

We saw this summer, with interface fires and then just a couple of weeks ago with the flooding through several parts of the province, that when disaster strikes, the provincial government steps in to help those whose homes and property have been destroyed. Can the minister tell us if this bill changes the liabil- ity of the province when it comes to protecting prop- erty from flooding? Hon. J. Murray: Under the provincial emergency program, the assistance the member was referring to is brought forth in a time of emergency. There is no change to that under this act. J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry.

Could the minis- ter just repeat that very last part of her answer? Hon. J. Murray: The member was referring to gov- ernment stepping in at a time of emergency to assist. That takes place under the provincial emergency pro- gram. There's no change to that under these amend- ments. Water, Land and Air Protection did continue to provide expertise during the recent flood events, as they have in the past. J. MacPhail: It will be yes or no. Is the minister say- ing that this bill does not change liability of the prov- ince when it comes to prot ecting property from flood- ing?

There's no change in the liability of the province? Hon. J. Murray: If approving officers live up to the provincial guidelines that are established by the prov- ince, then there is no change in liability. J. MacPhail: At what level will the guidelines for dikes be set? Hon. J. Murray: We have standards with respect to dikes. Those standards are set at the 100- and 200-year flood level. That is not changed. We are not changing those dike standards under this amendment to guide- lines.

7882 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 J. MacPhail: Even though it's a guideline, it is a standard that's required to be met? Hon. J. Murray: That's correct. With respect to dikes they're enforceable stan dards, and they continue to be enforceable standards. With respect to floodplain levels we are moving from standards to guidelines. J. MacPhail: That was going to be my next ques- tion. Will the municipalities/diking authorities be able to set different levels in different parts of the flood- plain? Hon. J. Murray: Yes, they can.

Municipalities can adopt bylaws that are not consistent with the 200-year guidelines if they choose to because of reasons of pro- tection from flooding that they consider to be adequate. J. MacPhail: What criteria will be used to assess the different standards? [1505] Hon. J. Murray: Under this amendment the prov- ince will establish guidelines that are based on the 200- year flood level. The municipality will then have the flexibility to adopt that level or another level as they deem fit, and that will not require the approval of the province. J.

MacPhail: Do all communities in a floodplain have bylaws and/or development regulations prescribing what can be built on a floodplain and how it can be built? Hon. J. Murray: Some communities have bylaws; some don't. They all have the power, under their ap- proving authority for develo pment, to approve or not approve development. J. MacPhail: I'm told that about 75 percent have flood protection works and la nd use planning policies. The change here is that it will now be these municipali- ties who will be setting the standards or determining how the guidelines are applied. There's no fallback.

It's the municipalities, the diking authorities or no one. It becomes far more important that the municipali- ties/diking authorities have flood protection and land use planning policies. What plans does the ministry have to work with local governments to ensure that they do have such bylaws or requirements? Hon. J. Murray: When we went out to consult on this, the proposed changes to our flood hazard statutes, we heard loud and clear from municipalities and local and regional government that they wanted the power to make decisions regarding land use in their areas.

For rural areas that are not covered by a municipal or local government, the Ministry of Transportation has the authority to approve or not approve developments that might be subject to flood. J. MacPhail: How will the land use regulations by the local governments be monitored or enforced? Hon. J. Murray: That will be up to local govern- ment. J. MacPhail: Does Bill 75, Significant Projects Streamlining Act, override this act? Hon. J. Murray: I'm not sure it has any bearing on this act, but I'd invite the member to ask questions about another act when it is coming up for debate. J.

MacPhail: I would expect that if somebody's trying to develop on a floodplain and they apply to have their development super-speeded through under the Signifi- cant Projects Streamlining Act, it will have a bearing on which act applies. With this government now saying it's up to the cities to set the guidelines for land use around floodplains, I would expect it applies, and I'm surprised the minister doesn't know the ranking of it.

How can the minister assure us that this legislation doesn't put local governments at the mercy of develop- ers who are willing to risk a flood, knowing that it will be the homeowner who is liable for any damage caused by the flood and not the developer or the city? What reassurances does she have for the public against that nightmare scenario? [1510] Hon. J. Murray: The municipality or a regional government will have the ability to approve or not approve a subdivision, so they do have that authority.

They will also have the authority to require the devel- oper to put a covenant on title, which is a form of buyer beware, so that a buyer is knowingly purchasing a property that may not be consistent with a 200-year floodplain level guideline as established by the prov- ince. The local government will have that approval power whether or not they have a bylaw. J. MacPhail: Recently I've heard a lot of government caucus members who represen t residents in the Fraser Valley talking about being very vocal in demanding that gravel be removed from the Fraser River.

They have articulated that as a way to reduce the risk of a breach of the dike. They have been very specific in blaming the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for standing in the way of gravel extraction because of their concern for fish habitat. On that basis, has the minister seen any analysis of the impact that gravel removal will have on the flow of the Fraser and on fish habitat? Hon. J.

Murray: Both from the hydrological perspec- tive and the fish habitat perspective, Water, Land and Air Protection continues to be involved in multi-partner initiatives with respect to gravel removal from the Fraser River so that we can extract gravel to reduce flood risks but also do it in an environmentally safe way. J. MacPhail: I just wondered, because the govern- ment caucus members were very clear and asserted very emphatically that it was the fault of the DFO. There was a statement in the House here. There was a

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7883 statement saying that the DFO was standing in the way of gravel extraction because of DFO's concern for fish habitat, so I assumed the government had given some analysis to those government caucus members so that they could reach that conclusion. Is it the minister's view, then, that gravel removal is an effective flood deterrent? Hon. J. Murray: M y m i n i s t r y ' s p o s i t i o n i s t h a t w e are in support of gravel re moval in order to reduce those flood risks and that it needs to be done in a way that respects fish habitat. J.

MacPhail: That's possible, is it? Hon. J. Murray: Yes, it is. J. MacPhail: Where could the public turn to ensure that, as the minister asserts? Hon. J. Murray: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has studies. I presume the Fraser Basin Council, which is an organization that has been grappling with this issue with many partners over the last while and is developing a longer-term strategy…. My ministry has studies with respect to gravel removal and fish habitat protection.

If the member opposite would like me to get my hands on some of those studies and forward them to her, I'd be quite willing to do that. [1515] J. MacPhail: Yes. Thank you very much for the of- fer. I'd very much appreciate that. It's interesting that the minister notes the Fraser Basin Council, because I read an

article recently by Patrick Reid, the chair of the Fraser Basin Council. In that

article he states: "Let's not delude ourselves. The mighty Fraser will flood again like it did in 1948 and in 1894. It's not a question of if such a flood will occur but, rather, when." My question on that is: what actions are the minister and the governme nt taking to address this natural occurrence and to protect the lives and prop- erty of those who live in the Fraser Valley? What is the work that's being done? Hon. J. Murray: My ministry supports the removal of gravel from the Fraser Ri ver, as I mentioned, in an environmentally sensitive way, and that is one tool for prevention.

The ministry does have regulatory author- ity over diking infrastructure with an inspector of dikes who has expertise and authority. We have developed flood mapping tools, and the provincial government made a one-time $1 million grant for the purpose of developing various tools for the municipalities to util- ize in their planning to prevent and make decisions around flood hazard. The ministry continues to be in- volved in flood response, as I mentioned earlier, with this fall's flooding. J. MacPhail: Actually, Mr.

Reid, chair of the Fraser Basin Council, calls on governments at all levels to work cooperatively and invest an additional $10 mil- lion annually in preventative measures. Will we be seeing this provincial government take up that chal- lenge and invest even more? He made this comment after the $1 million contributi on. Will they be investing even more money in flood prevention? Hon. J. Murray: The province, over the last six years, has invested approx imately $15 million in flood prevention works.

I would welcome any assistance from the member opposite in encouraging the federal government to match or bring forward funds for flood prevention works. R. Hawes: Just following along on the same line of questioning as the Leader of the Opposition, I wonder if the minister is aware — and I think she is — that the provincial manager of PEP has said the recent floods were caused by rain, but they came much quicker and were much more severe beca use of the silted-in nature of the creeks and streams th roughout the Fraser Valley and in the Pemberton area.

Is the minister aware of that statement by the provincial manager of PEP? Hon. J. Murray: I'm not aware of that specific statement, but common sense would say that when streams and rivers are silted in, there will be a change in the hydrology, and it will worsen the flood. [1520] R. Hawes: The studies that the Fraser Valley re- gional district have done over the last number of years — and a lot of money has been spent on them — would indicate that taking sand and gravel out of the river does mitigate a flood possibility.

Has the minister seen those studies, and are you aware that they exist at the Fraser Valley regional district? Hon. J. Murray: We are aware of those studies. We have the view that extraction of materials from the riv- ers is an appropriate activity to prevent or reduce the risk of floods. We continue to work with partners on those issues, and the lead on those issues is in another ministry — Land and Water B.C., I believe. R. Hawes: Just to follow a bit further along the path that the Leader of the Opposition was going on.

Is the minister aware that highways officials are of the opin- ion that the changes that have been made — stopping them from doing normal di tching, which is essential for maintaining highways — have placed a huge new cost upon them that has not been budgeted for and may have some severe impacts on their ability to main- tain highways. They may have to cut back what they're maintaining if they can't get at these ditches and clean them, which is the same thing. It's a flooding…. It's a question of getting the silt and the gravel buildup out of the ditches so that highways don't flood out.

Is the minister aware of the problems in that area? Hon. J. Murray: My ministry works in partnership with the Ministry of Transportation and other ministries

7884 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 on these issues, including drainage issues. We're work- ing on developing a memorandum of understanding between Water, Land and Air Protection and the Minis- try of Transportation. If that's an issue that's deemed to require specific attention in the MOU, it will be in it. R.

Hawes: I want to get it on the record that I'm not sure where the Leader of the Opposition's questions were going, but it would seem to me that there's a very clear linkage between flooding dangers — from the Ministry of Transportation's perspective and from the householder perspective and the Fraser Basin Council's perspective…. There's a clear correlation between flooding danger and risk of flooding and the buildup of silt and gravel in creeks, streams and our major riv- ers. I'm sure that's clearly documented, and I'm sure the minister would agree with that.

I guess that's the last questi on I have on this section. Hon. J. Murray: We certainly will continue to work on these issues in cooperatio n with the other ministries to address buildup of silt and gravel. We have a re- sponsibility to, as far as possible, prevent flood risks and hazards. Sections 2 to 15 inclusive approved. On

section 16. J. Les: First of all, in the way of preliminary re- marks, just let me say that I'm very pleased that this legislation is in the House. Other members of the gov- ernment and I have spent co nsiderable time bringing this change about in conjunction with the minister. The previous method of dealing with these assumed risks was very prescriptive and anticipated a combination of absolute worst-case scenarios. The Leader of the Opposition referred to flooding that occurred in 1894.

It would be wise to keep in mind that in 1894, there were no dikes anywhere in the Fra- ser Valley and certainly not in the part of the world that I represent. In 1948 there was a flood… An Hon. Member: What was it like back then? J. Les: In 1894? I'm not sure what it was like back then, but it was a different world than the one we enjoy today. [1525] In 1948 there was a flood in parts of the Fraser Val- ley, but again we should all keep in mind that the dikes that were available then were vastly inferior to the dik- ing infrastructure that exists today.

For my mind, what we need to do is ensure that we maintain the dikes, as is in fact the case and as happens from year to year. I think the municipalities in and around the Fraser Valley in particular do a very good job of maintaining the dikes that we have. It is very good infrastructure. In my view, we are failing to ensure that the streams, rivers and wate rways are properly main- tained.

With about 350,000 tonnes of gravel a year washing into what is called the Chilliwack reach of the Fraser River, clearly if that gravel is not removed in a systematic and responsible wa y, then eventually, some years down the road, we are going to have the river full of gravel from dike top to dike top. Simply to ad- vocate the raising of dikes to keep pace with that, I think, is foolish, silly and irresponsible. So with that little

preamble, just to assure everyone that I am fully in favour of this legislation, I wonder, under

section 16, if I could perhaps ask the minister to outline what the effect of that particular

section is. Hon. J. Murray: The impact of this

section is that guidelines will be available to local government. These guidelines will be developed by the provincial gov- ernment, but it will not be mandatory to follow them. Local government can make their own determination for areas in their floodplains. J. Les: Just to be even more clear then, municipali- ties — if they have the appropriate subdivision regula- tions in place — will be able to utilize those as they did previously, prior to the mid-nineties, and the provin- cial government will no longer be in the business of approving construction and/or subdivision? Hon. J. Murray: That's correct.

Section 16 approved. On

section 17. J. Les: Under

section 17 there is reference to cove- nants that can be required at the subdivision stage. I wonder, for clarification, if the minister could advise if those covenants at that point in time could be written in such a way that there would be no further covenants required at the time of construction. Hon. J. Murray: There will be no requirement by the provincial government for further covenants. How- ever, local government can ask for them if they desire. R.

Hawes: Perhaps the minister could also explain if a local government, once they've set the floodplain level, wanted to allow someone to build a home with the bottom floor lower than that floodplain level but put a covenant on the property…. Is that at all possible, or must the bottom floor be above that municipally established floodplain level? Hon. J. Murray: As they'll have the power to make those bylaws, they'll have the power to alter them to enable the situation that the member has described to take place. R.

Hawes: So would they be required to alter their by law, or wou ld this be the k ind of a situ ation where they could grant a variance if there were an…? Would someone have to make an application for a variance to

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7885 the bylaw, or would they ha ve to change the entire bylaw? Hon. J. Murray: If the local government has a by- law and they want to have a condition that would not meet that bylaw, they would then change the bylaw. Sections 17 and 18 approved. On

section 19. [1530] J. Les: Can the minister confirm that floodplain designation by a municipality will be voluntary? In other words, will a municipality simply be able to in- voke the provincial guidelines? On the other hand, if they wanted to set a different level…. Let's say that a municipality wanted to set their flood construction level at ground level. Would that be a voluntary deci- sion? I guess what I'm trying to get at is: what latitude does a municipality have? The Chair: Minister, I think what we probably should do is do the amen dment first. Let's do the amendment first, because that may impact some of the questioning here. Hon. J. Murray: Mr. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 19 standing in my name on the orders of the day. [SECTION 19, in the proposed

section 910 of the Local Government Act, (

a) by deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) If land is designated as a flood plain under subsection (1), the local government may, by bylaw, specify (

a) the flood level for the floodplain, or different flood levels for different areas of the flood plain, and (

b) the setback from a watercourse, body of water or dike of any landfill or structural support required to elevate a floor system or pad above the flood level, which setback may be different for different areas of the floodplain and for different flood levels. , and (

b) by deleting subsection (4) and substituting the following:

(4) If a bylaw under subsection (2) applies, (

a) the underside of any floor system, or the top of any pad supporting any space or room, including a manufactured home, that is used for (

i) dwelling purposes, (ii) business, or (iii) the storage of goods which are susceptible to damage by floodwater must be above the applicable flood level specified by the bylaw, and (

b) any landfill required to support a floor system or pad must not extend within any applicable setback specified by the bylaw.] Amendment approved. On

section 19 as amended. J. Les: Well, I'd still put the question to the minister. Perhaps with the amendmen t in place…. I think the clarification on the record by the minister would still be helpful. Hon. J. Murray: The answer to the member's ques- tion before the amendment was noted. Yes, floodplain designation by municipal government will be voluntary. J. Les: Sometimes it's helpful to use specific exam- ples. The minister will be aware of an elderly lady in my riding by the name of Annie Krahn, who has writ- ten to the member previously. Mrs. Krahn owns a resi- dential lot in the community of Greendale.

For those who remember the flood of 1948, Greendale was, of course, under water in that flood. There is a substantial community in Greendale, and Mrs. Krahn owns a lot and has owned a lot on Underhill Drive in Greendale for a long, long time. She now wishes to build her re- tirement home there. For medical and other reasons, she cannot easily live in a home that has a lot of stairs, so she wants to build that home at ground level, which is the same elevation the other homes are at in that particular sub- division.

If the city of Chilliwack wished to accept a covenant holding the city of Chilliwack harmless from M r s . K r a h n , w o u l d t h a t b e a n o p t i o n t h a t w o u l d b e available to them under this legislation? Hon. J. Murray: Y e s . B y a m e n d i n g t h e b y l a w , t h e city can authorize the situation that the member has described. J. Les: If the city were to maintain its official flood construction level at current levels, let's say, which is probably — in Mrs.

Krahn's case — a dozen or so feet above ground level, would they be able to enact a policy whereby they would still, in spite of the bylaw, be able to accept a covenant to shed the liability in terms of the city so that it would in fact rest with the homeowner? Hon. J. Murray: The answer is yes. If the building inspector or approving officer approves the circum- stance, then the municipality can enter into a covenant with the homeowner and approve that.

Section 19 as amended approved. Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved. On

section 23. Hon. J. Murray: Mr. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 23 standing in my name on the orders of the day. [SECTION 23, by deleting

section 23 and substituting the following: Commencement 23

Section 16 comes into force on January 1, 2004.] Amendment approved.

7886 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003

Section 23 as amended approved. Title approved. Hon. J. Murray: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:35 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Reporting of Bills Bill 56, Flood Hazard St atutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendments. Third Reading of Bills Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read? Hon. J. Murray: By leave, now. Leave granted. Bill 56, Flood Hazard St atutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed. Hon. C. Hansen: I would like to call second reading of Bill 75. Mr.

Speaker, if I may call for a very brief re- cess. Mr. Speaker: Right. Second reading of Bill 75. We will just pause for a few moments. Second Reading of Bills SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS STREAMLINING ACT Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill now be read a second time. As I explained during first reading, Bill 75 will en- sure that the review and approval process for projects seen to be important to th e economic, social or envi- ronmental well-being of British Columbia proceed in a timely manner.

The Significant Projects Streamlining Act will pro- vide potential investors, local governments and the province with a more effective framework to deal with the complex decision-making processes that surround projects of significant provincial importance. The Sig- nificant Projects Streamlining Act will create a competi- tive climate for business and investment here in British Columbia. It will reduce red tape and regulation and streamline processes for both government and busi- ness. Bill 75 demonstrates this government's commitment to an effective framework for facilitating major invest- ment in our province.

The Significant Projects Stream- lining Act allows cabinet, by a designation, to assign special status to projects deemed to be significant and that will positively benefit the economic, environ- mental and social well-being of British Columbia. [1540] There have long been concerns from investors and governments about the lack of timeliness in obtaining project review decisions here in British Columbia. Delayed project approval decisions are often caused by conflicting requirements from multiple ministries and local approval authorities.

Long project review processes reduce the viability of projects, resulting in lost investments and job opportunities throughout British Columbia. I have personally heard from may- ors across B.C., particularly in the heartlands, who have literally witnessed in vestments that would have created local jobs and opportunities pack up and move across the border due to approval delays in British Columbia. As well, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act improves the viability of public-private partnerships, or P3s, as a means to deliver services or build infra- structure.

It sends a clear signal to potential P3 inves- tors that British Columbia will not allow stranded capi- tal to be a feature of important investment in transpor- tation infrastructure or manufacturing projects. Designation under this act will ensure that project reviews are addressed within reasonable time frames and that all parties involved can recognize and address potential constraints in a way that is both positive and cooperative.

The Significan t Projects Streamlining Act creates a framework that encourages project propo- nents and all levels of government to place a discipline on themselves to work together to head off problems before they arise. The act does not change provincial or federal envi- ronmental health or safety standards associated with the development or operation of a project. Let me em- phasize again that we are not changing provincial or federal health or safety standards. I want this to be quite clear to everyone, particularly the members of the opposition.

I also want to be very clear that the act will have no effect on aboriginal rights and title. The province fully respects all existing and future obligations we have that apply to our relations with first nations. In fact, this act will provide timely approvals and support that works in the interests of potential first nations eco- nomic development projects. The key elements of the Significant Projects Streamlining Act are quite straightforward.

If a minis- ter believes a project is provincially significant and is or may be subject to inefficient or prolonged process, the minister may recommend to cabinet that the pro- ject be designated. Once a project is designated, ap- proval authorities will be required to take all reason- able actions to move through the complex decision- making process faster and more efficiently. For ex- ample, instead of a project going through ministerial approvals in a consecutive manner from one ministry

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7887 to the next, ministries could review the project simul- taneously, greatly reducing the approvals process time frame. If the project receives the required approvals to proceed, then all reasonable actions must be taken to move the project to completion and intended opera- tions of the project in a timely manner. This is only reasonable. Projects that re ceive the green light should not be subject to further delays or the imposition of other new requirements. The legislation emphasizes cooperative efforts as the best way to resolve problems.

If, for example, a proponent feels the approval authority is not working to expedite a review decision, the proponent would need to try to resolve the matter with the approval au- thority. A facilitator may be appointed to assist in the deliberations. If the two parties are not able to resolve the matter, the responsible minister could intervene. If after examining all the facts, the responsible minister is convinced that the approval authority is being unrea- sonable, that minister would be authorized to make orders within the scope dete rmined by cabinet to ex- pedite the process.

I should emphasize that de signated status does not provide a project with certaint y of outcome. This is not the intent of the legislation. If for good reason a deci- sion is made that a project should not proceed, then it is better to advise the proponent of this decision sooner rather than later.

We've always said in this government that a business person would rather have a "no" in 30 days than an "I don't know" in 30 months. [1545] This legislation is consistent with government di- rection to reduce red tape and the regulatory burden for British Columbia businesses and follows through on the commitment to create a strong and vibrant pro- vincial economy. It also recognizes the reality of to- day's capital markets. Investment capital has many choices when major investors knock on British Colum- bia's door. We get only one chance to roll out the red carpet instead of rolling out the red tape.

Without this legislation, local governments, project proponents and the province will continue to face inef- ficient and unacceptable delays in review and decision- making processes and the uncertainty this creates. Bill 75 ensures that project reviews and related activities for significant projects are ca rried out in an expedited manner and respect the autonomy of local govern- ments by creating an innovative framework for dia- logue and cooperation on proj ects that are in the best interests of all British Columbians.

The Significant Projects Streamlining Act plays a strong role in the government's commitment to creat- ing a strong and vibrant prov incial economy. Bill 75 provides evidence that this government is committed to creating an economic en vironment that encourages both investment and job creation for residents. Passage of the Significant Projects Streamlining Act will sim- plify the relationship be tween business and govern- ment.

The initiative will create a competitive climate for business and investment in the province and is an important part of our government's continuing effort to create a strong and vibrant provincial economy. I am pleased to move second reading. J. MacPhail: Bill 75, the Significan t Projects Stream- lining Act. It's interesting to watch this minister assert things that he simply hopes people will believe, saying: "Oh, this bill doesn't affect environmental standards. It doesn't affect first nations." We know the value of the word of this government on its commitment to envi- ronmental standards and first nations.

Because this minister asserts that this legislation doesn't affect any of those rights, one can pretty much predict that the bill does affect those rights. In fact, Bill 75 is yet another example of this government sidestepping its obligation to provide fair and responsible governance in favour of honouring commitments to its corporate donors. I almost don't know where to begin on this legisla- tion. This legislation is extremely far-reaching. How- ever, it lacks any fundamental

definitions and informa- tion that would inform the public about how the new legislation is going to be used. It is extremely vague. As a result, I will have many questions at committee de- bate. However, I also don't anticipate getting any an- swers, which is typical of this government. In the short time I have had to examine the bill, I have come across some very troubling aspects. I want to go over those today so the minister will be fully pre- pared — 100 percent prepared — to answer every sin- gle question during committ ee stage. First off, let me quote from the explanatory text for Bill 75.

I'm sure the explanatory text is written by the public affairs bureau, the Pravda of this government, because it really is all about spin. But this one let some information slip through.

"This Bill provides for proj ects that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers are provincially significant projects to be expedited by requiring that any decisions that must be made in relation to the project are to be made expeditiously, and, if the project is to proceed, by allowing for any enactments or processes that migh t impede the prompt completion of the project to be overcome through negotiation or minister's order and replaced with alternative measures that are more in keeping with the expeditious completion of the project." Nothing about other pieces of legislation prevail- ing. No.

It says "minister's order." Some kind of banana republic we're in here. The key piece to this bill is that the ministers will have the power to remove a project from any and all approval pr ocesses that the minister and the proponent feel "may be a constraint." On top of that, it only has to be a perceived or anticipated con- straint. It doesn't even have to be a reality. [1550] What could this possibly be referring to? We don't know. We don't know for sure, because the legislation doesn't say.

However, I'm pretty sure I know where this government wants to go on this: the Olympics for sure and the RAV line for sure. What else? I do understand the need to ensure that projects associated with the Olympics are kept on schedule, but

7888 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 this act is not in any way limited to the Olympics. The intent of this legislation is not defined anywhere. This minister can stand up and assert whatever he likes, but his legislation doesn't back him up. The power in this legislation is not limited in any way. This legislation gives free range to cabinet, to the Premier, on any pro- ject. The Minister of State for Deregulation has gone on the radio and said…. He said it again today, and he shook his finger at the opposition, saying that this bill is not about compromising environmental standards.

Well, I say to the minister: prove it. There is nothing in this legislation that dictates what processes cabinet can override and what processes it cannot. There is nothing in this legislation that limits those extraordinary pow- ers. Well, let's see whether I'm just fearmongering. No. This

interpretation of Bill 75 is shared by pretty much everyone who's commented on it to date.

In his column on Tuesday, Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun wrote: "Once the cabinet makes the designation, it can, by the stroke of a pen, eliminate any and all constraints to the approval process — regulations, procedures and timetables included." The British Columbia and Yukon Territory Building and Cons truction Trades Council press release from November 4 says: "This new legisla- tion that proposes to fast-t rack major construction pro- jects will be a disaster for taxpayers." The executive director, Wayne Peppard, whose members will be re- sponsible for building these projects, went on to say that this legislation is an insult to local authorities.

Paul Willcocks, a columnist here, in yesterday's Kelowna Daily Courier argued that Bill 75 could "easily be called the 'making the Premier king act.'" Isn't it curious? The day Bill 75 was introduced also happened to be the day a new deputy minister of spe- cial projects was appointed to the Premier's office. Now, how many deputy mini sters does that Premier need? He's set a record for deputy ministers. We know that this new deputy minist er for special projects will be working full time in using the new powers granted the Premier under Bill 75. Full time she'll be working on it.

We know for sure that all of this streamlining will be by direct order from the Premier to his new — what? — tenth, eleventh or twelfth deputy minister, the deputy minister of special projects. Well, it will be interesting to see what these Liberal government caucus members say about saying be damned to proper public oversight of special projects. I have admitted in the most recent Public Accounts that there were lessons to be learned from the fast ferries project and the fact that it was directed out of the Pre- mier's office. I went on the record and said that.

I called for the auditor general to apply the same recommenda- tions we learned out of that lesson to the RAV line. [1555] You should have seen the government caucus members fight that one. They said: "Oh my God. How dare you demand that we apply the recommendations the auditor general learned from the fast ferries project to the RAV line?" One government caucus member stood up and said: "We don't even know the provincial involvement in the RAV line. We don't even know if there is any provincial invo lvement in the RAV line." I guess they were just waiting for this legislation.

I guess these government caucus members were just waiting for this legislation to be rammed through, where no one can examine a special project. Well, they got their wish today. Hurrah. Not only have they not learned one le sson from the fast ferries project; they're willing to repeat it ad nauseam by legis- lation. That is exactly what this legislation is about. I should have known the government caucus members had something up their sleeve when they were making themselves look silly by not wanting the auditor gen- eral to examine the RAV line according to what we learned from other megaprojects.

Well, now I know. They did have something up their sleeve. It's called Bill 75. Let's return to the minister of state's claim that he just made about the bill not weakening environmental standards. In order to grant their new-era promise for "certainty of access," this government has gone to great lengths to reduce all kinds of processes designed to protect the public interest . They gutted the Environ- mental Assessment Act. They gave the Minister of Sus- tainable Resource Management the unilateral authority to determine what constitutes a reviewable project.

They also gutted the Agricultural Land Commission, and they gave the Minister of Agriculture unilateral authority over defining wh at is a non-farm use and what can be removed from the agricultural land re- serve. Then the government gave themselves unilateral control over the siting of fish farms, even if local gov- ernment doesn't want them. Bill 75 is just an extens ion of that. They can now unilaterally do whatever they want. Of course this is about environmental standard s, and it's about control- ling local governments.

This is an unbelievably arro- gant approach on behalf of a desperate government who will now do anything to make up for their failed economic policies to attrac t back that disappearing, escaping private sector investment that is falling every year under their regime. On top of all this, the Liberal government has re- moved the right of the public to be involved at every step of the way. They got rid of the project committees in the environmental assessm ent process, and they've refused to legislate any public consultation in their forestry changes.

Every time this Liberal government reworks processes around natural resource use, the public loses — every time. Bill 75 is no different. It al- lows development-driven ministers to decide when a major project can skip through the approval processes and brush over public co nsultation requirements. These decisions will be made behind closed doors, and the public will be shut out. Here's an interesting one. I wonder whether any government caucus members know this. Freedom-of- information laws do not apply to this legislation.

Free- dom-of-information laws do not apply to the Signifi- cant Projects Streamlining Ac t. Oh, isn't this an open and accountable government? Fast ferries are beyond

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7889 the imagination now, with this legislation. Every megaproject is going to be rammed through by a dep- uty minister of special projects working right beside the Premier, and no one's go ing to know what they're doing because the freedom-of-information laws don't apply. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money will now be exempt from freedom of information. Open and accountable? You tell me what's open and accountable about this government.

Of course the government didn't announce, when they introduced this legislation, that this law would be exempt from freedom of information. I wonder why they didn't do that. I wonder why they kept that little secret from the public. As a result, the public will have no way to get information about the government's actions on fast- tracking megaprojects. It's another step in this govern- ment's quest to become the least open and accountable government in British Columbia's history.

Despite backbench blustering to the contrary, open cabinet does not count, and any of the Liberal members who actually believe it is not a scripted attempt at reality television are fooling themselves. [1600] I want to move to one of the biggest dangers of this bill, and that's blundering cabinet ministers. Under Bill 75, project proponents who "may be impeded by a con- straint" can now ask a minister to allow the project to skip over that perceived constraint.

The bill mysteri- ously fails to identify the ty pes of constraints, but one can imagine that anything done by the Ministry of Wa- ter, Land and Air Protection is high on that list of a perceived constraint. Some poor Liberal donor who wants their project rammed through can now go to the minister and say: "Oh, that Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is concerned about the environment. Can you just ram my project through?" And he'll now have — the Pre- mier — the secret ability to say: "Aye, aye, sir. Done." The public won't have a clue as to what went on.

They won't be able to turn to the legislation and have what a constraint is defined. Let's just look at one example where a project pro- ponent might see a constraint . It's a real example. I know the Minister of Agricu lture, Food and Fisheries will be very familiar with the tale I'm about to tell. Dur- ing the last spring session the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries was forced to step down when it was revealed that he tipped off Stolt Sea Farm about an investigation into their aquaculture practices.

It was at this point that the public learned just how cozy the Liberals and the aquaculture industry were and still are. When the story broke, many details, letters and e- mails rose to the surface under freedom of information, outlining just how messy the whole situation was. One of these documents was a letter to the Minister of Wa- ter, Land and Air Protection, the Minister of Sustain- able Resource Management and the Minister of Agri- culture, Food and Fisheries. The letter was from Dale Blackburn, vice-president of Stolt Sea Farm, who was concerned about the government's actions.

Here's an example of what he wrote in his letter: "In addition, the recent meeting our industry had with yourself" — meaning the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protec- tion — "and your colleagues" — the Minister of Sus- tainable Resource Manageme nt and the Minister of Fisheries — "buoyed myself and other salmon farmers, as the tone of the meeting indicated a strong willing- ness on everyone's part to repair and rebuild troubled relationships." The letter continued: "Inste ad of working with us, I see these recommendations to lay charges as just one more effort to discredit B.C. 's salmon farming industry and our operations here in Campbell River." Further- more, the letter said: "I am requesting that the recom- mendation to lay charges against Stolt Sea Farm be dropped.

At the same time, I would like to suggest that your staff be asked to work with us rather than against us." What happened? The investigation was compro- mised by a bungling cabinet minister. The fish farm company got their way. The public lost, and Stolt Sea Farm is now able to do what it likes. Now it's going to be even easier for ministers to sidestep the public interest. They don't need secret meetings. They don't need phone conversations to dis- rupt proceedings. They can just fall back on Bill 75. Next time Mr.

Blackburn feels like the government is working against Stolt Sea Farm because of those silly environmental reviews and assessments, he can just ask the minister to declare his actions significant, and all the approval processes and regulations can be swept away and replaced by a process of the minister's choos- ing. Despite what the Minister of State for Deregulation says, there is nothing in this legislation to prevent that from happening. [1605] Who needs to do an investigation? Stolt is our friend. They can do no wrong. Besides, they gave us big money. Who cares about escapes, disease and waste?

This bill gives cabinet the ability to override the regulations that protect our natural environment, despite the minister trying to say it doesn't. Whether they would ever use it in fish farms, we don't know, because Bill 48, which was passed just a couple of weeks ago — the right to locate fish farms in spite of local government — sure indicates that this govern- ment is willing to override any regulations. It sure indicates that the location of fish farms is a high prior- ity, despite environmental regulations, despite local government regulations.

If Bill 48, the right-to-farm amendments to allow aquaculture sitings to override local governments, doesn't work, then the fish farms can turn to Bill 75 and complain about those con- straints of local government. This is absolutely astonishing. To give these minis- ters such power is irresponsible and reckless. We've al- ready seen the damage a minister can do to due process with the fish-farm fiasco, and now Bill 75 only legiti- mizes such interference. That should be rejected out- right by this Legislature. At the very least, regulations should be developed clearly, spelling out when and

7890 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 how ministers can use this power. If it is for the Olym- pics, say so. If it's not going to be used to skip over environmental regulations, prove it. Bring in some regulations. Unfortunately, there will be no regulations coming with this legislation. This legislation is all there's going to be. On Tuesday my staff had a chance to sit down with some of the folks from the ministry responsible for Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act.

My staff asked when and if there were regulations forth- coming, and the reason why he asked that is because this bill is as vague as you could possibly imagine. My staff said: "The minister is making some very strong assertions about what this bill doesn't do, and yet there's nothing in the b ill that backs up his claims. When can we ex

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1106pm-05
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1106pm 05
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	98610683384c6809f0b19efbb97eabf76e8401da

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