2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Kelowna women's curling team

Horning

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jenna Spring

Bennett

B.C. athletes at World Police and

Fire Games

H. Bloy

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Payday Lending Act, 2007 (Bill

M209)

Fleming

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

100th anniversary of

Indo-Canadian disenfranchisement

H. Bains

D. Hayer

B.C. Aboriginal HIV/AIDS

Conference

J. Kwan

Music programs in schools

I. Black

200th anniversary of abolition of

slavery

Simpson

Ecosystem restoration program

Bennett

Oral Questions

Safety upgrades on northern

ferries

G. Coons

Hon. K.

Falcon

Fuel removal from Queen of the

North

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Audit procedures in

Transportation Ministry

Gentner

Hon. K.

Falcon

Farnworth

Funding for community volunteer

program

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Richmond

Closing of Deni House

C. Wyse

Hon. G.

Abbott

Logging practices on private

lands

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Forests Ministry consultation

with first nations on release of private lands

Trevena

Hon. M.

de Jong

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act (No. 1), 2007 (Bill

13)

Ralston

Hon. C.

Taylor

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Supply Act (No. 1), 2007 (Bill

13)

Second Reading of Bills

Community Services Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 11) (continued)

C. Wyse

McIntyre

Macdonald

Bennett

L. Krog

Simons

C. Evans

Trevena

Puchmayr

Hon. I.

Chong

Security Services Act (Bill 15)

Hon. J.

Les

Farnworth

L. Krog

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation (continued)

Chudnovsky

Hon. K.

Falcon

Gentner

H. Bains

[ Page 6377 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2007

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: The government side of the House is joined today by constituency assistants from all over the province. I know members of the opposition as well as the government will agree that our constituency assistants are really the backbone of a lot of the services we provide to citizens across British Columbia. I hope the House will make them all welcome and say thanks for their contribution.

M. Karagianis: I'd like to make an introduction today of someone who actually is not in the precinct with us. It is my granddaughter, who was born on Saturday at 4 a.m., and she is watching her first question period today. I'd like you all to congratulate my daughter Devyn Flesher and her husband Kurt Flesher and welcome Indiana Flesher to her first day at the Leg.

Hon. S. Bond: Today all of us had the pleasure of welcoming a number of excellent schools here to the Legislature as part of Education Week. We are celebrating excellence in education, and today I know that all members of the House would want to recognize those schools that are here with us.

[1335]

From Coast Tsimshian Academy today, there are winners in the aboriginal education category; from Salmon Arm West Elementary, winners in the early learning category; Bowen Island Community School and Nechako Valley Secondary School, who won in the environment category; Ecole Austin Road and Oceanside Middle School, winners in the healthy schools category; Tatla Lake Elementary-Junior Secondary School, our literacy award recipient; and A.L. Fortune Secondary, who was recognized for their trades and skills development programs.

Mr. Speaker, these are outstanding schools, and we're so thrilled to honour them today. I would ask the House to make these guests very welcome.

G. Coons: Visiting today from the Nass Valley we have a group of young people from Youth Organizing Youth, a project of the Nisga'a Lisims Government. In the precinct we have their project leader Paul Mercer Sr., along with Kyle Azak, Dorothy Mackay, Nick Azak and Jeffery Stanley. They are looking at post-secondary options and seeing the provincial government in action. Please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's my pleasure today to welcome some very special guests to the House. They happen to be neighbours of the Speaker. Would the House please welcome Wilfred and Eveline Klein. They are joined by their three sons Ian, Phillip and

Jordan. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: We're joined today in the chamber by Ray Rogers, a friend from West Vancouver. Ray is a retired Vancouver firefighter. He provided much service to our community as a firefighter, and he continues to provide service to the community and the province as a kind of citizen watchdog. I know the Minister of Transportation will be well aware of Ray. I think he's his best customer. Would you please welcome Ray Rogers.

Hon. T. Christensen: Today is the start of Social Work Week in British Columbia, and it's an honour for me to ask the House to join me in welcoming a group of individuals who are making a tremendous contribution to children and families and the well-being of vulnerable children and families in communities throughout the province.

I had the privilege of joining a number of social workers from around the province for lunch today. Here representing the more than 2,300 MCFD social workers are Alan Doll from Smithers, Bill Yeung from Surrey, Pamela Parmar from Pemberton and Leah Hilt from here in Victoria.

Representing the Nisga'a child and family services is Georgia Campbell, and representing the Desniqi Services Society is Jennifer Houde. Each of these social workers makes a tremendous contribution to the communities that they live in, the vulnerable children and families in those communities and the province. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming them to the precinct today.

R. Fleming: It's a pleasure to introduce to the House today three guests in the gallery from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. ACORN Canada is a community-based organization. They're focused on improving consumer protections for low- and moderate-income families in the pursuit of social justice. Here with us today from that organization is Cindy Ransom, who is an ACORN member of the Guildford

chapter in Surrey. She's chair of the B.C. board, and she sits on the Canada board as well.

Persia Sayyari is here as well. She's a lead organizer for the organization, and Erica Yablonkski is a community organizer for B.C. ACORN. Will the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

KELOWNA WOMEN'S CURLING TEAM

A. Horning: Kelowna's own Kelly Scott and her rink were on a mission to represent Canadians at the World Women's Curling Championship in Aomori, Japan. Now they're coming home as holders of the world women's title. Scott and her rink beat Denmark 8 to 4 in a nail-biter of a game.

I would like to ask for a round of applause in congratulating Kelly Scott and her team of third Jeanna Schraeder, second Sasha Carter, lead Renee Simons, alternate Michelle Allen and coach Gerry Richards for

[ Page 6378 ]

their tremendous victory, of which we are very proud. [Applause.]

[1340]

Introductions by Members

B. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I'm happy to welcome today a large group of United Steelworkers union that are here to lobby MLAs with respect to log export and forest policy.

In the House today are Dennis Deveau, legislative director from Ottawa; Scott Lunny, a staff member; Kim Pollock, a researcher; Dale Johnson, a member of Local 13567 and a sawmill worker from New Westminster; Doug Morgan, a member from Local 180 and a local rep from Duncan; Rita LaJeunesse, a member from Local 185 and a logger from Port Alberni; Ken Bayers, from Local 12171 and a logger from Squamish; Don Iwasko, Local 1424 and a truck driver from Prince George; Jeff Bromley, Local 1405 and a sawmill worker from the Kootenays.

Please make these guests welcome in our chamber today. I hope we open our hearts and minds to what they have to say to us over the week.

R. Hawes: I have two introductions today. The first one is Mr. Ross Butcher. He is a good friend and supporter and also is the husband of one of my constituency assistants.

Also in the gallery today is probably my biggest supporter, my best friend and my "she who must be obeyed" for the last 37 years, my wife Alma. Could the House please make them welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House today a good friend of mine, Cheryl Hewitt, who is with us here from Vancouver. Cheryl has a long and distinguished background working in the health care sector around health care policy as well as in the co-op sector. In many ways and most importantly, Cheryl played a large role in getting me here, as my campaign manager in the last election. Please welcome Cheryl.

Hon. M. Coell: I would like the House to make welcome a friend of mine who is also a former mayor of Nanaimo, Graeme Roberts. Would the House please make him welcome.

Tributes

JENNA SPRING

B. Bennett: One small correction and one tribute. The small correction is to the introductions made by the member for Cariboo North. Jeff Bromley is actually from Cranbrook; he's not from Prince George. It'd be okay if he was from Prince George. That would be fine, but he's not. He's from Cranbrook. Jeff, welcome to the House.

I also wanted to pay tribute to a young woman from Cranbrook, Jenna Spring, who is graduating from Yale University this spring. She made the list of academic all ivy recognition in winter sports. To be eligible, she had to have a cumulative grade point average of 3.0 or better, and I know it was considerably better. She is in the top ten in goals, assists and points at Yale University for women's ice hockey. Join with me, please, and recognize Jenna's accomplishments.

B.C. ATHLETES AT

WORLD POLICE AND FIRE GAMES

H. Bloy: I'd like to congratulate the B.C. team, all 161 members who competed at the 2007 World Police and Fire Games in Adelaide, Australia. The games are about competition, and they're very competitive, but they're also about friendship among law, fire and customs services around the world.

One of the winners, from Burnaby, of eight gold medals was Cathy Van Staalduinen. Our over-35 soccer team won the gold under the honorary manager Jim Byrnes, legendary blues singer and actor.

I would like to congratulate all the competitors at the games, and I look forward to British Columbia hosting the 2009 World Police and Fire Games.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Penner: It's my pleasure today to ask the House to please welcome Danny Gerak, operator of the Pitt River Fishing Lodge. He provides wonderful service in the Pitt River. I know the Premier has enjoyed fishing there under the careful guidance of Mr. Gerak, as have I and my father as recently as last summer. Would the House please make him welcome.

[1345]

Hon. I. Chong: Joining us is Dr. Shawn Cafferky from the University of Victoria, who is teaching a class, UVic history 344, the political history of Canada. He is joined by his students, too many to name. I hope the House would make him and his students very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: It's one of those days where I think everybody was introduced. If you weren't, welcome.

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

PAYDAY LENDING ACT, 2007

R. Fleming presented a bill intituled Payday Lending Act, 2007.

R. Fleming: I move that the bill intituled Payday Lending Act, 2007, be read for a first time today.

Motion approved.

R. Fleming: I'm pleased to introduce the Payday Lending Act before the House today. The Payday Lending Act addresses the urgent need for reform of

[ Page 6379 ]

the payday lending industry in this province. It will establish the groundwork for an industry that provides services to people in a manner that is both legal and fair.

The current unregulated, unlicensed state of affairs for the payday loan industry does not ensure this. It does not protect the interests of B.C. consumers in a fast-growing industry whose presence is visible on the main streets of our towns and cities.

The Payday Lending Act will protect vulnerable borrowers while allowing the industry to be fairly and transparently compensated for the risks of this financial product. Payday lenders typically loan money at a rate greatly in excess of the annual rates allowed by the Criminal Code of Canada. Throughout the industry, violation of the law is a common matter of daily business practice.

Unlike five other provinces, B.C. has no licensing requirements for payday lenders. Our lack of regulation hurts vulnerable people and also deprives the industry of stability and certainty. That is why not just consumer groups favour this legislation, but two-thirds of the payday lending industry also want regulation.

Recently, Manitoba gave assent to payday lending legislation. At the federal level

an act to allow provinces to twin their consumer affairs responsibility with the power to regulate interest rates is at the final Senate state. By adopting this act, B.C. will transform an unacceptable and criminal interest state of affairs into an orderly and fair industry that protects consumers. This bill protects vulnerable consumers from harmful and predatory practices like the rollover of loans, and debt traps for individuals with insurmountable debt levels.

This is an important step to protect the consumer interests of all British Columbians. I ask all members to review and support this bill. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M209, Payday Lending Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

100th ANNIVERSARY OF

INDO-CANADIAN DISENFRANCHISEMENT

H. Bains: On March 26, 1907, legislation was passed in this very chamber to disenfranchise people from India and put them in the same class as the Chinese and Japanese, who were disenfranchised earlier. This law denied them the right to vote for the next 40 years. It was as harshly as any elected body could treat the people whom they were elected to represent.

Today, exactly 100 years later, we say: "How embarrassing." The question comes to mind: what were they thinking?

What followed was a period of 40 years of long and painful struggle to bring back sanity and justice in this province and this country and Darshan Singh, and the CCF who worked with the Khalsa Diwan Society to convince the politicians of the day to right the wrongs that they have committed.

As a result of their efforts, in 1947 people from India, China and Japan who chose Canada as their new home were granted the right to be equal and, therefore, granted the right to vote.

As we sit here and reflect back and as embarrassed as we feel by certain decisions made by those who sat in these chairs before us, we must pause and pay tribute to those great souls such as Indar Singh Gill, Hussain Rahim, Dr. D.P. Pandia and others from different backgrounds for working unselfishly to build a society based on equality where no one is left behind, where no one is jailed for exercising their basic fundamental democratic right — an inclusive society where we celebrate and learn from our diverse cultures, where we find unity in diversity.

There's a lesson for all us legislators to learn from this very sad and unfortunate event in our history. That is that before we pass any legislation, we must ask ourselves these questions. Will a decision pass the test of time in the future? Will our decisions embarrass our future generations?

[1350]

D. Hayer: Last Wednesday was the first day of spring — a time for new beginnings, a time for new awakening. Last Wednesday, March 21, was also a time of awakening across the globe for people from all nations to recognize International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Discrimination in any form is simply not acceptable. Yet through ignorance it continues today and will continue unless we all work relentlessly to educate and enforce the universality of equality and respect.

Remarkably, 100 years ago the B.C. government of the day took away the right of Indo-Canadians to vote. It took 40 years of the hard work of our pioneers from many different backgrounds to end this shameful practice of the British Columbia government of the day.

One week from today we will mark the 60th anniversary of this return to democracy. It was not until April 2, 1947, that Canadians of East Indian, Chinese and Japanese descent and even our own first nations people were given what we take for granted: the right to vote. On that day our province decided that discrimination has no place in our society.

British Columbia now has one of the most racially, culturally and ethnically diverse populations in the world. For us to continue to grow and prosper, we must not only embrace all those persons of different races who are living here now, but we must encourage people from throughout the world to come here by providing a discrimination-free society.

We are a province of immigrants, and everybody must learn that differences in colour, race or religion are not just to be tolerated but should be celebrated and

[ Page 6380 ]

welcomed. Each and every one of us has an obligation to repeat that message loud and clear and to work tirelessly and lead by example.

B.C. ABORIGINAL HIV/AIDS CONFERENCE

J. Kwan: I rise in the House today to recognize the opening of the 11th annual B.C. Aboriginal HIV/AIDS Conference entitled "Honouring the Circle: Our Ways, Our Traditions." The conference will take place between March 26 and 28 here in Victoria. It is co-hosted by the Coast Salish first nations.

We all know that HIV is not simply a health issue. It's also a social justice issue. All around the world the people who have the least ability to control the risks of HIV/AIDS are those who are on the periphery of society. The people most at risk for HIV are also dealing with poverty, racism, abuse and many other forms of oppression.

We know that aboriginal people, youth, prison inmates and women are most at risk in Canada today for developing the disease. Low income levels, social status, gender and culture are also contributing factors in the proliferation of this disease.

There are many alarming trends that we must address as lawmakers. How many of us are aware of the fact that 26.5 percent of new HIV infections in Canada are among aboriginal youth under the age of 30? We know that some persons or groups face additional health risks due to a social environment largely determined by dominant cultural values. These values can contribute to the marginalization or stigmatization of minority cultural values and lead to a lack of culturally appropriate health care, especially amongst first nations.

This annual conference is vitally important in breaking down barriers and in creating a space to discuss these issues in a serious and straightforward manner. The Leader of the Opposition and I will be there tonight to welcome the participants of this conference, and I ask all members of this House to join me in welcoming the 11th annual B.C. Aboriginal HIV/AIDS Conference to Victoria.

MUSIC PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS

I. Black: I rise on this the first day of Education Week in B.C. to highlight the importance of music programs in our schools. I come from a musical family — well, at least on my dad's side. He's a piano player like I am — more Oscar Peterson than Elton John, I suppose — and there are a few others of us in this House who have on occasion subjected our colleagues to our talents. For my part, I use that term rather loosely.

While my boys are learning on the family piano, not all kids are exposed to music in the home, making school music programs even more important. A well-rounded and balanced school education includes exposure to quality programs and music — whether traditional band, choir, percussion or vocal jazz — and this exposure often creates a lifelong interest in and passion for music.

Through this exposure and instruction, students learn more than just how to play an instrument or hit a high note. Music programs allow students to explore their creativity, and for the tall, skinny kids like me with little athletic skill, they often lead to a new-found confidence.

[1355]

One of my music teachers, Zane Zalis, had an enormous impact on my life, and now as a good friend, he still does. I'm envious of his command of this area of human expression and proud of his passion to instil it in so many different forms to thousands of students through the years — and counting. He also proves every day that music teaches extraordinary self-discipline and a unique form of teamwork and is a highly effective vehicle for students to push themselves to attain and exceed standards of excellence.

These programs came under threat recently when a rather zealous individual pressed our courts to call into question the validity by which we've seen both music programs and students themselves flourish for decades. I for one look forward to the legislative changes that will give reassurance to music teachers and reaffirm if not reinstate the choice and flexibility for our students in pursuing the joy of music.

200th ANNIVERSARY OF

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY

For Wilberforce, two great objectives were central to both his political and his personal life: the abolition of slavery and the reformation of society. He remains a testament to activism in its purest and most honourable sense. His political energy was directed at the betterment of society as a whole, not for the advantage of the privileged few.

However, the abolition of slavery in the U.K. was also accomplished by one of the very first modern protest campaigns. The campaign was engineered by a group of activists led by Wilberforce, which at the time included women and ex-slaves — two groups that had no political voice. The campaign used most of the now familiar public protest devices — public education, book tours, petitions, letter-writing campaigns and political debate in the House of Commons. It was the most comprehensive and tactical public pressure campaign undertaken to that point in history, and it still took years to persuade the politicians of the day to do the right thing. Some things are slow to change.

With this year's 200th anniversary of abolition, there is a renewed call for the abolition of slavery worldwide. It is estimated that 20 million people still live in some form of slavery. Modern slavery includes

[ Page 6381 ]

bonded and forced labour, forced marriages and human trafficking. There are an estimated 126 million children who are forced to work in inhumane conditions. Many are forced to become child soldiers.

The modern anti-slavery movement is now challenging every elected official to become a modern Wilberforce and join the fight to abolish slavery worldwide. I trust that each member of this House will assist in this campaign by educating themselves about modern slavery and by joining the fight to abolish it once and for all.

ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROGRAM

B. Bennett: I live in the Rocky Mountain Trench, which was historically a fire-controlled ecosystem. Every five to 15 years hot, fast-moving ground-level fires would sweep across the open range and remove the millions of lodgepole pine and Douglas fir seedlings that were trying to establish, leaving species of plants, birds, insects and animals that often are unique to natural grasslands.

When European settlers first arrived in the area and joined the Ktunaxa people, the Rocky Mountain Trench was open rolling grasslands interspersed by gigantic, thousand-year-old western larch, fir and yellow pine. Today, after 100 years of fire suppression, the trench is overgrown with unhealthy stands of spindly fir and pine. Ironically, it is a terrible fire hazard. There are more endangered species of flora and fauna in the rapidly disappearing grasslands of B.C. than in any other ecosystem type in the province.

Recently the government created a provincial ecosystem restoration program, a provincial director for grasslands recovery and an annual budget of $2 million a year. This is a first for British Columbia. Every year the trench loses 3,500 hectares of grasslands to forest ingrowth.

The new ecosystem director for the province, Greg Anderson — who just happens to be from Cranbrook — has established an aggressive grasslands restoration target of 8,500 hectares a year, which will finally allow us to catch up. But natural grasslands cannot be restored simply by taking the trees away.

The areas must all be slashed, the debris removed and the remaining materials burned to replicate the actions of Mother Nature. We're finally headed in the right direction with this initiative not only for the Rocky Mountain Trench but for other important grasslands in B.C.

My thanks to the Premier, who has been out to the East Kootenay many times and is familiar with this file. My thanks also to the Minister of Forests, who, as is his practice, recognized there was a problem and went about fixing it.

[1400]

I also want to thank those in the region who have taught me about this problem over the last six years and who never let me forget about it: Maurice Hansen, Faye Street, the East Kootenay Wildlife Association and of course the B.C. Grasslands Council.

Oral Questions

SAFETY UPGRADES ON NORTHERN FERRIES

G. Coons: It's been over a year since the sinking of the Queen of the North and two months since the release of the Morfitt safety audit, and today's internal report from B.C. Ferries does not address the serious issues identified in the Morfitt report. British Columbians still have many questions that need answers.

The Morfitt report had 41 recommendations that indicate major problems with the safety management system, risk management, handover procedures, bridge management training and fire drills as well as many other critical concerns.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. What is the minister doing to ensure that all the Morfitt recommendations will be acted upon to protect passengers and crew members?

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, I think it's important to point out to the member that B.C. Ferries actually committed to implementing every single one of the Morfitt report recommendations, as they should do and as we would expect them to do.

I think one of the important things here — and it's appropriate this member asked the question — is, as I said from the very beginning, that we not jump to conclusions or try to form conclusions on what you think may have happened before you had all the facts.

I recall that after the very tragic sinking of the Queen of the North , that particular member consistently tried to suggest there were huge safety problems at B.C. Ferries. Actually, the Morfitt report points out very clearly that that is not the case.

The internal divisional inquiry that was just released today again points out that this appears to be a case of human error. It's unfortunate that there's human error, but, again, there were no mechanical or equipment breakdowns or flaws whatsoever. I think it's important for that member going forward…. I would hope that this could be an instructional lesson to actually wait until you have the information before you form conclusions that are premature.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: Yes, I do. I find it quite appropriate that the minister wants to talk about lessons. Perhaps he should have read the Morfitt report and looked at the 41 recommendations to see that the operational safety and the objectives of the B.C. Ferries Corporation are in conflict with one another, but maybe that's something he can delve into with his homework.

My supplemental is dealing with the internal report released today. Something that jumped out is a serious concern with lifeboats. The Queen of the North was equipped with open lifeboats exposing passengers to the north coast weather. It's over a year later, and the other vessel still plying the northern waters has open lifeboats.

[ Page 6382 ]

The Queen of Prince Rupert is not expected to be retired for another two years. There's no plan whatsoever to replace the lifeboats. At the same time, the minister responsible is pumping over $140 million into B.C. Ferries next year.

So my question is to the minister. When will the minister use the leverage he has to make safety a priority and ensure that northern ferries get the upgrades they need to keep people safe?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I've got to say I'm a little surprised to hear the member ask these questions.

The Morfitt report…. Read the executive

summary at least, Member, because what it says very clearly…. This is the Auditor General speaking, not the Minister of Transportation. He says there is a high commitment — not a modest commitment, not a somewhat, you know, not quite sure whether it's a strong commitment. It is a high commitment on all of the members — the board of directors, the management of B.C. Ferries and the staff — to safety. It is a high commitment through….

And you know, the member shouldn't confuse the fact that when you have a tragic incident like the sinking of a ferry — something that has never happened in the history of B.C. Ferries — there should be recommendations. You should always look for ways to improve safety. That's exactly what the divisional inquiry has done. It has made recommendations.

That is a positive thing, and going forward they will continue to ensure that B.C. Ferries has the best safety record in the world — which it does.

[1405]

FUEL REMOVAL FROM

QUEEN OF THE NORTH

S. Simpson: After more than a year, there are still as much as 200,000 litres of fuel sitting on the bottom of Wright Sound as a result of the sinking of the Queen of the North . The residents of Hartley Bay as well as the rest of British Columbians are concerned about the status of these tanks and whether they constitute an environmental and marine catastrophe waiting to happen.

While the Coast Guard may have responsibility for this matter, it does not excuse the province from protecting British Columbia's environmental interests. My question to the Minister of Environment: after a year of no resolution to this issue, what is he doing to get action for the removal of this fuel from the ocean floor now?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member should know, within hours of the unfortunate sinking last year, Ministry of Environment staff were on site despite the remote location. Within hours of that and their arrival, booms were deployed to help contain the spread of the diesel fuel. A lot of work went on for a number of weeks to contain and remediate the site.

In the meantime, we have been working with the Canadian Coast Guard. The member will be aware that under the constitution of Canada, navigable waters are a federal responsibility. However, our staff is working closely with the Canadian Coast Guard, because I'm sure we in this House would all agree that we would not like to have the unintended consequence of a complete discharge of the remaining fuel on the vessel if the fuel removal is approached in an unsafe manner.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: It's not hours anymore; it's over a year. This government has demonstrated a remarkable amount of inaction and lack of leadership when it comes to dealing with Ottawa. We saw that in the federal budget that just passed where British Columbia got screwed, quite frankly, on federal spending.

Mr. Speaker: Member, withdraw it.

S. Simpson: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

S. Simpson: I will. We lost out because of a lack of leadership from this government. Our concern now is: are we facing the same inaction and lack of leadership when it comes to this environmental question here? B.C. Ferries is accountable for this accident, and the government can't shed its responsibility for the result.

While we may have had to wait for a year to get the internal report, there's no reason why we should have had to wait for a year to get action on the fuel sitting at the bottom of Wright Sound.

My question to the minister is: does this minister really believe his government has no responsibility to the people of Hartley Bay or the rest of British Columbians to stand up for our province, to take action and to get this mess properly cleaned up now?

Hon. B. Penner: I would caution that member and every other member of the opposition against being an armchair engineer if they don't have the credentials to back it up. I don't think the member does have an engineering degree, so I'll take my advice from people that do.

Under the constitution of Canada, navigable waters are a federal responsibility. The Canadian Coast Guard asserts responsibility over sunken vessels. However, we have been working closely with the Canadian Coast Guard and B.C. Ferries to try to put together a plan that would not result in the unintended release of the remaining fuel. That would be an environmental disaster that none of us wants to see in this House.

[1410]

AUDIT PROCEDURES IN

TRANSPORTATION MINISTRY

G. Gentner: On the government purchase card entries for 2005-2006, the Ministry of Transportation spent $300 at Honey Gifts Inc. On its website Honey Gifts specializes in adult sex toys, lubricants and lingerie. My question to the Minister of Transportation is:

[ Page 6383 ]

why was the ministry's credit cards used to purchase such items?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's important to point out that I have an operating budget of a billion dollars a year. I'm not aware of that specific item. As you know, I am doing estimates this afternoon. I'd be happy to have the answer for that member during estimates.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Member, continue.

G. Gentner: The minister fails to realize how serious the matter is. To go line by line in your ministry with the use of a credit card, the credit card that basically represents the people of British Columbia, is something this minister should be on top of. Strictly….

Interjections.

G. Gentner: The minister should therefore know whether or not it is true that his ministry has been involved with dating services, another expenditure. Would the minister like to comment?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: These members have every opportunity during estimates to ask me about any part of my billion-dollar-a-year operating budget. That member knows that very well. For him to try and pull out little bits and pieces in question period and try and suggest something untoward is going on is irresponsible.

That member also knows that we have internal audit functions in the province of British Columbia that go through my ministry and every other ministry budget in great detail and report out publicly, and the reports have all been positive.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: There are internal audits in place, but what we're questioning are the policies of the cards used by government ministries in terms of how they're used and how the charges are made on them. It's perfectly appropriate to ask when there seem to be some issues being raised, and I don't think that should be treated lightly.

The member raised a question about dating services so the minister can look at it and have an answer for estimates this afternoon. I will give him the specific name. It's JDate dating services, and it's an expenditure of $191. He may not like the question, but it's our right to ask the question. If he can have an answer for estimates, that would be much appreciated.

While he's at it, he may also want to look into expenditures in Nelson. Skiing — $3,263.43 at the Village Ski Hut in Nelson. But what I really want to know is: how often are the audit procedures reviewed, and when was the last time the minister personally asked to see whether or not they had been updated and how audit procedures were happening and being managed?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, this is a classic example of where they will try and take a little bit of information and try and smear the professional public service. Again, as I have said before: wouldn't it be nice just for once to actually get some facts — maybe to come and even ask the minister?

The minister could tell you, for example, that we did have a case of credit card fraud last year. I suspect this probably has to do with the credit card fraud, where someone stole a credit card and used that number for e-commerce and made these types of purchases.

[1415]

Rather than trying to insinuate that there's a pattern within the ministry of going out and making irresponsible purchases, trying to smear the public service, why don't you actually come to the minister and ask the minister for that information? I'd be glad to give the answers.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, when you review the expenditures and find out, for example, that $85,000 is being spent on pizza and that $20,000 is being spent on doughnuts, you do start to ask questions about what the government's priorities are. So it's only fair for the opposition to ask questions.

Once again, my question to the minister is: when was the last time he had a briefing on the audit procedures in his ministry and whether or not they were working the way that they should be working?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, as I say to the member…. You know, they like to bring this up in question period. I believe this is an incident, which was actually identified through internal audit, where there was a case of credit card fraud. As a result of the credit card fraud, individuals who are not public servants may have made purchases that were inappropriate.

I hate to break it to the members opposite that this kind of stuff actually happens, unfortunately, every day in the world that we live in. What I really object to is that those members would try and take a case like that and stand up in question period in this House and malign public servants without actually knowing the facts.

One simple visit to my office, one phone call, one e-mail. I would have been happy to get that information back to that member or any of those members immediately, and I'm just really disappointed that they wouldn't do that.

[ Page 6384 ]

FUNDING FOR

COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER PROGRAM

J. Kwan: I hope the Premier and the Minister of Finance are satisfied with that answer. Let me just say this. The government is on record as saying: "We're making it a priority to increase opportunities for people with disabilities to participate more in their communities…. We want persons with disabilities to enjoy opportunities in the workforce, confident in the knowledge that our programs and services will continue to support them." This is what the government said.

My constituent Miss Dale Labatt tried to secure a place for the community volunteer program and was told there's a one-to-two-year wait-list. The regional office in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant advised that there's not enough money in the budget to support the need of this program.

To the minister: will he commit to fully fund the community volunteer program so that Miss Labatt and others like her could get access to this program within one to two months of application?

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes, we go to every length possible to make sure that people with disabilities can enter a volunteer program in their community. It isn't always possible to place them, as sometimes the organizations that we place them with are full and have no vacancies. I can assure the member and everyone in British Columbia that we do our very best to place disabled people in a volunteer program.

J. Kwan: Well, the government's very best is showing a one-to-two-year wait-list in the region of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. It's almost a year in the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast's area in terms of the wait-list. Quite frankly, the very best from this government is not good enough. The government sees fit to spend thousands of dollars on questionable spending in areas that my colleagues have just raised earlier today.

To the Premier: how is it possible that the community volunteer program is not being funded sufficiently so that disabled people can access the work programs that they desire?

Hon. C. Richmond: To get people with disabilities into the volunteer program is quite often a stepping stone into getting them into part-time or full-time employment. Last year we increased their monthly allowance by $70, and we increased their employment exemption by $500 — something that was far in excess of anything done by the previous government.

[1420]

Our record is excellent at getting disabled people into the workforce, and our 10 by 10 Challenge has been picked up provincewide by municipalities and is going to be an unqualified success.

CLOSING OF DENI HOUSE

C. Wyse: As seniors in Williams Lake are being forced to move from Deni House, the issue of safety has been raised. Families and seniors along with the local fire chief have raised the concern about staffing levels being inadequate to safely move the individuals in case of a fire. Four staff members would be expected to move 113 seniors should a fire occur during the night.

My question: how does the minister justify seniors being forced to move against their will with this concern not being satisfactorily addressed?

In fact, if I may quote briefly from a letter of March 18, 2003, to the Williams Lake Tribune from the member who is now the member for Cariboo South. This letter not only seems to contemplate a P3 to replace Deni House, but it contemplates conversion of that Deni House facility into a mental health facility. What's changed since 2003, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a supplemental.

C. Wyse: One of the changes that has occurred is a change in the MLA for Cariboo South since that…. But it is time to return to the actual important issue that is here at hand.

Interior Health has used inaccurate information to justify the closure of Deni House in Williams Lake. Deni House is less than 20 years old with an ability to be expanded. Interior Health has failed to demonstrate that any modification that Deni House may require to meet new standards is more expensive than its total contract with a privately owned facility.

The need for more spaces for seniors has been shown. It is estimated that with the average of about ten seniors receiving care in Cariboo Memorial Hospital, 28 acute care beds will continue with the closure at Deni House. Most of the seniors and their families are challenging the closure of Deni House.

My question: on behalf of the seniors and their families, will the Minister of Health finally intervene on behalf of these seniors and keep Deni House open?

Hon. G. Abbott: I absolutely support Interior Health in the changes they are making. It is a great improvement, both quantitatively and qualitatively, for the frail elderly of Williams Lake. Williams Lake retirement village is a wonderful facility and is superior to the facility Deni House.

Again, since 2003 P3s are no longer acceptable to the member. Apparently it was back in 2003. Apparently the conversion of Deni House to a mental health facility was okay in 2003, when he was a councillor, but is no longer acceptable when he is an MLA.

[ Page 6385 ]

Further, Mr. Speaker, the Williams Lake retirement village is not the only facility in the province that has more than one floor. The reason why we have sprinkler systems, the reasons why we have construction to fire code are to contemplate that possibility of actually having a facility on more than one floor in this province.

LOGGING PRACTICES ON PRIVATE LANDS

B. Simpson: Over a year ago the Minister of Forests committed in this House that he would visit Port Alberni, meet with the people in Port Alberni and see first hand their concerns about the logging practices on private lands that are damaging their watersheds.

[1425]

The minister has not fulfilled that promise, and this week the people of Port Alberni are now camped out on the Ministry of Forests property, hoping that the minister will show up and meet with them.

So my question to the Minister of Forests is this. Will the minister commit today to go up to Port Alberni this week, go to his own ministry offices and meet with the people of Port Alberni who want to speak to him about logging practices in that valley?

Hon. R. Coleman: I've been to Port Alberni, number one. Number two, the Save Our Valley coalition, which is the group that's at our office today, asked for a report and a study to be done in the Port Alberni region. That study has been ongoing. I met with them at the Legislature not too long ago.

In addition to that, they asked for a log export review to be done. That's done. There's now a log export plan coming forward, along with a coast forest recovery plan. Actually, everything these people have asked for in Port Alberni, we've delivered.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental?

B. Simpson: I certainly do, Mr. Speaker.

Again, if the minister would actually go to Port Alberni, meet with the people in Port Alberni, rather than flying in, spending ten minutes with his staff and flying out…. Nobody in the community even knew he was there. If he would go to the community and meet with them, rather than them having to come here and force a meeting with him….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

B. Simpson: The minister would actually find that the issue of concern in Port Alberni is the same issue of concern in the Cowichan Valley and in the Comox Valley. That is the logging practice on private lands — private lands that this government released to their Liberal donors; private lands that this government promised would be managed sustainably; private lands now that people throughout Vancouver Island are saying are not being managed sustainably, and watersheds are being damaged throughout the Island.

So my question to the Forests Minister is this. This government promised, when those private lands were released without public consultation, that they would ensure they were managed sustainably. The people of this Island do not believe that to be the case. Will the Minister of Forests commit the Forest Practices Board to do an audit of forest practices on the private lands that have been released, to see who's right?

Hon. R. Coleman: I really thought the drivel at the front of the question was actually useless to any part of the discussion, because it shows how uninformed the member is. However, the member is also completely uninformed of the fact that I don't direct the Forest Practices Board to audit anything. They're an independent auditing body, and that's why it's successful. They go ahead and do the job independent of me as a minister. I will never interfere in the Forest Practices Board being able to do their job.

FORESTS MINISTRY CONSULTATION

WITH FIRST NATIONS ON

RELEASE OF PRIVATE LANDS

C. Trevena: When the former Minister of Forests released the private lands from tree farm licences 39 and 44 in 2004, the Supreme Court concluded he failed to consult and accommodate the first nations. The minister was in fact reprimanded by the court for effectively dishonouring the Crown.

That minister, as we know, is now the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. I'd like to ask him why he didn't stop the current Minister of Forests and Range from repeating his mistakes when the private lands were released from TFL 6 this January.

Hon. M. de Jong: I've waited patiently for an opportunity to engage with a member of the opposition on what the government is doing in the era of a new relationship. The member has correctly pointed out that we were the government that signed Forest and Range opportunity agreements with those first nations, which got them involved in the forestry economy for the first time.

This is the government — in recognizing, as we say in The New Relationship , that we are truly all here to stay — that has effected that reconciliation in agreements with the Kwadacha and the Williston reservoir right here on the very grounds that this Legislature sits — a reconciliation agreement. I could go on about the….

[1430]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 6386 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'd like to talk about the three final agreements that are awaiting pending ratification. But curiosity prevents me from doing that, because now, three months after those agreements have been initialled, we still can't get an answer from the Leader of the Opposition.

Does the opposition stand with us for reconciliation, for the new relationship, for these final agreements, or do they have some other? What's the answer from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker? Where do they stand? Where are they on these final agreements?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call committee stage debate on Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1). In Committee A, Committee of Supply, and for the information of members, debate is continued on the Ministry of Transportation estimates.

Committee of the Whole House

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2007

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

[1435]

section 2.

B. Ralston: Looking first at clause 2(a),

Schedule C, I wonder if the minister could briefly explain the mechanism here. There are four ministries mentioned: Advanced Education, Education, Health and Transportation. I take it that they're for ongoing capital projects, but I just want to confirm that.

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, that's correct.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:36 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and Third Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2007

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11, Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, for the Minister of Community Services.

Mr. Speaker: We'll take a short five-minute recess until the minister gets here.

The House recessed from 2:37 p.m. to 2:39 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

COMMUNITY SERVICES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

C. Wyse: It indeed is my privilege to pick up debate from where we were approximately ten days ago on Bill 11.

For those who may have forgotten where we were at within the debate, I had spent a fair bit of time acknowledging the very good attributes contained within this particular bill and commended the minister for the work she has undertaken upon this particular item. However, I did also draw to the attention of the House concerns that we on this side of the House have with some sections in particular in the act — sections 14 and 15.

[1440]

I'm going to concentrate the majority of my comments this afternoon, in the time that I have left, on

section 15. I will leave more detailed discussion on

section 14 to third reading.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

What we find in

section 15 is an ability for the cabinet to circumvent the wishes of local government. It allows for the establishment of a resort designation based upon some very limited restrictions. "An area may be designated as resort region only if (

a) the area includes a municipality, and (

b) the area does not include a portion of a municipality." That is a very dramatic and drastic change in method of implementing such an item. It is with that that I wish to begin my discussion today.

What we find here is that the government in actual fact is breaking its word — its promise, if you like —

[ Page 6387 ]

when we look at a specific example, Jumbo Glacier Resort, a proposed development in the Kootenays of British Columbia. I would like for the record to draw attention of members here in the House to the history around this particular proposal.

When we go back — well, it's more than 15 years — to 1991, that was when the Jumbo Glacier proposal was first put on the table here in front of us in British Columbia. In 1996 the regional district voted in favour of asking the province to create a mountain resort municipality for Jumbo if it received environmental approval along the way. In the 2004 throne speech there was an indication of an intent to open up B.C. to further resort development. As we moved into October of 2004, the environmental assessment was announced, and the minister's support for the resort….

But the press release claims: "The province says the ultimate Jumbo decision is up to the region." As we move along to 2005, the same regional district of East Kootenay voted to retain control over the decision of Jumbo.

Now we end up with this particular legislation here in front of us. This proposed piece of legislation carries on in direct contradiction of the Community Charter, signed in 2004 with local governments, in which there was an agreement in writing signed by both the local government and Victoria to recognize the individual powers and authority of the two levels of government and, likewise, to ensure that these arrangements would be honoured and carried on.

Since that agreement has been signed there has been a constant and consistent reduction of the independence that had been assigned to local government. Once more, we have contained here in

section 15 an amendment that was stuck away in a miscellaneous bill — maybe 50 words on several typewritten pages — that disguised, if you like, Madam Speaker, the intent of this particular amendment to the bylaw. This is something of concern when we consider it within the context of the government breaking promises on dealing with such items.

Likewise, the second major reason for concern around this item is the dismissal of the authority of local governments over such important issues. Once more, it carries on with the practice that we found in

section 56 under Bill 30, where local governments had the ability to respond to local issues around independent power-producing projects, where local issues were now removed from having a fair, open and transparent hearing.

[1445]

Once more we find in

section 15 in Bill 11 the same concerns — grave concerns to this side of the House.

Now the third aspect that comes into the debate for concern here is the environmental concerns, in particular around this one example of Jumbo Glacier Resort. I will leave it to my colleagues who come from that part of the province to elaborate in greater detail the concerns that they have around the potential use of this part of Bill 11,

section 15.

However, I don't wish this debate to simply remain focused upon a particular example. There is no limitation contained in the legislation for how often and when this particular piece of legislation may be moved. It may be enacted upon, of course, when any government in the future, any cabinet in the future meets those very bare minimum conditions. That cabinet then unilaterally may move upon that particular item.

One of the tragedies that this side of the House finds itself in…. In a piece of legislation that contains so many well-thought-out items, so many items contained within it that are beneficial and known and seem to be beneficial across so many different parts of the province, to have this one item contained in it that has such wide-ranging, unhealthy consequences concerns us when we eventually come around to have to vote upon this particular aspect.

I wish to return at this time to some comments that have been made around the Jumbo Glacier project. This particular project has been strongly opposed by the local community for the past 15 years. Polling has consistently demonstrated the community's strong opposition to this project on environmental, social and economic grounds. The Jumbo Valley is located in a remote wild area adjacent to the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy and 55 kilometres from Invermere, the nearest municipality.

Access to the Jumbo Valley is 35 kilometres beyond Panorama ski hill via dirt and gravel mountain road with over 18 avalanche slide paths and multiple single-lane creek crossings. The first nations have registered strong opposition to the project. The Purcell Mountains ecosystem, of which the Jumbo Valley is essential, supports a viable population of grizzly bears, a species that would be in direct conflict with any human development.

According to government biologists, it is not possible to mitigate environmental impacts without the unpopular prospect of closing off all surrounding drainages to public access. I refer to the government biologists as being the experts here. So there, if you like, begins to give you somewhat of a flavour of the concerns that exist around

section 15 of Bill 11. It also gives you some concerns around a particular example and how it may be used in order to circumvent the wishes and desires of the local residents of a part of British Columbia.

Local MLAs from this part of the province, upon discovering, much to their surprise, ten days ago,

section 15…. Those individuals have been in touch with the MLAs from that area in huge numbers. They have brought forward their concerns about how

section 15 may be used and the possibility that it opens up for the use of the cabinet in circumventing the wishes of the local community.

[1450]

I don't wish and do not intend to enter into reading all the correspondence that has come through. However, I do wish to bring to this House knowledge that there have been literally tens — scores, if you like — of correspondence that have been sent in voicing the concerns about this part of the act. However, I am going to read into the record a couple of these particular statements so that the House gets a flavour of why the concern exists here in British Columbia about

section 15 of Bill 11.

[ Page 6388 ]

To the Premier:

I feel betrayed by you and your government, because you promised that the Jumbo issue would be decided locally. To go back on your word is despicable.

Section 15 of Bill 11, if passed as is, will definitely tell the voters of the East Kootenay, the whole province, that you are not trustworthy. It also tells voters that you and your government will support any resort proposal, especially if the resort is high-end and located in the heartland. The East Kootenay is available to whoever has the most money.

I feel ashamed and heartbroken if the Jumbo Glacier Resort promoter is given real estate rights in the Jumbo Valley. In light of the growing awareness of global warming, it is hard to believe that your government would ignore all the science and make decisions that go totally in the opposite direction. But money talks, and who cares about our grandchildren and future generations when rich tourists want to ski the glaciers and golf the wetlands? Please do the right thing.

And they extend their thanks to the House for listening to that particular concern.

Another very short statement about

section 15 of Bill 11, again from the same general part of the province:

"I would like to state my strong opposition to

section 15 of Bill 11 in that it gives the power to cabinet to designate resort regions. I am particularly concerned that it will allow cabinet members to make a decision regarding the proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort.

"Premier, you have promised that thedecision regarding this resort proposal would be left in the hands of our regional district, and we will hold you to your word. Please support our local decision-making process."

Those two bits of correspondence, for me, contain the flavour around this part of the act of where the concerns exist. These are concerns that are deeply felt by residents here within our province. The concern rests, then, with a change here proposed in a miscellaneous bill, an item that requires much further discussion and debate before any decision in actual fact is made.

I wish to emphasize that it was in November of 2004 that B.C.'s Minister of Sustainable Resource Management of that time passed the buck by deferring the decision-making responsibility to a small regional government ill-equipped to review the matter, the regional district of East Kootenay. The

article goes on to describe and emphasize how the minister ensured that the local decision would be left with the local government, with the local people, and that point was made on numerous occasions.

It becomes of paramount importance that this particular item is lived up to, that the members opposite…. Most were here during that same period of time. It is important that local government retains this issue, this responsibility.

[1455]

We consistently encounter the situation of any government, with their cabinet ministers' responsibility, of being too busy to visit all regions of the province and see all the actual issues first hand and how they are affecting the local residents, as well as the population of the greater region and, in actual fact, the entire province. We encounter that time in and time out.

When it is appropriate, we hear from government, whoever government may be, that we listen to our experts and we follow their advice. Well, the government's own experts, the biologists, recommend leaving this area pristine — leave it pristine.

We have, then, with this type of legislation, a situation that opens up cabinet to go off in secret and consider such an issue and make their decision in the privacy of how cabinets make their decisions and then make the announcement. There's not much chance for input and little to no chance for the local issue to actually have been seen and viewed. That is where the government was so accurate in 2004 when they promised that the local residents would retain the right to deal with issues of this nature — so right.

Now, there are numerous other people that I know wish to speak on this particular bill. I'm rapidly approaching the period of time in which I will turn over that opportunity to other members of the House that wish to speak on this bill.

Madam Speaker, as I begin to close, I do want to acknowledge how pleased we are on this side of the House for the vast majority of the proposed amendments that she has brought forward on behalf of all of us here in the Legislature. They show reason. They show they have listened. They show that they have shown the adaptability to make changes on issues affecting very small parts of British Columbia but that are important to them and on other issues of a much larger nature, affecting greater and larger numbers of persons.

But as this legislation stands with

section 15 contained within the bill and possibly with some answers to questions we get around other sections — for example,

section 14 — it is going to present great difficulties for us on this side of the House, without having some changes made to this bill, to be able to give our unilateral support to this piece of legislation.

With that, Madam Speaker, I thank you for your time, and I thank you for having provided me with the opportunity to bring forward these very important concerns, on behalf of all British Columbia, about restricting the number and type of decisions that can be made in secret by cabinet behind closed doors without the full input of the residents of British Columbia.

J. McIntyre: I'm delighted to rise today to speak in support of Bill 11, the Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, because I happen to actually see this through positive eyes and not through the negative lens that the NDP and the former speaker from Cariboo South seem to dwell on. This bill will provide a variety of tools that will help — actually help — local governments around the province build vibrant and sustainable communities.

[1500]

In my case, I'd actually like to focus on resorts — specifically, the benefits that this bill provides to Whistler in my riding of West Vancouver–Garibaldi. Vibrant, sustainable resort-oriented communities like the resort municipality of Whistler, known as RMOW, provide tourism and economic development opportu-

[ Page 6389 ]

nities — in this case, for the entire Sea to Sky corridor. In turn, these activities support our government's aggressive goal of doubling tourism in this province by 2015.

As the Minister of Community Services points out, this bill helps resort-oriented communities meet their unique challenges and better provide amenities for visitors and residents alike. That's what I call a win-win.

Allow me to expand on the resort municipality revenue-sharing program that's contained in this bill, which I am particularly in support of. What is this program? What are the parameters? What does this mean?

We know that resort communities must provide high-quality services and amenities, infrastructure and local and international marketing programs to attract and then host large numbers of visitors. This is usually from a relatively small tax base. In the case of Whistler, there are 10,000 residents trying to support an infrastructure for 50,000 people at any point in time.

With the resort municipality revenue-sharing program, qualified communities such as Whistler will get a portion of hotel tax funds from the province that were generated in the resort region. That can help pay for approved resort-oriented municipal projects such as capital amenities or events such as festivals and the like.

At this point in time, the revenue-sharing program is anticipated to be worth approximately $10 million annually to these communities around the province. That is a significant amount of money that the province is forgoing in hotel room tax that will be in favour of local governments.

Currently, there are 13 resort-oriented communities that could apply for this resort revenue-sharing — all of them quite diverse. They are Fernie, Golden, Harrison Hot Springs, Invermere, Kimberley, Osoyoos, Radium Hot Springs, Revelstoke, Rossland, Tofino, Ucluelet, Valemount and Whistler.

The criteria are based on the demonstrated support of the resort sector related to the number of commercial accommodation units or bed units in the resort area relative to other B.C. communities. There also has to be agreement to collect an additional 2 percent local hotel room tax, and an agreement with the province outlining how the funds will be used and how the success will be measured. That's accountability.

The revenue-sharing program will be effective July 1, 2006, so it's effectively retroactive to last summer. The annual amount could range from something like $600,000 for a community like Tofino to almost $7 million for Whistler, a mature resort with a comparatively large number of bed units. It's also important to note that this total may vary if there are increases to the hotel room tax collected by participating communities. These agreements are for five-year terms in which each resort will receive between 1 and 4 hotel room tax percentage points in addition to the 2 points they already collect to be qualified.

I'm glad to report this program has built-in accountability mechanisms. The agreements with resorts allow for annual reviews. For example, funding can increase if the number of beds increase in the resort as it grows, so the better the performance, the better the return. All resorts must report annually using the same accountability provisions as required under the Community Charter. And as the program is results-based, resorts will have to develop performance indicators, measure performance and report on the outcomes achieved as a result of this program.

The program is also going to be monitored by the Ministry of Community Services and administered by the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

I'm particularly pleased that this government has reached a positive, progressive arrangement with local governments flowing from the B.C. resort initiative that supports our resorts and provides them with financial tools and resources to assist in building necessary, top-class infrastructure. The resort municipality of Whistler has been a leader in B.C. and in North America. They are the great example of what can happen when we empower municipalities to create first-class international resorts capable of hosting major events like the 2010 Olympics and capable of taking a lead in environmental sustainability.

I really want to point out that if the opposition votes against this bill, which from the comments of the speaker before me seems like where they may be headed…. I don't want to prejudge, but if they really vote against this bill, I want to remind the public, all the people in this House and listening at home, that the NDP will be voting against every one of those resort communities receiving an opportunity to engage in revenue-sharing to benefit their own local residents.

[1505]

That would mean that the NDP is not supporting the aspirations of the elected officials and residents in all of those communities. I'm going to repeat them again. It means the NDP would be voting against the aspirations of resort communities like Fernie, Golden, Invermere, Harrison Hot Springs, Kimberley, Osoyoos, Radium Hot Springs, Revelstoke, Rossland, Tofino, Ucluelet, Valemount and Whistler.

Those are 13 resort communities around this province that would be able to take advantage of this program. I know first hand from Whistler's experience that this has been a number of months, if not years, in the making through the resort initiative. This was a very complicated formula because it had to address new resort communities that were just coming on board and more mature communities like Whistler that had a large number of bed units and commercial accommodations.

It took hard work and much negotiation to come up with this formula and with a plan that would work for newer and older resorts. The NDP, if they vote against this, will be voting against all that work, all the efforts that went into this. I just want to make sure that the public understands and knows that.

Now I'd also like to talk briefly on another aspect of this bill, the "Phased development agreement" amendments in the Local Government Act. As you may remember, this is a multi-phased…. I think there are six or seven different parts of this bill. Right now we all

[ Page 6390 ]

know that B.C. is booming. People are moving here once again, as the census just showed us, and communities around the province are engaging in developing long-term projects of significance. So I'm pleased with this part of the legislation that provides consistency, certainty and accountability with regards to developing and building for the long term.

When a company commits to building a project over many years, they of course rely on the zoning that is put in place by local government. With this amendment, local governments can provide certainty to abide by zoning through all phases of a large development, ensuring that future councils or boards uphold the original agreement with the developer. In exchange, local governments can also likely negotiate greater or longer-term benefits for their communities.

Before the opposition starts to jump up and down further on this, I want to note that there are protections for taxpayers, unlike what the member for Cariboo South suggests. This legislation includes important mechanisms to ensure transparency about the arrangements between a developer and local government in a phased development agreement. For example, the local government must publicize the key details of a phased development agreement and must hold a public hearing before they may enter into such an agreement.

In addition, if they want to amend an agreement in any significant way, they need to follow the same process of providing notice and holding a hearing. All the details of any agreement, including amendments or any related documents, must be available for public inspection at city hall. So keep in mind that these phased development agreements are voluntary — the operative word being "voluntary" — and they are between two parties, each of which will bring something to the table.

I also understand that the Ministry of Community Services will be developing advisory material for local governments to ensure phased development agreements are used appropriately. I believe this is an important amendment to allow large-scale projects to move forward with more certainty, and I don't think anyone will disagree that certainty is an important factor in attracting investment to this province.

Finally, I want to comment briefly on another part of this bill, the "energy utility system" amendments, as they will apply to the Vancouver Charter. This legislation authorizes the city of Vancouver to establish, operate and regulate a municipal energy utility system and imposes levies and fees for such service. This capability exists in other B.C. communities, and this amendment will respond to Vancouver's request to do just the same.

This planned energy utility system will provide space heating and hot water to new residential and commercial buildings. The city will be using renewable energy resources, either biomass energy or municipal sewage heat recovery, consistent with our government's aggressive green targets as outlined in our throne speech.

[1510]

The city's planned energy utility is intended to serve a limited geographical area — just the Southeast False Creek area — and will serve new subscribers in the area. It's the area where the athletes village for the 2010 Olympics will be constructed and will showcase to the world yet another example of B.C.'s commitment to leading the way in sustainable practices.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in favour of this bill that I believe will be instrumental in providing local communities with expanded tools and opportunities to reach their full potential. I only hope that the NDP will have the political courage to join us in supporting local government.

N. Macdonald: I rise today to speak about Bill 11.

There are elements, as the speaker that preceded me said, that are accurate around the Hotel Room Tax Act. That's something that's been done properly, in the sense that there was communication between the local government…. It was a local government initiative that was worked through the ministry and will benefit local government. The communities that I represent will benefit a great deal from those changes. In the list of the 13, Kimberley, Invermere, Radium, Golden, Revelstoke are all taking advantage of that.

I'm not going to speak very much about that because within it you have another action that I think has strong implications for two key principles. Buried amongst the amendments to existing legislation are sections 14 and 15. Sections 14 and 15 are not particularly clear in what they say, but in the comments that have come out from the minister and from the member for East Kootenay since this legislation was put forward, they raise a number of concerns.

They amend the Local Government Act, essentially, as I understand it — and we will use the committee stage to clarify exactly what this

section means — to give cabinet the ability to unilaterally create resort regions. What a resort region is, is not really given any explanation in the bill itself, other than to say in

section 14 that a resort region is what is created by

section 15.

I have two very strong objections to both

section 14 and

section 15. In giving cabinet the ability to unilaterally create resort regions, it will impact a resort that has been contentious in my area for over 15 years. It will create the ability for cabinet to do two things, and two things that it should not do.

Firstly, it will break a very clear promise to the people of the Kootenays. Secondly, it is going to remove locals from the decision-making process. Neither of those is in any way going to be acceptable for people in the Columbia Valley, nor in the Kootenays.

While I will be focusing on Jumbo Glacier Resort and how this impacts that particular resort, there are implications for the whole province. The implications are these. We should insist on a high standard from our government.

This is going to be another case from a long list where the government was very specific. The Premier, his ministers were very specific in giving a commitment to citizens, and they are going to break that

[ Page 6391 ]

commitment. They are going to break it, and in a way it looks like they at no time intended to keep that commitment, because as soon as the election was finished, the effort was made to undercut this commitment.

We need to insist that local decision-making has to be strengthened, and this does not do this. Instead, it removes the local community from a decision that impacts it. So the Local Government Act is going to be amended, and it will give cabinet the ability to unilaterally create resort regions.

[1515]

I'll just read back from the press release, and we'll go one at a time. In terms of breaking a promise, let's just be clear on the promise that was made. It was made by the current Minister of Health, and it was made on October 14 of 2004. This was just prior to the election. The government knew that it was going to be an unpopular decision, so they clarified for the people of the Columbia Valley exactly what was going to take place.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

There was a press conference here in the Legislature, and a press release that said this, amongst other things: "The government recognizes that there are strongly held views surrounding this project. The final decision will be in the hands of those closest to the project. Those who will benefit most directly and who most directly understand the costs will have the final say here. The project would not be able to proceed without the approval of the East Kootenay regional district." A very clear commitment from government and a commitment that, with this section, the government moves away from.

The Jumbo Valley and Jumbo Pass sit 55 kilometres to the west of Invermere. It is a spectacular wilderness area. It is not pristine. It has seen logging and mining, and there have been commercial interests active there to this day. I came from Winnipeg in 1982 to work at Panorama, which is on the way to the Jumbo Valley. I was first up there with my wife and friends to camp back in the early 1980s, and the last time I was in that area was this summer, camping.

Since moving to Golden, I've spent most of my camping time in the area around Golden, but what I do know is that to the people of Invermere and the people of the Columbia Valley that area is important. It is an area that they go up to, to hunt. It's an area that they camp and hike in. It is an area that they snowmobile in. For them, they feel it is important that it stay in the state that it is.

There is no question that this is a longstanding issue. The reason the government in 2004 clarified that the regional district was going to make the decision is because they knew it was contentious. It has been for 15 years. From the moment it was proposed to put a town up in the wilderness that is Jumbo Valley and to build ski lifts around it and to create a resort, it has been contentious. Many people — in fact, by every indication a majority of people — do not support that resort. They don't support it, even though others from the outside have thought that it might be a good idea.

You're going to hear the minister say that Premier Harcourt was in favour of the idea, and Premier Clark. They were far removed. They did at times indicate support, but they did not push it through because they knew that there was strong, strong local opposition to any sort of a project that would change that area.

When the Premier had his chance, he indicated to the public that he would not impose a decision that ran contrary to the wishes of the people in the area, that he would allow their locally elected representatives and the regional district to make that decision. I've read into the record exactly what the news release was. I can remember the member from the Shuswap, the present Minister of Health, making a speech here at the Legislature indicating exactly what was going to take place. But what you have now is a change and a change that fundamentally breaks that promise.

I've known about the controversy at Jumbo for a long time. When I was mayor of Golden in the 1990s, the proponent of Jumbo Glacier Resort, Mr. Oberto Oberti, came to Golden to do another project. He came there to do Kicking Horse Resort, which was a $200 million project that I worked for as a mayor. I worked with local residents; Area Director Crandall; and the MLA at the time, who was Jimmy Doyle. We worked for it because our community wanted it. We held a referendum.

At the time Mr. Oberti was concerned about that, but I told him that on the Kicking Horse project there is support and that it is a referendum that he would find is successful. But we felt obliged to make sure that the community had an opportunity to have a say and that they would decide whether it was a project that would go ahead or not. And 96 percent of the people at that time for that resort voted in favour of it.

[1520]

What I can tell you is that even though you had a variety of people from a variety of political backgrounds…. Area Director Crandall, who was very involved and who was one who insisted that we have a referendum, was a former Social Credit MLA. Jimmy Doyle, of course, was an NDP MLA. What all of those people, including me, would agree on, if we agreed on one thing, is the right of rural residents to have a say in land use decisions that are going to impact them.

I can tell you that if we had lost that referendum, as mayor I would not have supported the project. You would not have had the area director supporting the project. You would not have had the MLA at the time supporting it. We fundamentally believe in the right of local people to make decisions about their area. When you read the literature that is put out by the Ministry of Community Services, they say that they believe in that too. But what is consistently happening with this government is that the things that are said are different from the actions.

When I was running to be the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke, in the lead-up period I was asked, especially when I came into the Columbia Valley,

[ Page 6392 ]

about my position on Jumbo. What I said at the time was that I did not believe there was community support.

I still do not believe, from any indication that I have been given, that there is community support. I came to that conclusion from the number of people that took the time to speak to me. I came to that conclusion from the fact that the mayor and council of Invermere, the closest community, did not support the project. The locally elected area director at that time did not support the project. My view was that if it was to go ahead, it needed to have the support of the people in the area.

It was subsequent to that that the minister who is currently the Minister of Health came forward and said that this is the way it was going to be handled. It was a difficult political problem for Wendy McMahon, who was the MLA at the time. She was from Invermere. She knew it was unpopular, and she said that she would not take a position on it.

That's something I don't agree with. I think she should have taken a position, but she said she would not take a position. She knew that while perhaps she wanted it to go ahead, to do so would be politically damaging in the lead-up to the election. So she said clearly that she would not make up her mind on it, and what you had instead was the government saying that the regional district would get the final say. To back away from that now is deeply, deeply problematic.

You have a situation where rules are made about how a decision's going to be made. Those rules are now, with this act, going to be changed. It is something that is going to cause problems in a number of areas. First off, this is an issue that longtime residents have been putting money towards, putting activity into.

They have done everything that they democratically can to express an opinion, and there have been limited opportunities. I can tell you that there has been one opportunity where they were given a chance — during the environmental assessment process, I think — to indicate their support one way or another. In that short period of time you had 15 percent of the population of Invermere participating.

They were invited at some point in the process to give their opinion, and about 15 percent of the people participated. What 90 percent of those people said is that they didn't want this resort to go ahead, so they indicated it in that way when that opportunity was given to them. Since then they've written letters, thinking that that makes a difference.

In fact, the Minister of Community Services will have received, as I did, copies of over 150 e-mails that have gone through to the minister and that have been cc'd to me. They have gone to the Premier as well. Some of them are form e-mails, but about half are individuals just hearing on CBC what's being talked about here or reading in the local newspaper and taking the time to indicate that they did not agree with the government breaking their word on this decision-making and removing them from the decision-making process. About five or six said this was the right way to go.

[1525]

Every way that I have to indicate where the public sits on this in the Columbia Valley indicates to me that they do not support the project. Even those that do support the project…. I have an e-mail here from someone who says: "Well, I haven't really made up my mind on it, but I sure know this: when the government tells me something, then I expect them to do it."

They're not naive. They know that politicians don't always have the greatest reputation for that, but the standard they set is that if you tell me something, I want it to be followed through on. Yet here what we see is the intention to break a clear promise.

Resorts can go ahead. They went ahead in Golden. They went ahead quickly in Golden. It started in 1996 because the public wanted it. We were able to convince the government to do what they needed to do to make sure the project went ahead quickly.

Look at the example of Revelstoke Mountain Resort. It is a front-country resort. It is a resort that the local government wants and is working for. It is widely supported by the public, and it moves forward quickly.

I think that what people need to understand in this chamber is that they do not understand the situation fully, and you will not have a cabinet that fully understands all of the things that need to be considered.

If you cannot convince the regional district of East Kootenay to approve this project, then it must in some way be flawed. If it is not flawed, then the facts will speak for themselves and the project will move ahead. In every way, that is the proper way to approach it.

For the minister to come in and put before us legislation that will change it achieves two things. First, it makes a population already cynical about politics more cynical. And there is much about this to be cynical about.

As soon as the election was finished, the mayor of Radium was down here meeting with government and looking at how to move this project ahead. It's his right to do so, but it's the obligation of government to say: "No. We have agreed on a way that we are going to move forward." It was the government's word; it was the government's plan.

It's fine for people to come in and lobby to do it differently, but the government has the obligation to say: "No. This is our plan." But they did not do that. Instead, coming back from that, you had the mayor of Radium, who is the chair of the regional district of East Kootenay, calling a meeting that was difficult for everyone to attend. That was contentious. That's the first point that the public sees, and they wonder: well, what's going on here?

Since that time there have been a number of things that make it certainly appear to the public that there are conversations — and in fact there have been conversations — behind closed doors that do not involve the public about how to move this project forward. I would say to you that the culmination of that is this legislation.

The people in the valley know that there have been discussions — that the mayor of Radium and the mayor of Invermere have had discussions about how this is going to be moved forward. The idea — and it's

[ Page 6393 ]

quite openly discussed in the local newspapers — that you would set up a situation where the village of Radium would annex part of an area 60 kilometres away and create this new resort region is, quite frankly…. It boggles the mind how that would work.

I certainly look forward to the committee stage, where we can actually ask some specific questions about what a resort region is. How is this going to work? And how are you ever going to apply this to the rest of the province?

Every indication that I have here is that this is a poor way to proceed. It is poor to break promises to people, and the e-mails that the minister received will reinforce that. You have people talking about cynicism and, "All politicians are liars," and "I knew he wouldn't keep his word" — all of that. She has it, and she sees it. There are over 150 of them, and they have that same theme. That is never a healthy thing.

[1530]

Secondly, you cannot have a rural MLA who is going to support the idea of taking local government out of the decision-making process on land use decisions such as this. The argument that it is done with mines or something else is not an argument that I would accept. You have communities that are going to be impacted by settlement up in an area that is remote. There are considerations. There are impacts for the communities that border it.

How is the road through Invermere going to be handled? Who's going to pay for that? How is the road up to the resort going to be handled? Who is going to pay for that? If money is spent there on roads, where is it not being spent? Now, all of those may have answers, but the due diligence, the questioning and, ultimately, the decision-making on that zoning needs to sit with the regional district.

I'll just read you a few of the e-mails the Premier and the minister have received. This is from a resident in Invermere.

"We're shocked that a government which is supposedly advocating democracy has included

section 15 in proposed Bill 11. The section, which allows so-called resort regions to be established by cabinet, strips local voters and residents of the right to protect wilderness areas. No wonder people are cynical and despise politicians. It seems that when the rhetoric about democracy and green government is over, it is money that talks and democracy that is subverted. Your government made promises that the Jumbo decision would remain local. Not surprisingly, it's broken."

All politicians are included in that cynicism, and I think that leads to that bigger issue. What is the standard? Where is the line for politicians and for government? If the line that we set is so low that anything goes, then you are taking this province on a dangerous path.

This is a clear commitment that was made in the most public, most unequivocal way about what would happen, and from the moment it was made, as soon as the election was finished, the government worked to do something different. This resort and resorts like it seem more important to the government than what the people of the East Kootenays think, more important to this government than risking the cynicism of the people involved in this political process, more important to this government than keeping its own word.

It is a huge backwards step. It is one that people in the Kootenays will not accept. It is something that I can tell you will not be the end of it if this legislation passes.

You have before you Bill 11 — with many, many aspects and many examples of how to do things properly — which you denigrate by inserting sections 14 and 15.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair. Give your comments through the Chair.

N. Macdonald: By "you," I meant the government as a whole. When the government chooses to do these things, you need to understand the consequences that will follow.

I look forward to the committee stage. I look forward to delving into how much thought is being put into this. The scenarios that I have heard put forward are scenarios that I cannot imagine working. The bad taste that this will leave in my area is profound. The fact that you will then take that scenario and apply it to the rest of the rural areas of British Columbia is, I think, going to be profoundly troubling.

I do say that there will be a number of things put forward as arguments that try to legitimize what's going on here today, but in each and every one of them there is an answer. For each and every argument that is made, there is an answer.

[1535]

For people who say that these projects had to move along, this one has gone slowly because from the beginning it was contentious. Many of the timing issues are issues that the proponent had control over. To this day the regional district has not made a decision because it has not been put in front of the regional district. So these are things that they control.

I give you example after example in other parts of the province, under both governments, where if there is public support and it's the right project, it moves quickly.

The standard of breaking promises is not acceptable to people in my area. I don't think they're acceptable to anyone in British Columbia. The standard that we would not be included in decision-making as residents of rural British Columbia is so deeply offensive that I cannot understand how a rural MLA would possibly allow this to take place. That we are somehow second-class citizens in this and that people far removed with no understanding of the issue would make a decision — it is beyond comprehension that that would be acceptable.

I intend to use the committee stage to question carefully exactly what is planned. I intend to make it clear that I find this approach to an issue incredibly disrespectful to the people of the Columbia Valley and to many families and individuals and many young people who have worked on this for a long, long time, believing that there was some democratic process that actually worked and who will instead walk away from this

[ Page 6394 ]

thinking that all politicians are liars and that somebody can stand up and say something and then do something completely different.

That's something that I think all of us should be concerned about, because if writing letters doesn't work, if going and voting doesn't work, if sending e-mails to the Premier and the minister doesn't work, then what are people left with? What does work? How do people participate in the political process? I think that's a bigger question, because many, many will leave this thinking: well, there really is no way.

My intention is to reinforce the positives about how this minister has handled the hotel taxation issue. There you had local government coming up with an idea, pushing it and having it properly thought through, and it is one that local government supports. In stark contrast, you have sections 14 and 15 stuffed in here to make it as politically difficult as possible, firstly, to spot and as politically difficult as possible to oppose, but I will oppose it. I will oppose this sort of standard for the honesty in government. I do not accept that this is acceptable to Columbia River–Revelstoke. I don't accept that it is acceptable to the people of British Columbia or Canada.

Secondly, I will not accept that we are removed from important decision-making. We have to watch the pattern that we allow a government to set — where it moves into a state of mind, where there's an arrogance. There is a sense that whatever is the easiest thing to do, if they can get away with it, they will move in that direction.

It is a slippery slope for the government to do that, and it's our responsibility as opposition to hold them accountable and make sure that they are constantly pushed to move to a higher standard. There are a number of issues that I've been dealing with that have raised questions about that higher standard, because as the minister is aware, there's another issue that I have in front of her related to bylaws that need to be passed. They instead are sitting on her desk, and the issue there is around expediency. They wish to move around a process and to do something that is expedient rather than the proper thing to do.

In this case I see the same thing. There was a result, there's a willingness to be expedient, there's a willingness to break their word because they think they can get away with it politically, and there's a willingness to remove the say of locals. And that can never be acceptable.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak here. I do look forward to the committee stage, and I would be very happy if the minister stood up and just said that I had it wrong and that the regional district is going to have final say. I invited her to do that on the CBC, and I would be pleased if she would stand up and do that and say: "Hey look, you misunderstood all of this, and the regional district is going to have the final say." That's the appropriate thing to have happen here, but I don't think it will.

[1540]

Instead I think a trade-off has been made. The feelings are that what the people of Columbia River–Revelstoke, and the Columbia Valley in particular, think just doesn't fit into the big picture for this government. I find that deeply offensive, and we'll do everything in our powers to make sure that that changes.

B. Bennett: I fundamentally disagree with the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke on his opposition to this bill. I do support this bill. My fundamental disagreement with the member who just spoke is probably quite typical of the debate around the Jumbo Glacier Resort, and that's not likely going to change. We all have a right to our opinion, and it's my turn to express my opinion.

I do support this legislation for three main reasons, one of which is that I believe that the legislation, including the sections that seem to offend the opposition, is in the best interests of the people of the East Kootenay. I believe that; otherwise I wouldn't support it.

I support the legislation, in addition, because what this legislation does is it provides to existing resort communities the capacity to go out to market their towns and to market their regions. That's very important, and I think the opposition has indicated they support that part of the bill.

I also support this legislation because of the

section or sections that seem to offend the opposition. They create, or it creates, a new authority to create a resort municipality, just as older legislation in this province allowed the provincial government of the day to create what they called, at the time, instant towns. I have two of them in my riding, — Sparwood and Elkford. They were created by instant town legislation, and that's what this

section does in this proposed bill.

I have to say that in my opinion, the opponents of Bill 11 are off base, even so far as the sections that they have identified they oppose. I've not heard them mention

section 16 at all. They seem to be opposing sections 14 and 15. Those two sections allow a resort region to be created. In the case of my riding, that will allow the city of Fernie to go outside the city of Fernie and include the adjacent ski resort in the resort region so that they can qualify for the hotel tax funding. Otherwise they won't qualify for it. I'm not sure why all of the opponents to this bill seem to be focusing on sections 14 and 15. It is, in fact,

section 16 — just for the benefit of members in committee stage — that you should be focusing on.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

The opponents of Bill 11 are not only wrong about the

section that they're opposing, but they're wrong in terms of their misleading comments about Jumbo Glacier Resort, that whole project. They're essentially saying that with this new bill that the Jumbo resort will just go ahead, and it will be a slam dunk. Not necessarily so.

There are four options for the proponent in this case, some of which are in the legislation, some of which already exist. Firstly, the proponent can work within an adjacent community to extend the boundaries of that municipality to take in Jumbo. I know of at least two communities, both of which exist in the

[ Page 6395 ]

Columbia River–Revelstoke constituency, that are interested in extending their boundaries to take in this resort.

Secondly, a proponent can apply for a new mountain resort improvement district under

section 18 of this new legislation. Thirdly, a proponent can simply contract to get their services directly from the regional district. Fourthly, the proponent could ask the province to use

section 16 of this new act to create a resort municipality.

The main opposition to the Jumbo project over the past 16 years has focused on the alleged pristine status of the Jumbo Valley. I heard the member for Cariboo South use the word pristine. When you drive up into the Jumbo Valley — and yes, Madam Speaker, you can actually drive right there, right up into the valley — you drive on a paved road to one of B.C.'s largest, fastest-growing resorts, Panorama.

To me it makes more sense to put another ski resort on the same road in the same area than it does to go into another valley that might, in fact, be pristine. That seems to be good management, good land use planning. In any case, you drive up Toby Creek Road, and the first thing you see when you get up by the resort is clearcuts on both sides of the road. You see roads zigzagging the mountain faces adjacent to the Toby Creek Road.

[1545]

As you drive in the Jumbo Valley, the first thing you see is a large slag pile, which is from the Mineral King mine. Yes, there is a mine in the Jumbo Valley, an old mine closed up with a slag pile that you can still see from the road.

As you continue up the decades-old road into the Jumbo Valley, the next thing you see is a large sawdust pile. Your best low-elevation view of the Jumbo Valley is actually standing on top of that sawdust pile. Yes, a sawmill operated in the Jumbo Valley for many years.

You will notice that the opponents of Jumbo, after flogging that horse for 15 years — I've heard a lot of talk about democracy and democratic process and all that kind of stuff — talked about how pristine the Jumbo Valley is. They've raised hundreds of thousands of dollars on that horse, but you know what they say about flogging a dead horse. You don't hear them talking about how pristine the Jumbo Valley is anymore. The new mantra of these opponents of Jumbo Glacier Resort is: we must let local government decide.

Let's examine that claim. Local government, as well as the environmentalists, participated in our land use planning process called CORE. That lasted for two years. The participants in that land use planning process, including local government and including the environmental associations, signed off on the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan, which specifically designates the Jumbo Valley for responsible resort development.

The CORE process was all about listening to local people, and local government had a seat at that table for two years. The former ombudsman and the leader of the CORE process, Stephen Owen — a completely disinterested and unbiased observer in this — actually sent a letter in 1994 to two B.C. NDP ministers, urging the province to get on with the assessment of this project. This is interesting. In 1996 the RDEK — that's the regional district of East Kootenay — board voted yes on a resolution to support the project. The resolution stated that once an environmental certificate was obtained by the proponent, the project should proceed.

Eleven years later, in February of 2005, the proponent had finally gained an environmental assessment certificate with 200 conditions imposed on it. Seeing that only 1.4 percent of the region's residents actually took the time to express their opposition to this project…. I hear percentages and numbers and that people of the Kootenays are against this, but only 1.4 percent of the people in the region took the time to express their opposition to this project. I don't believe that the people of the Kootenays oppose this project.

Here we have a situation where the proponent of a tourism project of international significance — because of the elevation, because of the fact there are glaciers, because of the fact they'll have summer skiing — is supported by a land use designation, spends 16 years working diligently in government processes, embraces years of public consultation, receives the formal support of two NDP Premiers — we have the letters — receives the support of local governments from time to time and agrees to more than 200 conditions on the environmental certificate.

I heard my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke say there's much to be cynical about. I can't believe that this proponent is still interested. They have to be cynical about all governments and about how long it takes to actually get a project going in this province.

After successfully refuting the claim that this valley is pristine, after countless studies have shown that the project will have minimal impact on grizzly bears, after all this the opposition says: "Well, let's encourage local government to duplicate an assessment process that took over a decade. Let's encourage local government to do it all over again." The NDP is no friend of local government. The NDP would gladly subject the RDEK to an enormously expensive and divisive assessment process that has already been completed just to make political points. This is mumbo-jumbo.

The people of the East Kootenay can't eat bumper stickers. The people of the East Kootenay want jobs. They don't want bumper stickers. They want jobs. Taking this province on a dangerous path — that's what the member from Columbia River–Revelstoke said.

With respect, let's get on with passing this very positive legislation. Let's get on with supporting our rural resort municipalities, and let's get on with the business of making good decisions for the benefit of all British Columbians. That's what leadership is all about.

[1550]

L. Krog: I suppose some may question why I would stand to speak to Bill 11. This is after all, in most respects simply what I would call the ordinary business of government — changing legislation in appropriate ways, the end results of the typical consultation processes that often go on. But what brings me to my

[ Page 6396 ]

feet today are those sections that have been much discussed in this House this afternoon, which essentially give the power to cabinet, once again, to make decisions that impact significantly on local people, to override locally elected politicians who represent their constituents, their voters, their electors.

This is, after all, a

section to amend the Local Government Act. I suppose it begs the question: if we have local government, why do you want to pass legislation that gives you the power to override it so consistently, particularly around a proposal for what the government likes to see as a job generator and symbol of new economic development, etc.? If that is the most important factor for the people of the area, then one would have thought this project would enjoy overwhelming support. Contrary to what some suggest, it appears that this project does not enjoy overwhelming support.

The member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi went on at some length today in her remarks suggesting that, oh, if the opposition votes against this bill, they're voting against all kinds of things. It reminds me of the silliness of some of the press releases that were issued by the members of the government benches after the vote on the budget speech. They accused the opposition of voting against tax cuts for people, accused the opposition of all sorts of heinous crimes.

Of course, they never bothered to explain the truth of it, which is simply this. In the history of this province, I defy a member of this House to stand up and tell me that any opposition has ever voted in favour of the government's budget on the budget debate.

D. Thorne: Ever.

L. Krog: Ever. That's the reality, but those are some of the games that get played in politics, and those are, frankly, some of the games that disappoint people and drive people out of the electoral process.

There are two great philosophies clashing here in this section. This is part of a larger debate, and I must admit I've had some concerns thinking about, for instance, the agricultural land reserve and its importance to British Columbians with respect to my comments that I intended to make around these particular sections and this bill.

When Dave Barrett brought in the Agricultural Land Commission with Dave Stupich as the Minister of Agriculture, they understood that the best way to preserve agricultural land was to ensure that those decisions would be made by a provincial body not subject to the kinds of pressures that local politicians are subject to.

I never sat in local government, as did many of the members on both sides of the House, but certainly my experience dealing with local politicians and talking to members on both sides of the House is that they're always referred to as those politicians who are closest to the people, closest to their voters and are therefore obviously subject to the greatest political pressure to succumb to whatever a particular pressure group is driving forward, which is often development projects. It is unusual, very unusual, that this particular development project faces not only opposition in the public but opposition from local politicians.

It is one thing to support an agricultural land reserve and insist that it be decided by an independent provincial body because it protects a core value for all British Columbians. I've satisfied myself and my own inner turmoil, perhaps, around this issue.

One can consistently support a provincial body that makes decisions around the agricultural land and the preservation of it in this province and at the same time step back and say in this kind of instance: surely, the right thing to do is to respect local governments who have made it very clear that they don't support this proceeding, to pay attention to those local politicians who have made their views known and have, I gather, been fairly consistent in their opposition to this proposal.

[1555]

The fact is that we have a number of ski resorts close by this proposed new resort, and if they were all working at capacity, if their employees were all getting top wages because management couldn't possibly find any workers to work there, if their lifts were jammed and their parking lots and their rooms were full every night, one could say that perhaps we need this kind of capacity, if you will, for the creation of tourism. We need that kind of capacity, this opportunity to fulfil an obvious public need and want. But I haven't heard any evidence in this House that that's in fact the case here.

Indeed, notwithstanding the government's newly found interest in climate change as outlined in the throne speech, I think we have to look seriously as a society at where we're going to develop so-called ski resorts. We have to think very carefully about the longevity of that as an economic opportunity when it is fairly clear, for instance, that some European resorts now are in danger of closing down. We know that that kind of climate change is taking place around the planet and will impact on British Columbia, just as it impacts on Colorado and other jurisdictions in North America that are heavily dependent on winters to provide snow to sustain ski resorts.

This is, I am afraid, a typical act of this government. It is, on the one hand, the government that says: "Big government is a bad thing, and we want to deregulate and pass off responsibilities and create corporations independent of government that won't take direction from government. Big government is a bad thing." Yet at the same time, they want to be able to say: "Oh well, notwithstanding that we support local government, when it comes to an independent power project or when a ski resort is proposed, somehow the independence, authority and legitimacy of local government are something that we can happily override."

It is a corporatist mentality. It is the CEO of the company making decisions and to heck with what the workers think or lower management or middle management or anybody who might have a contrary opinion. We get to make the decision at the top of the power scheme, and you just have to live with it.

That is essentially what sections 14 and 15 of Bill 11 are doing. It is taking away the rights of local government in order to allow the cabinet to make decisions

[ Page 6397 ]

about what gets designated and again, as is so typical of this government, without ever having to come back to this Legislature and face public criticism or comment. The decision that may be made if this bill passes in its entirety…. The vast majority of it, I think I can say safely, has the support of the opposition. When this bill passes, it's not as if the cabinet is going to come back to the opposition and say: "Well, on the Jumbo resort, by the way, we're going to put a specific bill in front of the Legislature." No. It's: "This decision we've made at cabinet meeting" — maybe one of those famous open cabinet meetings if they think it's politically useful.

Interjection.

L. Krog: One of my colleagues says: "Good luck." Yes, these open cabinet meetings seem to have fallen by the wayside lately.

But the decision will be made by cabinet. It will be imposed on local people who, regardless of their opposition to this, are going to have to live with the consequences, let alone all of those businesses, all of those other ski resorts, who may face economic ruin as the great sucking sound of this new development draws away their economic lifeblood. It's so typical of this government — not concerned about small local entrepreneurs but more concerned about big investments and luring people with lots of money.

This, I would suggest, is again just a further example of a government that doesn't want to operate within the confines of a legislature. This is a government that wants to reserve to itself and its cabinet the opportunity to continue to make, and make even more, decisions that affect local people without having to face genuine criticism in this place. It shows, in my respectful opinion, a disrespect for the whole process of government and legislation.

[1600]

So I can say safely that the bill will receive general support. It will no doubt pass at second reading, but when it comes to committee stage, this government's going to have to explain to the members opposite why sections 14 and 15 represent good policy. In my respectful opinion, they represent anything but good policy.

Notwithstanding the remarks of the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi, no, the government will not face opposition around this bill. The government will, however, and does face opposition around sections 14 and 15. That is the opposition's job. It is to protect the rights of local communities and local citizens to make decisions about their own livelihood.

Quite frankly, we cannot continue to think in an incredibly shrinking world that big decisions made by outsiders, essentially, are good for local economies or good for local people. It is time to figure out and understand that we must act locally.

We must do the right thing locally, and putting another big resort in the middle of a province that already has more ski resorts than it can handle does not make economic sense. It probably doesn't make environmental sense, and frankly, the people of the Kootenays, who moved there, I don't think wanted to move there to a resort municipality. If they wanted to do that, they would have moved to Whistler. They've all had that opportunity.

They are talking about an attitude about the environment and lifestyle that is important. It deserves the respect of the people who work in this place, who enjoyed the privilege of getting elected here. Sections 14 and 15 don't respect those wishes — anything but. Hon. Speaker, I urge the government to reconsider its position on 14 and 15 of this bill.

N. Simons: Well, we're back in the House debating legislation that takes away the authority from other levels of government — obviously, levels of government that are regional or municipal. What we have here is an example of how to sneak it into a large piece of legislation.

Two references to minor sections that allow cabinet to determine when there's a resort area. That doesn't sound too scary. It sounds innocuous, in fact. It sounds like the vanilla-flavoured ice cream in a way. Nobody really notices it. You don't often order it, but when you get to it and it's all you've got, people seem to lick it.

The issue here is that we have a piece of legislation that is fundamentally flawed. It's either fundamentally flawed or everybody who reads it thinks it's fundamentally flawed except the 46 people who sit on the other side of the House. When they're standing up, they might actually look into this legislation more closely and realize that the same arguments they're making to pass this piece of legislation they used to pass the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, Bill 75, in 2003.

We all know that Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, which was spoken about in such high terms as a necessity for this province, to take away all the hindrances that seemed to be blanketing investors and those who want to invest in the province and make this the best place on earth…. What happened? Not once has that act ever been used. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council realized how pathetically inappropriate that piece of legislation was.

It was introduced by the now Minister of Transportation, who may have learned since then. The Minister of Transportation at the time, the Minister Responsible for Deregulation, the minister responsible for handing out awards to such ministries as the Ministry of Children and Family Development for cutting red tape and safeguards for children is the minister responsible for the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. Because that was such a failure — an absolute failure in terms of public opinio