2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th 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)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act

(Bill Pr410)

B. Penner

Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.)

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr411)

J. Bray

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Down syndrome

Brenzinger

Kermode bear

R. Harris

Remembrance Day

Christensen

Oral Questions

Referral of queries on income

assistance time limits

J. MacPhail

Hon. M.

Coell

Income assistance regulations and

access to benefits

J. Kwan

Hon. M.

Coell

Closing of St. Mary's Hospital

P. Nettleton

Hon. C.

Hansen

Food choices in schools

R. Stewart

Hon. C.

Clark

Access to long-term care for new

residents of B.C.

V. Anderson

Hon. K.

Whittred

Promotion of B.C. business

D. Hayer

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Ministerial Statements

Violence in schools

Hon. C.

Clark

J. Kwan

Second Reading of Bills

Western Pentecostal Bible College

Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill Pr409)

B. Penner

Committee of the Whole House

Western Pentecostal Bible College

Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill Pr409)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Western Pentecostal Bible College

Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill Pr409)

Committee of the Whole House

Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment Act,

2003 (Bill 56)

B. Penner

Hon. J.

Murray

J. MacPhail

R. Hawes

J. Les

Reporting of Bills

Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment Act,

2003 (Bill 56)

Third Reading of Bills

Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment Act,

2003 (Bill 56)

Second Reading of Bills

Significant Projects Streamlining Act

(Bill 75)

Hon. K.

Falcon

J. MacPhail

R. Sultan

J. Les

D. MacKay

[ Page 7873 ]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Mr.

Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. Next week, at the eleventh hour of

the eleventh day of the eleventh month, Canadians pause to remember those who

gave their lives for our country. As the House isn't sitting next week, I would

ask all members to stand and observe a moment's silence in their honour.

[1405]

Thank you,

hon. members. Please be seated.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge

three special visitors from New Zealand. Please join me in welcoming His

Excellency Graham Kelly and Mrs. Kelly. His Excellency is the newly appointed

High Commissioner of New Zealand to Canada, and this is their first visit to

British Columbia to discover the many opportunities of our bountiful province.

Also,

please welcome Ms. Anne Chappaz, who is the newly appointed consul general of

New Zealand to British Columbia, located in Vancouver. We hope Consul General

Chappaz enjoys her posting in Vancouver and also avails herself of the splendour

of this province. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Masi:

It's my very great pleasure today to introduce 40 fine young representatives

from North Delta Senior Secondary, home of the Huskies. Would the House please

make them all welcome.

S. Orr:

In the gallery today we have a young man who has been my legislative assistant

for almost the past year. He is moving on to greener and more exciting and

wonderful pastures that only his age can enjoy, so I would like this House to

make him feel very welcome and wish him well on his way.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Victoria-Hillside seeks the floor again.

S. Orr:

And this gentleman's name is Ivan Watson. There you are.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, in the gallery today we have two representatives from

the Captioning Group, the company that works with Hansard to provide the

excellent closed captioning that we see on our television broadcasts and

webcasts: the company's president, Tammy Stretch, and its business development

director, Kurt Richter. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

CANADIAN PENTECOSTAL SEMINARY ACT

B. Penner

presented a bill intituled Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act.

Penner: I move that a bill entitled Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act, of

which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a

first time.

Motion

approved.

Penner: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr410

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

RICHROCK MINES LTD. (N.P.L.)

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003

J. Bray

presented a bill intituled Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) (Corporate Restoration)

Act, 2003.

J. Bray:

I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be

introduced and now read a first time.

Motion

approved.

J. Bray:

The bill will place Richrock Mines back on the corporate registry.

I move that

the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform,

Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr411

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

DOWN SYNDROME

Brenzinger: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to speak about National

Down Syndrome Awareness Week. There are three different types of Down syndrome,

and most cases are not inherited. In fact, about 95 percent of all cases are not

passed on genetically from parents.

Down

syndrome is caused when a baby is born with three copies of a specific

chromosome instead of two. It is important to understand that all of the

chromosomes of this person are normal, but the fact that a person has an extra

chromosome is what causes Down syndrome. The extra chromosome comes through a

faulty cell division process. Every cell in a person with Down syndrome will

contain 47 chromosomes instead of 46.

A host of

complicating medical factors can aggravate life expectancy for people with Down

syndrome.

[ Page 7874 ]

Down syndrome children are at an increased risk for a wide range of medical

problems that could potentially include congenital heart defects, increased

susceptibility to infection, respiratory problems, gastrointestinal disorders

and childhood leukemia.

[1410]

Some

studies have shown that as many as 60 percent of Down syndrome children will

experience some form of hearing loss, and that will affect speech development.

With early detection, children with Down syndrome should be able to hear and

speak normally. Fortunately, not every baby with Down syndrome develops health

problems, and most of these health problems are now treatable.

It is very

important to note that those afflicted with Down syndrome are active,

contributing members of all our communities. Anyone who has experienced

prolonged interaction with Down syndrome–afflicted people will tell you that

they bring a positive, loving

interpretation of life to those of us clouded by

the travails of daily living. During this week we have an opportunity to

highlight the unique abilities, strengths and contributions of Canadians living

with Down syndrome.

KERMODE BEAR

Harris: This past September, at the UBCM, I hope most of the members took

the opportunity to spend some time at the trade show. It is there that you would

have had a glimpse, some of you for the first time, of a unique feature of

British Columbia — that is, what we in the northwest call Moksgm'ol or, by

another name, the Kermode bear.

What is it

that makes a black bear white? Quite frankly, it's genetics. The product of a

recessive gene in the black bear means the Kermode bear is neither threatened

nor endangered. That's important. Its habitat is not only the central coast; it

roams extensively throughout the Nass and Skeena regions. It's been spotted to

the east around Burns Lake and as far north as Stewart.

Tsimshian

legend states that the Creator, to remind people of when ice and snow covered

the land, put the white bear on the planet. The raven was said to have flown

amongst the black and brown bear people, turning every tenth one white. He then

decreed that these bears would live in peace and harmony forever — and they

do.

In the

past, B.C. has had a number of powerful symbols of our province. Most

noticeably, it would be the orca. Now the people in communities in the north

have put forward the idea of embracing another powerful figure to represent our

province and country to the world at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Moksgm'ol is

unique to British Columbia and effectively represents the diversity and cultures

of the people who call this province home. It's a powerful symbol of strength

and determination, whether in athletics or in everyday life, a trait that speaks

to the human spirit.

The Kermode

already has global recognition. It provides us with a vehicle to communicate to

the world the high sustainable standards and values we as a government have set

for our resource industries. When each of you thinks about the 2010 Winter

Olympics and the visual image you would like the world to have of our province,

look to Moksgm'ol, the Kermode bear — the spirit of 2010.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Christensen: I rise today to mark an important date for all Canadians,

Remembrance Day. Each year on November 11 we recognize and remember the Canadian

men and women who fought so bravely for our nation and for the principles of

freedom and democracy upon which our society is founded. Many men and women gave

their lives to protect these two fundamental principles. It is because of their

commitment and sacrifice that we in this House are able to freely debate the

issues that confront British Columbians today.

Canadians, we often take for granted our way of life, our freedom to participate

in cultural and political events free from persecution, and our right to live

under a democratic government. The Canadians who have gone off to war have gone

in the strong belief that such rights and freedoms were being threatened.

On November

11 we will remember the hard-fought campaigns and battles and the courage and

heroism of our Canadian troops. We will remember Vimy Ridge, we will remember

Juno Beach, and we will remember the Korean War. We'll think of the thousands of

Canadian men and women who have participated in peacekeeping missions in Bosnia,

Afghanistan and the many other parts of our world where war has been more recent

or continues to be a threat.

The records

of wars recount the battles and the strategies, the leadership and the courage

of our soldiers, but we must also remember that with every battle, extremes of

temperature, mud, mind-numbing fatigue, fear and death were the daily realities.

While most of us, in my generation in particular, can hardly imagine such

hardships, we must try to understand what the combatants experienced and learn

from the survivors.

[1415]

On November

11 we will attend memorial services in our constituencies around British

Columbia and reflect on the past. For all the conflicts fought in far-off lands,

there is much to remember. Foremost are the people — the men and women who

served wherever they were needed. They faced difficult situations bravely and

brought honour to themselves, their loved ones and their country. They were

ordinary Canadians from all walks of life, backgrounds and ancestries who,

brought together by a common threat, made extraordinary sacrifices.

We honour

and we remember them, lest we forget.

Oral Questions

REFERRAL OF QUERIES ON INCOME

ASSISTANCE TIME LIMITS

MacPhail: Can the Minister of Human Resources please tell this House what

directive has been given to

[ Page 7875 ]

ministry staff when answering questions from the public about the impact of

his changes to welfare?

Hon. M.

Coell: If the member could be a little bit more succinct. I'm not sure what

she's asking.

MacPhail: Let me just clarify my question for the minister. I'm surprised he

doesn't know.

Here's what

the opposition has obtained in an e-mail, Mr. Speaker — a confidential e-mail.

Here's what it says. It's from a manager at the Ministry of Human Resources last

week, telling staff to refer all questions about changes to income assistance to

spin doctors at the public affairs bureau. To the Minister of Human Resources:

why are his staff being told to refer questions from the public about income

assistance to the B.C. Liberals' spin shop?

Hon. M.

Coell: Again, if the member could be a little bit more succinct. Maybe she

could read what she's got in front of her.

MacPhail: I'd be happy to, Mr. Speaker. I would be happy to. It seems that

the minister is actually afraid to confront what this is.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members, order. Let us hear the question.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to read it, but I'm going to ask my

question as well.

"Over

the last few weeks we are increasingly being asked for information, opinions

and statistics re the upcoming time limit expiration. I have received calls

from students and advocates, and that makes me think you are probably also

getting questions.

"Please

do not provide any information to the public regarding potential numbers of

clients being cut off or the effect of time limits on caseloads. Refer any

questions to Mike Long at the public affairs bureau, through Melanie Brownlee.

"The

reason for this, likely obvious, is this is a very hot news story, and we

can't speculate on how the policy will affect people or the numbers. That's up

to the public affairs branch.

"Thanks,

and if you have any concerns, let me know."

Openness

and accountability was the promise. Censorship and secrecy is the reality. I

have read the entire e-mail into the record, and let's be clear. It says that

it's up to the public affairs branch to get the Liberal spin out. Why has…?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order. Would the member now please

put her question.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: Why has the Minister of Human Resources placed a gag order on his

own staff? Why can't the public depend on non-partisan civil servants for

straight answers to simple questions? Why is he referring it to the spin branch,

the $7 million spin doctor branch called the public affairs bureau? Why doesn't

his staff just tell the truth?

Hon. M.

Coell: Mr. Speaker, a minister is usually responsible for his or her

ministry, and I think I've been very open in answering your questions. I've

actually been very open to the media, and I'll continue to do so.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

INCOME ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS

AND ACCESS TO BENEFITS

J. Kwan:

The minister says he's been very open. He has not been open to this House when

questions were put to him about how many people were going to be kicked off

income assistance, but we'll give him another chance.

The memo to

the staff is very clear. Questions from the public are not to be answered by

professionals in the ministry. They are instead to be answered by the political

staff in the Premier's office.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, hon. members. Let us hear the question.

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, let's give the member the courtesy of listening to

the question.

J. Kwan:

Well, the minister won't answer any questions about what's going on and what's

going to happen on April 1 when the two-year rule kicks in. Let me ask him this.

He has a chance to be open right here, right now. How many British Columbians

have already been denied income assistance as a result of his new rules?

Hon. M.

Coell: One of the primary jobs of the Ministry of Human Resources is to help

people back into the workforce — find employment.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. M.

Coell: We have a number of programs: the job placement program, the

training-for-jobs program,

[ Page 7876 ]

the community assistance program, the bridging program for women, employment

programs for persons with disabilities, direct purchase into ministries,

confirmed job supplements.

In the

Fraser Valley area we spent $21 million this year and found 6,000 people jobs.

In the interior of British Columbia, our interior region, we spent $14 million

and found 5,200 people jobs. In the north area, an area that has…. We spent

$5.8 million and found 2,000 jobs for people.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. M.

Coell: In the Vancouver coastal area we spent $18 million and found 4,700

people jobs.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

So much for openness and accountability from this minister. He will not answer

the question put to him. He puts out spin, spin, spin.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

We know that under the Liberals there has been unprecedented politicization of

government communications. It's one thing to have an army of partisan spin

doctors to protect the Premier's image, but to direct British Columbians who

have legitimate questions about the impact of government policies on their lives

to political staff so that they can be spun is shameful.

Will the

minister just answer my question? He must have the data. It's a simple question.

I'll say it slowly for the minister. How many British Columbians…?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the question.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has

the floor.

Please put

your question, hon. member.

J. Kwan:

Let me put the question to the minister. How many British Columbians have

already been denied income assistance as a result of his new rules? No spins. If

the minister can't give me the answer, perhaps what I have to do is go out into

the hallways and ask Andy Orr the spin doctor for the answer.

Hon. M.

Coell: Just to finish what I was saying, on Vancouver Island we spent $16

million on training programs and found 5,600 people jobs.

The members

of the opposition have always wanted to see people fail. This government wants

to see people succeed, and people are succeeding in British Columbia,

despite the NDP's ten years of bad rule. We're working with people on income

assistance to find employment that pays three times what it does to be on income

assistance. We're also protecting the most vulnerable, and we will continue to

do that.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

CLOSING OF ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL

Nettleton: I have an ongoing concern with the way this government repeatedly

fails to sit down and work with people to find solutions and answers to

problems, instead choosing to close doors, shut facilities down and sell them

off to the lowest and meanest bidder.

[1425]

A case in

point is the impending closure of St. Mary's Hospital in New Westminster due to

a shortfall of $13.4 million — this after the Premier received a plea for help

from a hospital board member. His response was to quickly audit the hospital and

just as quickly shut it down.

My question

is to the Minister of Health. Why couldn't the ministry get together with the

board of St. Mary's and hammer out a plan whereby they might save the hospital

and avoid disruption and hardship to patients well into the future? Are there no

problem-solvers in cabinet or in the B.C. Liberal caucus?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I assume that was directed to me. I would refer the member to the

Ministry of Health Services website. The George Morfitt report is linked to the

website. I think once he reads that report, he will have all the answers to his

questions.

FOOD CHOICES IN SCHOOLS

Stewart: As the father of four school-aged children, I share a concern with

parents across the province over the nutritional choices that children and youth

are offered at schools. There's currently much discussion in the media about

this issue, an issue that was raised recently because of a decision of the

Coquitlam school board. I ask the Minister of Education if she can tell us what

she's doing to ensure that young people learn healthy eating habits.

Hon. C.

Clark: We are working hard to make sure young people have the tools they

need to be able to make the right choices about what they should eat. It's

important from a provincial perspective. We are working to help kids have a

healthier lifestyle by bringing in minimum amounts of time that kids are

required to be physically active in schools, for the first time in a long time,

and minimum standards for physical activity as well as awards programs to

encourage physical activ-

[ Page 7877 ]

ity. This, though, is something school boards have a great deal of

responsibility in, too, so we will be bringing school boards together with other

interested parties for a healthy schools summit to talk about what we can do to

try and make sure kids are able to make all the good choices they need to make

in order to grow up healthy and able to tackle their school work.

Junk food

is a big issue, I know, that's been raised by many, many parents. It's a big

issue in school districts, and it's something that I think we need to tackle on

a provincewide basis to make sure every child has the encouragement they need

and the tools they need to make the right choices.

ACCESS TO LONG-TERM CARE FOR

NEW RESIDENTS OF B.C.

Anderson: My question is to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long

Term and Home Care. Seniors moving to Alberta must wait three full years before

they are eligible for long-term care and health benefits,

whereas seniors moving

to British Columbia are eligible after one year. Still, a year without long-term

care to a senior can be a long time and can affect their health. Can the

minister please tell my constituents who have asked about it if there are any

plans to change this waiting time for seniors who recently have moved to the

province? Is there any interministerial cooperation in this regard?

Hon. K.

Whittred: As the member indicated, long-term care is not a Canada Health Act

service, and therefore there is a wide variety among provinces. In B.C.,

however, I am pleased to say that for people who have high care needs and would

be assessed at a complex level, the waiting period is only three months. I think

that is among the most generous in Canada. I'm also pleased to say that under

the new health accord, which is being negotiated as we speak by ministers of

Health, both home care and end-of-life care are part of that package. I am

anxiously awaiting the outcomes of those discussions.

PROMOTION OF B.C. BUSINESS

Hayer: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise. As a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and

Government Services, I have heard many submissions regarding next year's budget.

One concern that has been raised….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. member. Order, please. We cannot hear

the question.

Please

start over.

[1430]

Hayer: One of the concerns that has been raised is in relation to the

government's ability to attract business and investments to B.C. Tax reforms and

fiscal responsibility are not enough. We need to get the message out there and

tell the people in other jurisdictions what B.C. has to offer. Can the Minister

of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell this House what is being done to

promote and attract and show B.C.'s advantage to the rest of the world?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: First of all, our government committed to leading-edge marketing

missions around the world, and those would be led by the Premier. Secondly, we

said we were going to globally market the investment opportunities in British

Columbia, and we were going to work very hard to grow export markets for British

Columbia wood products and British Columbia technology.

In the last

month and a half the Premier has travelled to California, to Texas and to New

York, telling the American investors that British Columbia is open for

investment. The Premier today is en route to India and has just spent four days

in China. I have just come back from Korea and Taiwan. Let me tell you the

message that I received from the chamber of commerce in Korea. They said they're

glad to hear that British Columbia is once again open for investment and open

for business. That's what they're saying in Korea.

Since my

return from Korea, I've met with a major Korean company here in Victoria looking

to invest in British Columbia. In Taiwan the wood frame construction code has

been approved, and we're moving forward to build homes in Taiwan using British

Columbia 2-by-4s and value-added wood products.

In China

the Premier announced yesterday a dream home project with the Chinese investors

that are going to build an additional 205 homes using British Columbia wood and

wood technology. British Columbia is moving forward.

[End

of question period.]

Ministerial Statements

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Hon. C.

Clark: I rise to make a statement today respecting a number of violent

incidents that have occurred in and around schools in British Columbia over the

past several weeks. As Minister of Education and as a parent of a child who will

soon enter the public school system, I am concerned about student safety.

Following

one such incident that occurred in West Vancouver on October 21, I instructed

the superintendent of the West Vancouver school district to report to me

outlining the circumstances preceding that incident, including the actions taken

by school district officials and staff. I have now received the report prepared

by superintendent Geoff Jopson. The report is thorough and provides clear

information about the district's procedures and policies. I'd like to thank Mr.

Jopson for the excellent job he did in preparing this report.

The report

includes highly personal information about the students involved. Under the

provincial

[ Page 7878 ]

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the confidentiality of

this information must be protected. There are also ongoing criminal proceedings

and a publication ban that must be respected. As a result, I am advised that the

report cannot be released to the public.

I do,

however, want to speak in general terms about the policies and procedures

followed by the West Vancouver school district and provide the House with the

course of action our government is taking to keep students in schools safe. It

is evident from the report that teachers and administration of West Vancouver

school district work hard to provide an inclusive and welcoming environment for

all of their students. Staff teach appropriate behaviours and involve children's

parents, other agencies and the police, where necessary.

Schools in

the district also have a code of conduct for student and staff, based on the

principles of respect and responsibility. This code was designed by the people

it affects in the school district, and it has been clearly communicated to

parents, students and staff in the district. Unfortunately, the tragic incident

of October 21 is a reminder that behaviour cannot be legislated, and we must

continue to work as a community to improve the safety of every student in every

classroom.

I want to

assure this House that our government is acting to make schools safer places to

learn. Our government is now working with educators, parents and students to

develop new provincial standards of conduct for schools that will help keep

students safe. These school safety standards will clearly outline provincewide

expectations and provide examples of good practices. I expect these standards to

be completed by December 15, if not before.

[1435]

I believe

that students need to be directly involved in helping to design these standards

and resolve issues of violence and harassment in our schools. I will be meeting

with student leaders next week to hear their views on what is needed in the new

school safety standards. Their comments will be considered as I develop the

final standards.

My review

of the report confirms for me the importance of communication between schools

and parents. Parents must be informed in a timely manner of any threat of

violence or violent incident in their child's school, because parents need to be

assured that schools and district staff are managing the situation. That's why I

am instructing that the school safety standards provide a process for informing

parents of a threat of violence or a violent incident.

The report

also makes clear that schools need to work closely with parents on issues of

student safety. The roles and responsibilities for parents and schools must be

clearly defined and communicated. That's why I'm instructing that the new school

safety standards outline a policy and procedure for defining and communicating

the roles and responsibilities of parents and schools.

As well,

effective today, the Ministry of Education will have a new webpage on school

safety available for parents and educators. We've been working with the B.C.

Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils to update and translate their Call

It Safe guides for parents on dealing with violence in our schools. These

publications will help ensure that parents know what to do if their child is the

victim of bullying, intimidation or harassment.

The reality

is that the causes of bullying or violence in society are complex. The solutions

will be no less complex. To ensure safe schools, we must work together as

communities — parents, students, educators, law enforcement officials and

local agencies.

Earlier

this year the safe schools task force, chaired by the member for

Vancouver-Burrard, provided us with the direction we need. The task force

identified specific areas of concern, communicated with parents and staff

regarding those concerns, and came up with recommendations to improve safety for

B.C. students. In September our government responded to the task force report

and took action with our safe, caring and orderly schools strategy. A key

component of that strategy requires all school boards to report annually on

violent incidents and how they were handled at the school.

Parents

need to know that they can entrust their children to our schools and that their

children will be safe there. Any violence in our schools needs to be dealt with

immediately and stopped before it escalates. Many schools and districts already

have excellent policies and practices in place. Our government is acting now to

build on those strengths, to work in partnership with all members of the

education community and to create a system where all students are free from

physical harm.

J. Kwan:

I rise to respond to the ministerial statement. The opposition certainly shares

the concerns that the minister outlined with respect to student safety, and

particularly, we're concerned about safety for all of our community members. As

the members in this House know, the Leader of the Opposition has a son in the

school system, and as a new mother I will soon have a young daughter in the

public school system as well.

The

incidents that have occurred of late are troubling indeed, and they are

troubling for all of us as legislators, as individuals in our community.

Specifically, on the West Vancouver district incident that occurred on October

1…. It is my understanding that irrespective of the minister's request for the

report, the West Vancouver school district and the school would have prepared a

report in any event, as it is their practice currently to do that. They would

have done that, and I have no doubt in my mind and I have every confidence that

they would have done a thorough job of investigating the incident and the issues

surrounding that unfortunate situation — acting, of course, on their own

accord without the minister's direction.

Having said

that, as we well know, the minister just stated that she will be embarking on

the recommendations that arose from her task force — the task force that she

outlined, the government's safe schools task force. She stated that the key

component is to ensure that there are strategies in place which require all

school boards to report annually on violent incidents

[ Page 7879 ]

and how they were handled. For your information, Mr. Speaker, it is also my

understanding that currently schools do report to school districts at school

board meetings all serious incidents regarding violence that take place in

school.

[1440]

I must

caution that it's one thing to collect more data and to collect more

information, but it is another thing for government to actually act on it in a

way that would assist the school system in trying to prevent some of these

situations.

Of course,

one of the most important things that is needed — as teachers will tell you,

as school trustees will tell you, as parents will tell you and as some students

have told us — is adequate resources in the education system. Underfunding in

the education system does not help the situation. Pressures from government —

just recently we were talking about the Minister of Human Resources cutting off

income assistance for people come the next fiscal, including families with

children, where they will lose some financial support, $100 to $200, including

those with single parents — will put more pressure on the family unit and, I

think, create more troubling situations that may well occur in the school

system.

It does not

help when you have a government that put forward an ill-fated pension plan for

the police officers that caused some of the schools to lose their police

liaison. It does not help for the government to fail in their commitment of

providing 75 percent of the traffic fines to municipalities for policing — for

that commitment to not be fulfilled.

It does not

help for the Minister of Children and Family Development to cut funding from his

ministry that provides for preventative measures in our communities for

addressing children and youth at risk and programs that provide for special

needs in our school system, to identify children who are at risk who may

actually run into problems down the road and who might run into issues with

conflict with the law or substance misuse challenges. To cut those kinds of

funding, where effective preventative actions could be taken, does not help the

situation at all.

All in all,

I would urge this minister and this government to look at their budgeting policy

and their programming policy to ensure that there's adequate funding in the

education system to fully assist in trying to prevent violence in the school

system and in our communities.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill Pr409.

Second Reading of Bills

WESTERN PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Penner: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion

approved.

Penner: I'd like to just offer some very brief remarks on second reading.

This bill is very straightforward. It simply amends the title of an existing

statute from

An Act to Incorporate the Western Pentecostal Bible College to the

new name of Summit Pacific College, so it's extremely straightforward.

However, I

have received an inquiry regarding the

preamble to the bill, which refers to a

petition having originated this process. There's nothing untoward about that

process. Petitions are available from the Clerk of the Legislature's office, and

it simply is a process by which individuals who are seeking amendments to

private bills or statutes may seek to initiate the process. In this case, the

act that we are proposing to amend was originally passed in 1967 by this

Legislature. I'm advised that Western Pentecostal Bible College, as it is still

referred to, has been in operation since that time and has made a valuable

contribution to the lives of many people not just in the Fraser Valley or

British Columbia but across Canada.

It is the

intention, I believe, of the people at the college to expand their horizons and

appeal to a broader cross-section of individuals, and that explains their

application for a name change for their institution.

Having made

those brief remarks, I move, by leave, that the bill be referred to a Committee

of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

[1445]

Leave

granted.

Bill

Pr409, Western Pentecostal Bible College Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

WESTERN PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr409; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:46 p.m.

Sections 1

to 6 inclusive approved.

Preamble

approved.

Title

approved.

Penner: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:47 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 7880 ]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill Pr409,

Western Pentecostal Bible College Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 56.

Committee of the Whole House

FLOOD HAZARD STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 56; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:48 p.m.

Brenzinger: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Brenzinger: Today I have 20 educators and administrators from Shanghai

visiting the Legislature. Bruce Hardy of Options, which is a non-profit agency

in Surrey, hosts the Shanghai delegation. Can I ask the House to please welcome

them all.

Debate Continued

On

section

Penner: I have a number of questions on this bill, but my questions are

mostly general in nature. I think it's most appropriate to ask them under

section 1.

This

statute and this amendment will be much celebrated in the part of British

Columbia that I come from. People in Chilliwack-Kent have been asking for some

time to have greater flexibility and to be given greater responsibility, as

well, in terms of making decisions about what height to build various buildings

at — particularly homes and residential dwellings. For too long, there's been

a very prescriptive approach taken, not giving people enough flexibility to make

decisions for themselves.

[1450]

My question

to the minister is: to what extent will individuals now face the legal liability

in the event there is a flood hazard or a flood situation, as opposed to the

province? Will this bill insulate taxpayers generally, or at least go some

distance towards insulating taxpayers, from costs that might be associated with

dwellings that are damaged during flood events if individuals choose to build

their homes at less than the recommended flood-level height?

Hon. J.

Murray: Owners who develop buildings that are below the guidelines

established will accept liability accordingly.

Penner: That's certainly a philosophy that I support — one of giving

people the information they can use to make informed decisions, but then at the

end of the day having individuals be responsible for their own decisions and not

necessarily turn to taxpayers for compensation as a result of decisions they may

have made that have resulted in difficulty.

However, I

do believe that it makes more sense, rather than elevating buildings on the

valley floor, to put our resources behind improving protection along various

watercourses — whether it be the Fraser River, Chilliwack River or various

creeks throughout British Columbia — so that we reduce the bed of the river as

opposed to raising up the dikes on the side of the river or increasing the

height of various buildings. The cost to society generally of elevating every

single structure to what may now be deemed a safe height in terms of flood is

extremely expensive and is prohibitive.

The member

for Chilliwack-Sumas will be very familiar with this, because he and I have both

been concerned in the past about increased costs to changes at the University

College of the Fraser Valley in Chilliwack, for example, as a result of the

previous government's very prescriptive, heavy-handed approach to floodplain

regulations. In fact, it made that project so much more expensive that it did

not proceed for a long period of time, and our government now is finally making

that project move forward.

question, then, to the minister. I note that

section 1 deals with dike

maintenance and the like. Will her ministry continue to have responsibility for

dike maintenance once this legislation is enacted?

Hon. J.

Murray: Under this amendment the inspector of dikes will still be there to

provide expertise and set standards for the maintenance and protection of the

important dike infrastructure in the province.

Penner: The minister will be well familiar that other MLAs and I and other

municipal leaders, in fact, throughout the Fraser Valley have been very upset at

what we see as foot-dragging on the part of the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans when it comes to approving gravel removal in significant quantities from

the Fraser River and other watercourses.

The recent

flood event we had in Pemberton, and to a lesser extent in the Fraser Valley,

demonstrates to all of us very clearly what the risk is that we face if we do

not adequately manage the wild watercourse that we have through the Fraser

Valley. Doing nothing is not an option, and, frankly, I don't think building the

dikes higher is an option. Furthermore, I sincerely doubt the viability, from a

financial perspective, of elevating every single structure up as much as five,

six, seven, eight metres off the ground. Rather, it makes greater sense to get

back into that river on a regular basis in an environmentally responsible way to

extract gravel during times when the water level is low.

[1455]

Dike

maintenance is clearly one important aspect here, but so is regular maintenance

of that watercourse,

[ Page 7881 ]

whether it's the Fraser River or other bodies of water. We've recently, as I

said, had a serious situation with heavy rains. For example, some houses were

very nearly displaced and destroyed as a result of the failure of an

unmaintained dike in an area near Wilson Road in the Chilliwack River valley. If

not for the quick action of the provincial emergency program — and, I'm told,

the expenditure of perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars — with crews

working around the clock, homes and property would have been lost, and more

property would have been lost than already was. As it is, I believe an acre of

land or more was washed out to sea during that event, just in a few days.

Now that

work has been done and that dike, even if it's not high enough — and certainly

it isn't high enough in that area to my liking…. I think it's imperative that

proper maintenance continue, lest we as taxpayers lose that initial investment

that's been made over the last two weeks and that riprap and other rock work

that's been put in place get undermined and washed out.

I note that

the dike that failed a few weeks ago was initially put in place following a

similar flood event in around 1990 but had apparently not been maintained

adequately, if at all, since that time. The result is that taxpayers have now

lost that initial investment made in 1990. At least an acre of property has been

washed out to sea, and we very nearly lost some homes and other small cabins and

dwellings in the vicinity.

I'm looking

for some indication from the minister: what is the scenario contemplated under

this legislation for maintaining the dikes we have and improving those that

still need some improvement in order to ensure safety in various parts of

British Columbia?

Hon. J.

Murray: Under the Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, the Ministry of

Water, Land and Air Protection will be working with the smaller diking districts

and with the larger, more well-resourced diking districts to help negotiate the

transfer of the dikes that are under the authority of the smaller diking

districts, which sometimes don't have the resources to maintain them to an

acceptable level. Those dikes then create a vulnerability that is the weak link

in the chain for a larger diking district. In many cases, it is in the interests

of that authority that is more well-resourced to accept responsibility for the

dikes belonging to smaller diking districts. This will be done on a voluntary

basis, however, when the authority sees it's in their interest to do so. Water,

Land and Air Protection will facilitate those transfers over the coming seven

years.

With

respect to orphaned dikes — those are dikes that are not under the

responsibility and authority of a diking district — the ministry will continue

to maintain responsibility for those. There are 50 at present. Through our

policy internally, we'll develop plans for managing those on a risk priority

basis. We will no longer be adding orphaned dikes to that inventory. Those are

dikes that are typically built at a time of emergency and then are not the

responsibility of an existing diking authority. We will not have more orphaned

dikes. We will continue to manage and be responsible for those that exist today.

Section 1

approved.

On

section

[1500]

MacPhail: This bill, as I understand it, the Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment

Act, 2003, is about moving from the provincial government enforcing standards

when it comes to the building and maintenance of dikes to now prescribing

guidelines that the diking authority is to follow.

questions will flow from the most recent experience our province has gone

through, the terribly difficult and challenging times our province has gone

through as we saw just recently. We saw this summer, with interface fires and

then just a couple of weeks ago with the flooding through several parts of the

province, that when disaster strikes, the provincial government steps in to help

those whose homes and property have been destroyed.

Can the

minister tell us if this bill changes the liability of the province when it

comes to protecting property from flooding?

Hon. J.

Murray: Under the provincial emergency program, the assistance the member

was referring to is brought forth in a time of emergency. There is no change to

that under this act.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. Could the minister just repeat that very

last part of her answer?

Hon. J.

Murray: The member was referring to government stepping in at a time of

emergency to assist. That takes place under the provincial emergency program.

There's no change to that under these amendments. Water, Land and Air Protection

did continue to provide expertise during the recent flood events, as they have

in the past.

MacPhail: It will be yes or no. Is the minister saying that this bill does

not change liability of the province when it comes to protecting property from

flooding? There's no change in the liability of the province?

Hon. J.

Murray: If approving officers live up to the provincial guidelines that are

established by the province, then there is no change in liability.

MacPhail: At what level will the guidelines for dikes be set?

Hon. J.

Murray: We have standards with respect to dikes. Those standards are set at

the 100- and 200-year flood level. That is not changed. We are not changing

those dike standards under this amendment to guidelines.

[ Page 7882 ]

MacPhail: Even though it's a guideline, it is a standard that's required to

be met?

Hon. J.

Murray: That's correct. With respect to dikes they're enforceable standards,

and they continue to be enforceable standards. With respect to floodplain levels

we are moving from standards to guidelines.

MacPhail: That was going to be my next question. Will the municipalities/diking

authorities be able to set different levels in different parts of the

floodplain?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, they can. Municipalities can adopt bylaws that are not

consistent with the 200-year guidelines if they choose to because of reasons of

protection from flooding that they consider to be adequate.

MacPhail: What criteria will be used to assess the different standards?

[1505]

Hon. J.

Murray: Under this amendment the province will establish guidelines that are

based on the 200-year flood level. The municipality will then have the

flexibility to adopt that level or another level as they deem fit, and that will

not require the approval of the province.

MacPhail: Do all communities in a floodplain have bylaws and/or development

regulations prescribing what can be built on a floodplain and how it can be

built?

Hon. J.

Murray: Some communities have bylaws; some don't. They all have the power,

under their approving authority for development, to approve or not approve

development.

MacPhail: I'm told that about 75 percent have flood protection works and

land use planning policies. The change here is that it will now be these

municipalities who will be setting the standards or determining how the

guidelines are applied. There's no fallback. It's the municipalities, the diking

authorities or no one. It becomes far more important that the municipalities/diking

authorities have flood protection and land use planning policies. What plans

does the ministry have to work with local governments to ensure that they do

have such bylaws or requirements?

Hon. J.

Murray: When we went out to consult on this, the proposed changes to our

flood hazard statutes, we heard loud and clear from municipalities and local and

regional government that they wanted the power to make decisions regarding land

use in their areas. For rural areas that are not covered by a municipal or local

government, the Ministry of Transportation has the authority to approve or not

approve developments that might be subject to flood.

MacPhail: How will the land use regulations by the local governments be

monitored or enforced?

Hon. J.

Murray: That will be up to local government.

MacPhail: Does Bill 75, Significant Projects Streamlining Act, override this

act?

Hon. J.

Murray: I'm not sure it has any bearing on this act, but I'd invite the

member to ask questions about another act when it is coming up for debate.

MacPhail: I would expect that if somebody's trying to develop on a

floodplain and they apply to have their development super-speeded through under

the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, it will have a bearing on which act

applies. With this government now saying it's up to the cities to set the

guidelines for land use around floodplains, I would expect it applies, and I'm

surprised the minister doesn't know the ranking of it.

How can the

minister assure us that this legislation doesn't put local governments at the

mercy of developers who are willing to risk a flood, knowing that it will be the

homeowner who is liable for any damage caused by the flood and not the developer

or the city? What reassurances does she have for the public against that

nightmare scenario?

[1510]

Hon. J.

Murray: The municipality or a regional government will have the ability to

approve or not approve a subdivision, so they do have that authority. They will

also have the authority to require the developer to put a covenant on title,

which is a form of buyer beware, so that a buyer is knowingly purchasing a

property that may not be consistent with a 200-year floodplain level guideline

as established by the province. The local government will have that approval

power whether or not they have a bylaw.

MacPhail: Recently I've heard a lot of government caucus members who

represent residents in the Fraser Valley talking about being very vocal in

demanding that gravel be removed from the Fraser River. They have articulated

that as a way to reduce the risk of a breach of the dike. They have been very

specific in blaming the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for standing in the

way of gravel extraction because of their concern for fish habitat. On that

basis, has the minister seen any analysis of the impact that gravel removal will

have on the flow of the Fraser and on fish habitat?

Hon. J.

Murray: Both from the hydrological perspective and the fish habitat

perspective, Water, Land and Air Protection continues to be involved in

multi-partner initiatives with respect to gravel removal from the Fraser River

so that we can extract gravel to reduce flood risks but also do it in an

environmentally safe way.

MacPhail: I just wondered, because the government caucus members were very

clear and asserted very emphatically that it was the fault of the DFO. There was

a statement in the House here. There was a

[ Page 7883 ]

statement saying that the DFO was standing in the way of gravel extraction

because of DFO's concern for fish habitat, so I assumed the government had given

some analysis to those government caucus members so that they could reach that

conclusion. Is it the minister's view, then, that gravel removal is an effective

flood deterrent?

Hon. J.

Murray: My ministry's position is that we are in support of gravel removal

in order to reduce those flood risks and that it needs to be done in a way that

respects fish habitat.

MacPhail: That's possible, is it?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, it is.

MacPhail: Where could the public turn to ensure that, as the minister

asserts?

Hon. J.

Murray: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has studies. I presume the

Fraser Basin Council, which is an organization that has been grappling with this

issue with many partners over the last while and is developing a longer-term

strategy…. My ministry has studies with respect to gravel removal and fish

habitat protection. If the member opposite would like me to get my hands on some

of those studies and forward them to her, I'd be quite willing to do that.

[1515]

MacPhail: Yes. Thank you very much for the offer. I'd very much appreciate

that.

It's

interesting that the minister notes the Fraser Basin Council, because I read an

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

article he states: "Let's not delude ourselves. The mighty Fraser will

flood again like it did in 1948 and in 1894. It's not a question of if such a

flood will occur but, rather, when." My question on that is: what actions

are the minister and the government taking to address this natural occurrence

and to protect the lives and property of those who live in the Fraser Valley?

What is the work that's being done?

Hon. J.

Murray: My ministry supports the removal of gravel from the Fraser River, as

I mentioned, in an environmentally sensitive way, and that is one tool for

prevention. The ministry does have regulatory authority over diking

infrastructure with an inspector of dikes who has expertise and authority. We

have developed flood mapping tools, and the provincial government made a

one-time $1 million grant for the purpose of developing various tools for the

municipalities to utilize in their planning to prevent and make decisions around

flood hazard. The ministry continues to be involved in flood response, as I

mentioned earlier, with this fall's flooding.

MacPhail: Actually, Mr. Reid, chair of the Fraser Basin Council, calls on

governments at all levels to work cooperatively and invest an additional $10

million annually in preventative measures. Will we be seeing this provincial

government take up that challenge and invest even more? He made this comment

after the $1 million contribution. Will they be investing even more money in

flood prevention?

Hon. J.

Murray: The province, over the last six years, has invested approximately

$15 million in flood prevention works. I would welcome any assistance from the

member opposite in encouraging the federal government to match or bring forward

funds for flood prevention works.

Hawes: Just following along on the same line of questioning as the Leader of

the Opposition, I wonder if the minister is aware — and I think she is —

that the provincial manager of PEP has said the recent floods were caused by

rain, but they came much quicker and were much more severe because of the

silted-in nature of the creeks and streams throughout the Fraser Valley and in

the Pemberton area. Is the minister aware of that statement by the provincial

manager of PEP?

Hon. J.

Murray: I'm not aware of that specific statement, but common sense would say

that when streams and rivers are silted in, there will be a change in the

hydrology, and it will worsen the flood.

[1520]

Hawes: The studies that the Fraser Valley regional district have done over

the last number of years — and a lot of money has been spent on them — would

indicate that taking sand and gravel out of the river does mitigate a flood

possibility. Has the minister seen those studies, and are you aware that they

exist at the Fraser Valley regional district?

Hon. J.

Murray: We are aware of those studies. We have the view that extraction of

materials from the rivers is an appropriate activity to prevent or reduce the

risk of floods. We continue to work with partners on those issues, and the lead

on those issues is in another ministry — Land and Water B.C., I believe.

Hawes: Just to follow a bit further along the path that the Leader of the

Opposition was going on. Is the minister aware that highways officials are of

the opinion that the changes that have been made — stopping them from doing

normal ditching, which is essential for maintaining highways — have placed a

huge new cost upon them that has not been budgeted for and may have some severe

impacts on their ability to maintain highways. They may have to cut back what

they're maintaining if they can't get at these ditches and clean them, which is

the same thing. It's a flooding…. It's a question of getting the silt and the

gravel buildup out of the ditches so that highways don't flood out. Is the

minister aware of the problems in that area?

Hon. J.

Murray: My ministry works in partnership with the Ministry of Transportation

and other ministries

[ Page 7884 ]

on these issues, including drainage issues. We're working on developing a

memorandum of understanding between Water, Land and Air Protection and the

Ministry of Transportation. If that's an issue that's deemed to require specific

attention in the MOU, it will be in it.

Hawes: I want to get it on the record that I'm not sure where the Leader of

the Opposition's questions were going, but it would seem to me that there's a

very clear linkage between flooding dangers — from the Ministry of

Transportation's perspective and from the householder perspective and the Fraser

Basin Council's perspective…. There's a clear correlation between flooding

danger and risk of flooding and the buildup of silt and gravel in creeks,

streams and our major rivers. I'm sure that's clearly documented, and I'm sure

the minister would agree with that.

I guess

that's the last question I have on this section.

Hon. J.

Murray: We certainly will continue to work on these issues in cooperation

with the other ministries to address buildup of silt and gravel. We have a

responsibility to, as far as possible, prevent flood risks and hazards.

Sections 2

to 15 inclusive approved.

section

J. Les:

First of all, in the way of preliminary remarks, just let me say that I'm very

pleased that this legislation is in the House. Other members of the government

and I have spent considerable time bringing this change about in conjunction

with the minister. The previous method of dealing with these assumed risks was

very prescriptive and anticipated a combination of absolute worst-case

scenarios.

The Leader

of the Opposition referred to flooding that occurred in 1894. It would be wise

to keep in mind that in 1894, there were no dikes anywhere in the Fraser Valley

and certainly not in the part of the world that I represent. In 1948 there was a

flood…

An Hon.

Member: What was it like back then?

J. Les:

In 1894? I'm not sure what it was like back then, but it was a different world

than the one we enjoy today.

[1525]

In 1948

there was a flood in parts of the Fraser Valley, but again we should all keep in

mind that the dikes that were available then were vastly inferior to the diking

infrastructure that exists today.

For my

mind, what we need to do is ensure that we maintain the dikes, as is in fact the

case and as happens from year to year. I think the municipalities in and around

the Fraser Valley in particular do a very good job of maintaining the dikes that

we have. It is very good infrastructure.

In my view,

we are failing to ensure that the streams, rivers and waterways are properly

maintained. With about 350,000 tonnes of gravel a year washing into what is

called the Chilliwack reach of the Fraser River, clearly if that gravel is not

removed in a systematic and responsible way, then eventually, some years down

the road, we are going to have the river full of gravel from dike top to dike

top. Simply to advocate the raising of dikes to keep pace with that, I think, is

foolish, silly and irresponsible.

So with

that little

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

legislation, I wonder, under

section 16, if I could perhaps ask the minister to

outline what the effect of that particular

section is.

Hon. J.

Murray: The impact of this

section is that guidelines will be available to

local government. These guidelines will be developed by the provincial

government, but it will not be mandatory to follow them. Local government can

make their own determination for areas in their floodplains.

J. Les: Just

to be even more clear then, municipalities — if they have the appropriate

subdivision regulations in place — will be able to utilize those as they did

previously, prior to the mid-nineties, and the provincial government will no

longer be in the business of approving construction and/or subdivision?

Hon. J.

Murray: That's correct.

Section

16 approved.

section

J. Les:

Under

section 17 there is reference to covenants that can be required at the

subdivision stage. I wonder, for clarification, if the minister could advise if

those covenants at that point in time could be written in such a way that there

would be no further covenants required at the time of construction.

Hon. J.

Murray: There will be no requirement by the provincial government for

further covenants. However, local government can ask for them if they desire.

Hawes: Perhaps the minister could also explain if a local government, once

they've set the floodplain level, wanted to allow someone to build a home with

the bottom floor lower than that floodplain level but put a covenant on the

property…. Is that at all possible, or must the bottom floor be above that

municipally established floodplain level?

Hon. J.

Murray: As they'll have the power to make those bylaws, they'll have the

power to alter them to enable the situation that the member has described to

take place.

Hawes: So would they be required to alter their bylaw, or would this be the

kind of a situation where they could grant a variance if there were an…? Would

someone have to make an application for a variance to

[ Page 7885 ]

the bylaw, or would they have to change the entire bylaw?

Hon. J.

Murray: If the local government has a bylaw and they want to have a

condition that would not meet that bylaw, they would then change the bylaw.

Sections 17

and 18 approved.

section

[1530]

J. Les:

Can the minister confirm that floodplain designation by a municipality will be

voluntary? In other words, will a municipality simply be able to invoke the

provincial guidelines? On the other hand, if they wanted to set a different

level…. Let's say that a municipality wanted to set their flood construction

level at ground level. Would that be a voluntary decision? I guess what I'm

trying to get at is: what latitude does a municipality have?

The

Chair: Minister, I think what we probably should do is do the amendment

first. Let's do the amendment first, because that may impact some of the

questioning here.

Hon. J.

Murray: Mr. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 19 standing in my name on

the orders of the day.

[SECTION 19, in the proposed

section 910 of the Local

Government Act,

(

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

(2) If land is

designated as a flood plain under subsection (1), the local government may, by

bylaw, specify

(

a) the flood level for the floodplain, or different flood levels for

different areas of the flood plain, and

(

b) the setback from a watercourse, body of water or dike of any landfill or

structural support required to elevate a floor system or pad above the flood

level, which setback may be different for different areas of the floodplain

and for different flood levels. , and

(

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

(4) If a bylaw

under subsection (2) applies,

(

a) the underside of any floor system, or the top of any pad supporting any

space or room, including a manufactured home, that is used for

(

i) dwelling purposes,

(ii) business, or

(iii) the storage of goods which are susceptible to damage by floodwater

must be above the applicable flood level specified by the bylaw, and

(

b) any landfill required to support a floor system or pad must not extend

within any applicable setback specified by the bylaw.]

Amendment

approved.

section

19 as amended.

J. Les:

Well, I'd still put the question to the minister. Perhaps with the amendment in

place…. I think the clarification on the record by the minister would still be

helpful.

Hon. J.

Murray: The answer to the member's question before the amendment was noted.

Yes, floodplain designation by municipal government will be voluntary.

J. Les:

Sometimes it's helpful to use specific examples. The minister will be aware of

an elderly lady in my riding by the name of Annie Krahn, who has written to the

member previously. Mrs. Krahn owns a residential lot in the community of

Greendale. For those who remember the flood of 1948, Greendale was, of course,

under water in that flood. There is a substantial community in Greendale, and

Mrs. Krahn owns a lot and has owned a lot on Underhill Drive in Greendale for a

long, long time. She now wishes to build her retirement home there.

For medical

and other reasons, she cannot easily live in a home that has a lot of stairs, so

she wants to build that home at ground level, which is the same elevation the

other homes are at in that particular subdivision. If the city of Chilliwack

wished to accept a covenant holding the city of Chilliwack harmless from Mrs.

Krahn, would that be an option that would be available to them under this

legislation?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes. By amending the bylaw, the city can authorize the situation

that the member has described.

J. Les:

If the city were to maintain its official flood construction level at current

levels, let's say, which is probably — in Mrs. Krahn's case — a dozen or so

feet above ground level, would they be able to enact a policy whereby they would

still, in spite of the bylaw, be able to accept a covenant to shed the liability

in terms of the city so that it would in fact rest with the homeowner?

Hon. J.

Murray: The answer is yes. If the building inspector or approving officer

approves the circumstance, then the municipality can enter into a covenant with

the homeowner and approve that.

Section 19

as amended approved.

Sections

20 to 22 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. J.

Murray: Mr. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 23 standing in my name on

the orders of the day.

[SECTION 23, by deleting

section 23 and substituting the

following:

Commencement

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

Amendment

approved.

[ Page 7886 ]

Section 23

as amended approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. J.

Murray: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:35 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 56,

Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. J.

Murray: By leave, now.

Leave

granted.

Bill 56,

Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I would like to call second reading of Bill 75. Mr. Speaker, if I

may call for a very brief recess.

Mr.

Speaker: Right. Second reading of Bill 75. We will just pause for a few

moments.

Second Reading of Bills

SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS

STREAMLINING ACT

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

As I

explained during first reading, Bill 75 will ensure that the review and approval

process for projects seen to be important to the economic, social or

environmental well-being of British Columbia proceed in a timely manner.

The

Significant Projects Streamlining Act will provide potential investors, local

governments and the province with a more effective framework to deal with the

complex decision-making processes that surround projects of significant

provincial importance. The Significant Projects Streamlining Act will create a

competitive climate for business and investment here in British Columbia. It

will reduce red tape and regulation and streamline processes for both government

and business.

Bill 75

demonstrates this government's commitment to an effective framework for

facilitating major investment in our province. The Significant Projects

Streamlining Act allows cabinet, by a designation, to assign special status to

projects deemed to be significant and that will positively benefit the economic,

environmental and social well-being of British Columbia.

[1540]

There have

long been concerns from investors and governments about the lack of timeliness

in obtaining project review decisions here in British Columbia. Delayed project

approval decisions are often caused by conflicting requirements from multiple

ministries and local approval authorities. Long project review processes reduce

the viability of projects, resulting in lost investments and job opportunities

throughout British Columbia. I have personally heard from mayors across B.C.,

particularly in the heartlands, who have literally witnessed investments that

would have created local jobs and opportunities pack up and move across the

border due to approval delays in British Columbia.

As well,

the Significant Projects Streamlining Act improves the viability of

public-private partnerships, or P3s, as a means to deliver services or build

infrastructure. It sends a clear signal to potential P3 investors that British

Columbia will not allow stranded capital to be a feature of important investment

in transportation infrastructure or manufacturing projects.

Designation

under this act will ensure that project reviews are addressed within reasonable

time frames and that all parties involved can recognize and address potential

constraints in a way that is both positive and cooperative. The Significant

Projects Streamlining Act creates a framework that encourages project proponents

and all levels of government to place a discipline on themselves to work

together to head off problems before they arise.

The act

does not change provincial or federal environmental health or safety standards

associated with the development or operation of a project. Let me emphasize

again that we are not changing provincial or federal health or safety standards.

I want this to be quite clear to everyone, particularly the members of the

opposition.

I also want

to be very clear that the act will have no effect on aboriginal rights and

title. The province fully respects all existing and future obligations we have

that apply to our relations with first nations. In fact, this act will provide

timely approvals and support that works in the interests of potential first

nations economic development projects.

The key

elements of the Significant Projects Streamlining Act are quite straightforward.

If a minister believes a project is provincially significant and is or may be

subject to inefficient or prolonged process, the minister may recommend to

cabinet that the project be designated. Once a project is designated, approval

authorities will be required to take all reasonable actions to move through the

complex decision-making process faster and more efficiently. For example,

instead of a project going through ministerial approvals in a consecutive manner

from one ministry

[ Page 7887 ]

to the next, ministries could review the project simultaneously, greatly

reducing the approvals process time frame.

If the

project receives the required approvals to proceed, then all reasonable actions

must be taken to move the project to completion and intended operations of the

project in a timely manner. This is only reasonable. Projects that receive the

green light should not be subject to further delays or the imposition of other

new requirements.

The

legislation emphasizes cooperative efforts as the best way to resolve problems.

If, for example, a proponent feels the approval authority is not working to

expedite a review decision, the proponent would need to try to resolve the

matter with the approval authority. A facilitator may be appointed to assist in

the deliberations. If the two parties are not able to resolve the matter, the

responsible minister could intervene. If after examining all the facts, the

responsible minister is convinced that the approval authority is being

unreasonable, that minister would be authorized to make orders within the scope

determined by cabinet to expedite the process.

I should

emphasize that designated status does not provide a project with certainty of

outcome. This is not the intent of the legislation. If for good reason a

decision is made that a project should not proceed, then it is better to advise

the proponent of this decision sooner rather than later. We've always said in

this government that a business person would rather have a "no" in 30

days than an "I don't know" in 30 months.

[1545]

This

legislation is consistent with government direction to reduce red tape and the

regulatory burden for British Columbia businesses and follows through on the

commitment to create a strong and vibrant provincial economy. It also recognizes

the reality of today's capital markets. Investment capital has many choices when

major investors knock on British Columbia's door. We get only one chance to roll

out the red carpet instead of rolling out the red tape.

Without

this legislation, local governments, project proponents and the province will

continue to face inefficient and unacceptable delays in review and

decision-making processes and the uncertainty this creates. Bill 75 ensures that

project reviews and related activities for significant projects are carried out

in an expedited manner and respect the autonomy of local governments by creating

an innovative framework for dialogue and cooperation on projects that are in the

best interests of all British Columbians.

The

Significant Projects Streamlining Act plays a strong role in the government's

commitment to creating a strong and vibrant provincial economy. Bill 75 provides

evidence that this government is committed to creating an economic environment

that encourages both investment and job creation for residents. Passage of the

Significant Projects Streamlining Act will simplify the relationship between

business and government. The initiative will create a competitive climate for

business and investment in the province and is an important part of our

government's continuing effort to create a strong and vibrant provincial

economy.

I am

pleased to move second reading.

MacPhail: Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. It's

interesting to watch this minister assert things that he simply hopes people

will believe, saying: "Oh, this bill doesn't affect environmental

standards. It doesn't affect first nations." We know the value of the word

of this government on its commitment to environmental standards and first

nations. Because this minister asserts that this legislation doesn't affect any

of those rights, one can pretty much predict that the bill does affect those

rights. In fact, Bill 75 is yet another example of this government sidestepping

its obligation to provide fair and responsible governance in favour of honouring

commitments to its corporate donors.

I almost

don't know where to begin on this legislation. This legislation is extremely

far-reaching. However, it lacks any fundamental

definitions and information that

would inform the public about how the new legislation is going to be used. It is

extremely vague. As a result, I will have many questions at committee debate.

However, I also don't anticipate getting any answers, which is typical of this

government.

In the

short time I have had to examine the bill, I have come across some very

troubling aspects. I want to go over those today so the minister will be fully

prepared — 100 percent prepared — to answer every single question during

committee stage. First off, let me quote from the explanatory text for Bill 75.

I'm sure the explanatory text is written by the public affairs bureau, the Pravda

of this government, because it really is all about spin. But this one let some

information slip through.

"This

Bill provides for projects that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers are

provincially significant projects to be expedited by requiring that any

decisions that must be made in relation to the project are to be made

expeditiously, and, if the project is to proceed, by allowing for any enactments

or processes that might impede the prompt completion of the project to be

overcome through negotiation or minister's order and replaced with alternative

measures that are more in keeping with the expeditious completion of the

project."

Nothing

about other pieces of legislation prevailing. No. It says "minister's

order." Some kind of banana republic we're in here. The key piece to this

bill is that the ministers will have the power to remove a project from any and

all approval processes that the minister and the proponent feel "may be a

constraint." On top of that, it only has to be a perceived or anticipated

constraint. It doesn't even have to be a reality.

[1550]

What could

this possibly be referring to? We don't know. We don't know for sure, because

the legislation doesn't say. However, I'm pretty sure I know where this

government wants to go on this: the Olympics for sure and the RAV line for sure.

What else?

I do

understand the need to ensure that projects associated with the Olympics are

kept on schedule, but

[ Page 7888 ]

this act is not in any way limited to the Olympics. The intent of this

legislation is not defined anywhere. This minister can stand up and assert

whatever he likes, but his legislation doesn't back him up. The power in this

legislation is not limited in any way. This legislation gives free range to

cabinet, to the Premier, on any project. The Minister of State for Deregulation

has gone on the radio and said…. He said it again today, and he shook his

finger at the opposition, saying that this bill is not about compromising

environmental standards. Well, I say to the minister: prove it. There is nothing

in this legislation that dictates what processes cabinet can override and what

processes it cannot. There is nothing in this legislation that limits those

extraordinary powers.

Well, let's

see whether I'm just fearmongering. No. This

interpretation of Bill 75 is shared

by pretty much everyone who's commented on it to date. In his column on Tuesday,

Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun wrote: "Once the cabinet makes

the designation, it can, by the stroke of a pen, eliminate any and all

constraints to the approval process — regulations, procedures and timetables

included." The British Columbia and Yukon Territory Building and

Construction Trades Council press release from November 4 says: "This new

legislation that proposes to fast-track major construction projects will be a

disaster for taxpayers." The executive director, Wayne Peppard, whose

members will be responsible for building these projects, went on to say that

this legislation is an insult to local authorities. Paul Willcocks, a columnist

here, in yesterday's Kelowna Daily Courier argued that Bill 75 could

"easily be called the 'making the Premier king act.'"

Isn't it

curious? The day Bill 75 was introduced also happened to be the day a new deputy

minister of special projects was appointed to the Premier's office. Now, how

many deputy ministers does that Premier need? He's set a record for deputy

ministers. We know that this new deputy minister for special projects will be

working full time in using the new powers granted the Premier under Bill 75.

Full time she'll be working on it. We know for sure that all of this

streamlining will be by direct order from the Premier to his new — what? —

tenth, eleventh or twelfth deputy minister, the deputy minister of special

projects.

Well, it

will be interesting to see what these Liberal government caucus members say

about saying be damned to proper public oversight of special projects. I have

admitted in the most recent Public Accounts that there were lessons to be

learned from the fast ferries project and the fact that it was directed out of

the Premier's office. I went on the record and said that. I called for the

auditor general to apply the same recommendations we learned out of that lesson

to the RAV line.

[1555]

You should

have seen the government caucus members fight that one. They said: "Oh my

God. How dare you demand that we apply the recommendations the auditor general

learned from the fast ferries project to the RAV line?" One government

caucus member stood up and said: "We don't even know the provincial

involvement in the RAV line. We don't even know if there is any provincial

involvement in the RAV line." I guess they were just waiting for this

legislation. I guess these government caucus members were just waiting for this

legislation to be rammed through, where no one can examine a special project.

Well, they

got their wish today. Hurrah. Not only have they not learned one lesson from the

fast ferries project; they're willing to repeat it ad nauseam by legislation.

That is exactly what this legislation is about. I should have known the

government caucus members had something up their sleeve when they were making

themselves look silly by not wanting the auditor general to examine the RAV line

according to what we learned from other megaprojects. Well, now I know. They did

have something up their sleeve. It's called Bill 75.

Let's

return to the minister of state's claim that he just made about the bill not

weakening environmental standards. In order to grant their new-era promise for

"certainty of access," this government has gone to great lengths to

reduce all kinds of processes designed to protect the public interest. They

gutted the Environmental Assessment Act. They gave the Minister of Sustainable

Resource Management the unilateral authority to determine what constitutes a

reviewable project. They also gutted the Agricultural Land Commission, and they

gave the Minister of Agriculture unilateral authority over defining what is a

non-farm use and what can be removed from the agricultural land reserve. Then

the government gave themselves unilateral control over the siting of fish farms,

even if local government doesn't want them.

Bill 75 is

just an extension of that. They can now unilaterally do whatever they want. Of

course this is about environmental standards, and it's about controlling local

governments. This is an unbelievably arrogant approach on behalf of a desperate

government who will now do anything to make up for their failed economic

policies to attract back that disappearing, escaping private sector investment

that is falling every year under their regime.

On top of

all this, the Liberal government has removed the right of the public to be

involved at every step of the way. They got rid of the project committees in the

environmental assessment process, and they've refused to legislate any public

consultation in their forestry changes. Every time this Liberal government

reworks processes around natural resource use, the public loses — every time.

Bill 75 is no different. It allows development-driven ministers to decide when a

major project can skip through the approval processes and brush over public

consultation requirements. These decisions will be made behind closed doors, and

the public will be shut out.

Here's an

interesting one. I wonder whether any government caucus members know this.

Freedom-of-information laws do not apply to this legislation.

Freedom-of-information laws do not apply to the Significant Projects

Streamlining Act. Oh, isn't this an open and accountable government? Fast

ferries are beyond

[ Page 7889 ]

the imagination now, with this legislation. Every megaproject is going to be

rammed through by a deputy minister of special projects working right beside the

Premier, and no one's going to know what they're doing because the

freedom-of-information laws don't apply. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money

will now be exempt from freedom of information.

Open and

accountable? You tell me what's open and accountable about this government. Of

course the government didn't announce, when they introduced this legislation,

that this law would be exempt from freedom of information. I wonder why they

didn't do that. I wonder why they kept that little secret from the public. As a

result, the public will have no way to get information about the government's

actions on fast-tracking megaprojects. It's another step in this government's

quest to become the least open and accountable government in British Columbia's

history. Despite backbench blustering to the contrary, open cabinet does not

count, and any of the Liberal members who actually believe it is not a scripted

attempt at reality television are fooling themselves.

[1600]

I want to

move to one of the biggest dangers of this bill, and that's blundering cabinet

ministers. Under Bill 75, project proponents who "may be impeded by a

constraint" can now ask a minister to allow the project to skip over that

perceived constraint. The bill mysteriously fails to identify the types of

constraints, but one can imagine that anything done by the Ministry of Water,

Land and Air Protection is high on that list of a perceived constraint.

Some poor

Liberal donor who wants their project rammed through can now go to the minister

and say: "Oh, that Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is concerned

about the environment. Can you just ram my project through?" And he'll now

have — the Premier — the secret ability to say: "Aye, aye, sir.

Done." The public won't have a clue as to what went on. They won't be able

to turn to the legislation and have what a constraint is defined.

Let's just

look at one example where a project proponent might see a constraint. It's a

real example. I know the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries will be

very familiar with the tale I'm about to tell. During the last spring session

the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries was forced to step down when it

was revealed that he tipped off Stolt Sea Farm about an investigation into their

aquaculture practices. It was at this point that the public learned just how

cozy the Liberals and the aquaculture industry were and still are.

When the

story broke, many details, letters and e-mails rose to the surface under freedom

of information, outlining just how messy the whole situation was. One of these

documents was a letter to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, the

Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and the Minister of Agriculture,

Food and Fisheries. The letter was from Dale Blackburn, vice-president of Stolt

Sea Farm, who was concerned about the government's actions. Here's an example of

what he wrote in his letter: "In addition, the recent meeting our industry

had with yourself" — meaning the Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection — "and your colleagues" — the Minister of Sustainable

Resource Management and the Minister of Fisheries — "buoyed myself and

other salmon farmers, as the tone of the meeting indicated a strong willingness

on everyone's part to repair and rebuild troubled relationships."

The letter

continued: "Instead of working with us, I see these recommendations to lay

charges as just one more effort to discredit B.C.'s salmon farming industry and

our operations here in Campbell River." Furthermore, the letter said:

"I am requesting that the recommendation to lay charges against Stolt Sea

Farm be dropped. At the same time, I would like to suggest that your staff be

asked to work with us rather than against us."

What

happened? The investigation was compromised by a bungling cabinet minister. The

fish farm company got their way. The public lost, and Stolt Sea Farm is now able

to do what it likes.

Now it's

going to be even easier for ministers to sidestep the public interest. They

don't need secret meetings. They don't need phone conversations to disrupt

proceedings. They can just fall back on Bill 75. Next time Mr. Blackburn feels

like the government is working against Stolt Sea Farm because of those silly

environmental reviews and assessments, he can just ask the minister to declare

his actions significant, and all the approval processes and regulations can be

swept away and replaced by a process of the minister's choosing. Despite what

the Minister of State for Deregulation says, there is nothing in this

legislation to prevent that from happening.

[1605]

Who needs

to do an investigation? Stolt is our friend. They can do no wrong. Besides, they

gave us big money. Who cares about escapes, disease and waste? This bill gives

cabinet the ability to override the regulations that protect our natural

environment, despite the minister trying to say it doesn't. Whether they would

ever use it in fish farms, we don't know, because Bill 48, which was passed just

a couple of weeks ago — the right to locate fish farms in spite of local

government — sure indicates that this government is willing to override any

regulations. It sure indicates that the location of fish farms is a high

priority, despite environmental regulations, despite local government

regulations. If Bill 48, the right-to-farm amendments to allow aquaculture

sitings to override local governments, doesn't work, then the fish farms can

turn to Bill 75 and complain about those constraints of local government.

This is

absolutely astonishing. To give these ministers such power is irresponsible and

reckless. We've already seen the damage a minister can do to due process with

the fish-farm fiasco, and now Bill 75 only legitimizes such interference. That

should be rejected outright by this Legislature. At the very least, regulations

should be developed clearly, spelling out when and

[ Page 7890 ]

how ministers can use this power. If it is for the Olympics, say so. If it's

not going to be used to skip over environmental regulations, prove it. Bring in

some regulations.

Unfortunately,

there will be no regulations coming with this legislation. This legislation is

all there's going to be. On Tuesday my staff had a chance to sit down with some

of the folks from the ministry responsible for Bill 75, the Significant Projects

Streamlining Act. My staff asked when and if there were regulations forthcoming,

and the reason why he asked that is because this bill is as vague as you could

possibly imagine.

My staff

said: "The minister is making some very strong assertions about what this

bill doesn't do, and yet there's nothing in the bill that backs up his claims.

When can we expect regulations to back up the minister's claim?" The answer

was this: "There will be no regulations on this legislation at all."

That's from the bureaucracy that's the expert on this. Oops, no regulations. The

bill stands as it is.

The Premier

will have unrivalled, near-absolute power. Now, that is something that every

British Columbian and every government caucus member should be concerned about.

I can't imagine how much more curious it will get with the Minister of State for

Deregulation trying to explain how this bill doesn't override environmental

regulations. There's nothing in the bill that says that, and there's no

regulation coming.

For the

members' information and for the folks at home, this is not by any means

fearmongering. Here's what

section 11 of Bill 75 states: "If there is a

conflict between this Act and any other enactment, this Act prevails." And

no regulations are going to be coming to modify that. That legislation stands on

its own. So there you have it, Mr. Speaker. If Stolt Sea Farm complains about an

approval process to the minister, this bill allows the minister to do whatever

he wants to speed the process up, and such power should not be in the hands of

such incompetence and bias.

Speaking of

incompetence, let's talk about the Community Charter. This is the part all the

Liberal government caucus members should listen to closely, because they're

going to have mayors and councillors breathing down their necks demanding

answers. Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, gives cabinet the

power to sidestep processes that local governments have in place to ensure due

process.

[1610]

Let's just

look back a few days ago. The Liberal member for Victoria–Beacon Hill was

applauding all the consultation that went into the city of Victoria's recent

decision on development in Cook Street Village. He rose up and made a statement

about the good work done by his local government.

Well, this

bill would allow cabinet to do away with such consultations that the member was

applauding. All a developer would have to do is complain that there are

"perceived constraints," and they would be able to describe to these

ministers behind closed doors how they felt they were being constrained. There

would be no public consultation, and there would be no freedom-of-information

laws applying to how that developer defined his perceived constraint.

But what

about that Community Charter, a bill that was passed just a couple of weeks ago?

What about all the empowerment the Liberals promised? Go back to the original

press releases about the draft charter, and you'll see quotes from the Minister

of State for Community Charter like this one: "We have committed to

establish a Community Charter that would give local governments greater

independence and outlaw provincial off-loading of costs on to municipal

governments." Or how about this one from that same minister of state:

"The draft Community Charter legislation we are tabling today will be the

most empowering legislation of its kind in Canada. In addition to providing

greater autonomy, the charter will also provide local governments with the

planning and revenue tools they need to provide services to the public in a

modern and more efficient way."

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Greater

independence? Empowering? Greater autonomy? Planning and revenue tools? The

Minister of State for Community Charter must be wondering what the heck he's

been doing for the last two years. Bill 75 overrides the Community Charter. It's

paramount. I heard some government caucus member shouting: "Oh, what about

section 2?" Let's be clear: this bill is paramount over every other

enactment. Otherwise the

section I just read into the record has no meaning —

none. I guess the government caucus members didn't get that in their briefing.

Bill 75 is

paramount legislation. That means it prevails. It says so in this legislation.

If that's not what it means, then I can hardly wait for the Minister of State

for Deregulation to explain that. Nothing in the Community Charter has any

weight anymore. It can be swept away by a controlling Premier's office.

This

legislation, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, shows just how sincere

this government is about empowering local governments. It's the same story as

Bill 48, the one that lets the government override local government decisions on

fish farms. "We'll sweet-talk you all we want, but when it comes to big

business or you, local governments, we're on the side of big business."

That's what Bill 75 says. It strips communities of their ability to plan.

I can

hardly wait for the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill to explain how the Cook

Street Village planning process would happen if some developer wanted to invoke

this legislation. It strips communities of their ability to plan, and that's

something the Minister of State for Community Charter, the Premier and all the

Liberal backbenchers have been bragging they would do for years. Now who cares

about official community plans or public hearings? The Premier has spoken.

[1615]

What about

land use planning? Will this government consider land use planning a constraint?

I've

[ Page 7891 ]

heard government caucus members stand up. I heard the member from Chilliwack

just describe how, thank God, the provincial government was getting out of land

use planning or floodplain planning so that local developers could work directly

with city councils to get their wish on planning. Well, if a local developer

doesn't like some local council that is actually concerned about flood planning,

they can just go to the Premier and say," Oh, I'm feeling constrained.

Please invoke Bill 75," and Bill 75 will be paramount.

I guess

that's good news for the developers, and I guess that's who this government

cares about. I guess that's who this government is or who they represent —

developers. But maybe this government will finally have to admit that that's all

they represent, and they're now going to have a nice, little, cosy relationship

with developers behind closed doors. You and I won't have a clue what's going

on.

During

debate on Bill 46, the Land Amendment Act, 2003, the member for Cariboo South

stood up and praised all the work he had done on the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use

plan. Fair enough. He should have. He worked extremely hard on it. I didn't

agree with the direction he took at the local level, but he worked darned hard

on it. On October 23 here's what he said: "Our

plan, the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, sets out many of the guidelines that

were needed and that are needed as we move forward in plans around the province.

We call it a living plan. I believe we need a living plan — a working plan and

a living plan — to ensure that future generations have the flexibility and the

ability to adapt and service and address their needs."

think it's appropriate that the member for Cariboo South be so passionate about

the land use planning process, and it is appropriate for him to take credit in

that planning process. Too bad it can now all be washed aside by this bill, the

Significant Projects Streamlining Act, if a minister wants a mine in that area

badly enough.

My staff

also asked, during our briefing, if Bill 75 could be used to bypass or overturn

a land use plan. In fact, the staff couldn't answer that question. Isn't that

interesting? The minister's staff couldn't even answer whether a land use plan

was paramount. In fact, we probably know why the person couldn't answer —

because the answer would have been: "Yes, this bill overrides the land use

plan." The minister's political staff jumped in and said that was a

question better suited for the minister himself, so I'm putting the minister on

notice right now. During committee stage of this bill I will expect the minister

to be able to point out where in Bill 75 land use plans are protected. I can

hardly wait. I couldn't find it, and there are no regulations coming. I'm really

looking forward to this debate.

As far as I

can tell, there's no guarantee that any of the land use plans or the ongoing

processes will be respected at all. Bill 75, the Significant Projects

Streamlining Act, is that sweeping. Just how far it goes, we don't know. The

bill — and remember, the bill's going to stand on its own — does not define

how government or the Premier will use these new-found powers. The bill doesn't

even try and specify what a constraint is.

Under

section 1, here's the definition of a constraint they've put in place. It means

"in relation to a project, a measure that, unless replaced under

section 4

or 5, may impede or otherwise interfere with the completion or operations of the

project…." Furthermore, a measure is defined as "an enactment,

directive, requirement, guideline, plan, program, policy, practice or

procedure…."

[1620]

Those are

the constraints. That's how they define a constraint. Stolt Sea Farm could have

come forward and said: "That policy of requiring us not to violate

environmental laws is a constraint." The developers that were having so

much trouble with Cook Street Village could come forward and say: "That

city council that wants us to make improvements — that's a constraint."

That's how this is defined. Nothing more, and we're not going to get anything

more. It doesn't say anywhere: "Oh, by the way, policy, practices,

directives, procedures on the environment are excluded." No, it doesn't say

that. So it could be anything. It doesn't say: "Oh, by the way, first

nations right to a duty to accommodate is excluded." No, it doesn't say

that. So it could be anything. Who knows what the intention is?

Environmental

regulations, Labour Code, collective agreements…. Oh those piddly little

collective agreements. What if they get in the way, like they are at Mission

Hill winery in Westbank? What if they get in the way? Land use plans, employment

standards, community plans — are those little things constraints? According to

this legislation, they are.

No one

knows what the intent is. However, what we do know is that this legislation

gives the Premier the ability to override any of the processes. He's got another

new bureaucracy growing; another new deputy minister of special projects in

charge. She'll be working full time behind closed doors, in secret, to make sure

this government's business friends get their way.

It's

unbelievably heavy-handed and it's absolutely controlling. It is the equivalent

of a banana republic. The Premier can now micromanage the entire province if he

wants to.

Section 11 is clear: this act prevails. The Premier has absolute

power. If any previous administration brought in this legislation, I can just

imagine what the current Minister of Finance would rail about. I can just

imagine what the current Premier would say. It is appalling that not one

government caucus member has the guts to stand up and say: "The emperor has

no clothes." And they won't.

Now, here's

an interesting section.

Section 11 highlights two exceptions. It says Bill 75

does not apply to the Environmental Assessment Act or to the Agricultural Land

Commission Act. I bet you every backbencher will stand up and say: "That

Leader of the Opposition doesn't know what she's talking about. Look, it says

right here. The Environmental Assessment Act and the Agricultural Land

Commission Act prevail."

[ Page 7892 ]

Well, let

me just inform the Liberal government caucus members that before they try to say

environmental regulations are protected — let me just get this on the record

— and before they say my concerns about environmental protection are

unfounded, the environmental assessment process has just been gutted by this

government. Here's how it now works. The Minister of Sustainable Resource

Management already gave himself sweeping powers that almost completely

eliminated the independence of environmental assessments. Everyone agrees,

including the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, that he greatly

reduced the independence of those assessments. There are now several instances

in this new legislation where the minister has total control over the process.

[1625]

Section 14

of the Environmental Assessment Act gives the Minister of Sustainable Resource

Management unilateral ability to define the scope of assessment. In fact, he

could say: "The scope of this project, I have determined, is not subject to

the Environmental Assessment Act." He admitted to that in the debate. So

before all these Liberal backbenchers get up and say: "All the power of

that legislation applies…." There's a very specific reason why this

government decided to include that as an exemption. It looks good — the words

"environmental assessment." However, they forgot to say in their news

conference that they completely gutted the Environmental Assessment Act.

If Bill 75

is paramount, it remains paramount even though the Environmental Assessment Act

is mentioned. Exempting the Environmental Assessment Act from Bill 75 means

absolutely nothing because similar if not identical powers have already been

granted to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. If Bill 75 is not

about bypassing environmental regulations, I challenge each and every Liberal

MLA to rise up in this House and point to the

section where the Fisheries Act or

the Wildlife Act is exempted. If this legislation is not about controlling local

governments, I challenge every backbencher to stand up and point to the

section

where the Community Charter is exempted.

If Bill 75,

the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, is not about concentrating power in

the Premier's office, I challenge the minister to point to the

section where

there are any limits on the Premier's power. Bill 75 will allow the Premier and

his cabinet to override the will of local governments and this Legislature. It

is about cabinet supremacy and the will of the Premier. It will allow Liberal

insiders and donors to access government like never before, and nobody will know

how they accessed the government and when they accessed the government, because

freedom-of-information laws don't apply. The explanatory note is clear. The

Significant Projects Streamlining Act will allow the Liberals to do away with

any perceived constraint by minister's order — environmental regulations,

employment standards, community plans, land use planning…. The list goes on

and on. They are all at risk.

Bill 75, in

this current form, is an absolute arrogant attack on taxpayers and democracy,

and it shows that this government has learned nothing about mistakes from the

past. It is arrogant, and it must be rejected.

Sultan: I'm pleased to respond to Bill 75, the Significant Projects

Streamlining Act, proposed by the Minister of State for Deregulation. Bill 75

will, as has already been explained, allow cabinet to designate — that's

designate with a capital D — projects. In so doing, it will allow the

assignment of special status to a project considered to have broad provincial

significance and importance to our economic, our social and our environmental

well-being. Projects designated by cabinet will receive expedited review and

approval through the encouragement of both provincial and local governments to

engage in dialogue-facilitating streamlined processes and timely decisions.

Should suasion not prove sufficient, cabinet could authorize the responsible

minister to make orders replacing provincial or local government restraints

impeding the development and operation of a project. However, the scope of such

orders, as the minister of state explained, would be limited to review and

decision-making processes and would not interfere with the fulfilment of

inherent standards of environment, health or safety. It will not interfere —

let me repeat that — with the fulfilment of standards of environment, health

or safety. I think that is key.

[1630]

In a word,

this is fast-track legislation. It's designed to hasten projects that would

otherwise take much longer to bear fruit. Why is this legislation so necessary?

A province lagging in economic growth, such as British Columbia, must obviously

pay more attention to facilitating investment, and it must pay less attention to

figuring out the many ways governments can slow down investment or stop it in

its tracks — an unfortunate reality that we've endured all too often in the

past.

Why is this

bill necessary? Mr. Speaker, it's necessary because our economy continues to be

burdened by a devastating combination of the virtual American embargo on our

softwood lumber producers, our most important industry; the continuous slowdown

in the economy of our second-most important trading partner, Japan; the impact

of SARS and terrorism on our vital tourist industry; the destruction of our

forestry resource by fire and insects; the lingering hangover from the

tomfoolery of a previous government; and the restructuring costs of government

change as we move to a more sustainable course.

Faced with

this combination of difficult circumstances, we must rally all of our available

means to the challenge, and there's no time to lose. Demands upon the public

purse — fuelled by our aging society, accelerating medical technology, demands

for higher education, court-ordered entitlements, overtaxed infrastructure, a

more demanding public and so on — continue to rocket ahead. Meanwhile our

capacity to pay — that is, the engine of economic growth — is underpowered.

Decisions must be made quicker. Execution must be faster. Contemplation times

have to be whittled down.

Watching

government in action over here in Victoria sometimes reminds me of that old Sir

Laurence

[ Page 7893 ]

Olivier movie about the Battle of Britain. It's early days in World War II.

Life on the RAF airdrome is leisurely — darts and ale. There's a report of

incoming aircraft. The air raid warden casually, oh so casually, strolls over to

a hand-cranked siren. By the time he gives it a first crank, marauding

Messerschmitts have strafed and destroyed the entire squadron.

We can

carry the military analogy a bit further, and perhaps it's appropriate to do so

on a day when all of us wear our poppies in remembrance. British Columbians

cannot afford the luxury of slowly pondering projects over time spans which

exceed the years it took Canada in 1939 from a standing start to mobilize 10

percent of its population into Armed Forces; build world-challenging armies,

navies and air forces; and send our men and women abroad to help defeat

simultaneously adversaries on two distant fronts in less than six years. Not

bad, Canada. We will not forget.

Compare the

intensity and the time span of that effort with a campaign waged by a lonely but

determined band of British Columbia miners to extract wealth from the ground on

the Tulsequah River — eight years — and it still isn't built, although

momentum is finally building. As the Minister of State for Deregulation is

frequently prone to observe, pretty soon the time to receive permission to build

this mine will have exceeded the time it took to defeat our enemies during two

world wars.

Surely

Canadian decisiveness, energy and talent have not diminished to that degree in

the intervening years. I believe we are as decisive, energetic and talented as

we have ever been, but we have allowed our initiative to be shackled by

governments. For example, I have before me two decision flow charts brought to

my office by a thoroughly frustrated Vancouver architect involved in the

planning and development of two mountain resorts. These two diagrams, one for

each project, show the approval steps required as these projects bounce from

provincial government to regional government and back again.

[1635]

Briefly,

without going into the details, the defined process involves the project

proponent developing…. I'll just rattle through the steps. An expression of

interest, which leads into the stage of formal proposal, which involves

consultation and then government agency's review and then through the

negotiation of an interim agreement leading to a draft master plan proposal,

which requires further consultation and review through advertising and public

input…. Then there's another consultation and review, leading to another

government agency's review, which lays the ground for master plan approval.

It then

requires individual application for a Crown grant, which in turn requires a

master development agreement and then individual applications for tenures and

Crown grants, taking into account consultation and review at the community level

and official community plan and phase 1 rezoning. And don't forget the

multi-agency circulation of application and thence the RDCO technical review and

the regional board consideration at first reading and then a public hearing

followed by regional board consideration at the second and third stages. Thence,

a negotiation for a serving agreement and application for sewers and water and

subdivision. This needs regional board consideration plus an application for a

development permit, which is insufficient because you can't forget the

application for a building permit, which of course requires an application for

rezoning for the next phase. A total of 28 steps, and eventually it requires a

repeat of the above steps all over again.

Now, it

turns out this is the short version — only 28 steps. Permitting his other

resort project involves 50 steps. How or why an additional 22 steps were added

is unclear to me, but in this world the only consistent is inconsistency — and

also complexity.

I was once

involved in a consortium, believe it or not, which set out to build the world's

first commercial nuclear submarine. The flow charts…. [Laughter.]

It's true.

The flow charts given to me in my office looked familiar. They resembled the

plumbing diagram of our nuclear reactor.

I would

like to describe four case studies of regulatory delay of which I have some

personal knowledge. Let's start with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. About 25

years ago a consortium involving Imperial Oil, Exxon and others proposed to

build a natural gas pipeline down the Mackenzie River linking Canada's Beaufort

Sea gas fields to what in those days was call the lower 48 in the United States.

I was therefore part of a team of financial advisers, including the Royal Bank,

Wood Gundy, Citibank and Morgan Stanley. In those days, you couldn't get more

blue chip sponsorship than that. I figure they put $100 million into engineering

and feasibility work, not to mention our own fees, of course, in the more

significant dollars of the day. But the project was cancelled.

Why?

Justice Berger's royal commission — that's why. He produced a large report

saying the aboriginals did not have the capacity to appreciate the

transformation of their lives that might occur. So Exxon, Imperial, Morgan

Stanley — the whole crowd — walked. So here we are 25 years later, and the

new semi-provinces of the territories and Nunavut are anxious for economic

development.

Who is in

the forefront of lobbying for the twenty-first century version of this very same

pipeline? The aboriginals. Does anybody else see the irony here? Well, perhaps

the price of community agreement has been 25 years of consultation. Or perhaps

the price of community agreement has been 25 years of forgone economic reward

and a 50-50 chance the pipeline will actually be built through British Columbia

instead — an option, by the way, that I would favour.

[1640]

Let's turn

to a second project with which I have some personal acquaintance: Cariboo

Fibreboard, otherwise known as Williams Lake Fibreboard, a project to build a

medium-density fibreboard mill, MDF, in Williams Lake. I came on the scene

through a government-sponsored venture capital fund called Discovery En-

[ Page 7894 ]

terprises. Discovery was one of British Columbia's early venture capital

success stories, courtesy of a former member of this Legislature, Dr. Patrick

McGeer. Discovery backed the German entrepreneur with the idea, the technology

and the chutzpa to get a massive pulpwood harvesting licence — PA 19 — and

the backing of North Carolina National Bank. He got bogged down in permitting.

Next up to

the plate: the future member for West Vancouver–Capilano. Presumably this guy

knows how to get this project moving again, particularly when — with the help

of others — he recruits a little outfit called Bechtel Corporation, the

engineer-constructor folks now dodging bullets in Iraq, to co-sponsor the

venture in what they regard as an interesting and pioneering, path-breaking P3.

We're talking a decade ago. You can't ask for more expertise or deeper pockets

than that. Funny thing, though. The first time into Victoria to explain all of

this, I was taken aside and it was suggested not to mention Bechtel so much. The

officials didn't like that name. Okay. Onward and upward.

Three years

later, Bechtel has gone home to San Francisco. It turns out Canada is not such

an easy place to get a project off the ground as I had led them — or myself,

for that matter — to believe, and $5 million of new money has gone into the

project and down the drain. We finally have the necessary certificates, but it's

too late. The market has turned. MDF is in glut. The hubris that must propel

every major project has gone. Blame it on the marketplace. I blame it on the

tediously long permitting process, which did not allow that German entrepreneur

to build it when he wanted to.

A third

example. This involves a facility burning wood waste to generate electricity.

It's a much more recent example. Let's say it was located in a community

somewhere in B.C. sponsored by a heavyweight eastern engineering company. The

project offered all the right stuff: 3½ megawatts of electricity, conversion of

waste into electricity, the shutdown of air-polluting beehive burners.

What went

wrong? The regional district government set up a series of hoops to jump

through. Individually, they weren't particularly challenging, but collectively

they created a time hurdle as well as some unforeseen fees and expenses. Some of

them were merely pesky, but others involved real money. Ministries in Vic