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 20, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 12

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Railway and Ferries Bargaining

Assistance Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 95)

Hon. G.

Bruce

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Early childhood education programs

Brenzinger

Opening of rock quarry in Alberni

Valley

G. Trumper

International trade initiatives

B. Locke

Oral Questions

B.C. Rail privatization bid process

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Reid

Closing of beds at West Coast General

Hospital

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Hansen

Services at West Coast General

Hospital and hospitalization times

G. Trumper

Hon. C.

Hansen

Services at Kootenay Lake District

Hospital

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Hansen

Position of northern B.C. residents

on privatization of B.C. Rail

P. Nettleton

Hon. J. Reid

Petitions

G. Trumper

J. Kwan

Second Reading of Bills

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

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr411)

J. Bray

Committee of the Whole House

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

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr411)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

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

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr411)

Committee of the Whole House

Significant Projects Streamlining Act

(Bill 75)

W. Cobb

D. MacKay

Hon. K.

Falcon

G. Trumper

J. MacPhail

M. Hunter

Suffredine

Royal Assent to Bills

Water, Land and Air Protection

Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 55)

Public Service Amendment Act, 2003

(Bill 71)

Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act,

2003 (Bill 79)

BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and

Heritage Contract Act (Bill 85)

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

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr411)

[ Page 8077 ]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Nuraney: I have great pleasure in introducing 28 grade 5 students who are

visiting us today from Cascade School in Burnaby. They are here to learn about

our political system and the working of the Legislature. They're accompanied by

their teacher, Ms. Lori Bennett, and some of their parents: Roger Lau, Elizabeth

Tsagaris and Yasmin Ferrigano. May I ask the House to please join me in

welcoming them.

Hon. M.

Coell: On behalf of the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill and myself, I

would like to have the House welcome three guests who we've had meetings with,

with regard to mental illness and the problems associated with people suffering

from mental illness: Yvonne Sproule, who's a peer support worker; Mark D'Aoust;

and Chief Ishaka, who is a member and chief of the Navajo nation and may be

known to some members as Terry Colburn. Would the House please make all three of

them welcome.

[1405]

Hon. C.

Clark: Joining us today in the front row of the visitors' gallery is Terri

Watson, who is the president of the British Columbia Confederation of Parent

Advisory Councils. She is joined by Glenda Bilinsky, who is their first

vice-president. With them is Terri's daughter, Robyn Barker, a grade 11 student.

Terri decided to bring her today, because when Terri was in grade 11, my father

— who was a teacher — chose her to come to the Legislature. She says that

visit changed her life, just like thousands of teachers change lives of students

every day. Welcome to all of you.

J. Kwan:

It gives me great pleasure to introduce a number of individuals visiting in the

gallery today. They are Susie Hamilton, Colleen McCory, Elaine Hurley, Pagisus

McGauley, Robin Cherbo and Colleen Driscoll. They're here today calling on the

government to keep its hands off their health care services, particularly their

hospital services. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J.

Reid: Today joining us in the House I have two constituents who were here

for a joint meeting of the Island chambers of commerce and the Vancouver Island

coastal caucus. We have Hugh Sinnet, president of the Parksville and District

Chamber of Commerce, and Sandy Hurley, second vice-president of the B.C. Chamber

of Commerce. I'd ask the House to help make them very welcome.

Trumper: I have a large number of guests in the gallery today. First of all,

I have Karina Austin, a grade 11 French immersion student who has been shadowing

me today, which has been interesting. She is an honour student and is involved

in the leadership program at her school. She had the opportunity of travelling

to Newfoundland to attend a national leadership conference. She's an

accomplished pianist, avid soccer player, and I believe she now has a scooter.

We also

have today — I think they're in the House — Bob Cole, who is the president

of the Alberni Valley Chamber of Commerce; Dave Willie, who was the

vice-president of the Qualicum Beach chamber of commerce; and Maryann Washington

and Noreen Pelk, who are my constituency assistants.

Also in the

House today we have a large delegation of people from Port Alberni regarding

services to the West Coast General Hospital. I would just like to name a few of

them, if they're in the House. Bev Denning is the chair of the Save Our Services

committee. Donna Brett is the chair of our community health committee, and Mayor

Ken McRae is also here. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Mayor Mary Reeves from the great city of Abbotsford is present in

Victoria and in the precinct and in the House, and I hope the House will make

her welcome.

P. Bell:

I actually have three introductions to do today. It's rare that I have an

opportunity to introduce constituents, and in some ways I guess these people

aren't constituents anymore, although they were at one point in time. I would

first like to introduce to the House my oldest daughter, Donna Bell, and her

friend Matt Hobbs. Would the House please make them very welcome.

As my third

introduction, I just wanted to add that there is a very special anniversary

occurring for an individual in this House tomorrow, and I'll be spending the day

with this individual tomorrow. It's a unique anniversary. It is actually her

eighteenth anniversary of her twenty-ninth birthday, and I would ask that the

House please congratulate the Minister of Advanced Education on that day.

[1410]

I. Chong:

I, too, would like to introduce a young student who has been job-shadowing me

today. Her name is Bethanny Brouwer. She's from Mount Doug high school, my

former alma mater. She is a grade 10 student who would like to one day become a

teacher. I have encouraged her along the way. She is also involved with student

leadership, and she plays soccer in her spare time. She also is a representative

of the B.C. Student Voices group, which gets together on an annual basis

throughout the province. They deal with questions that are posed to them by the

Minister of Education, and then that report is brought forward to the Minister

of Education and it's acted on.

Last year I

believe the report dealt with bullying in schools, and this year they're dealing

with choices in school. We had a great conversation over lunch, and I know she's

an enthusiastic individual. I hope the House would please make her very welcome.

[ Page 8078 ]

Trumper: I have such a large number of people here today from my

constituency. I would also like to ask the House to welcome John Perkis and Gary

Norden, who are from Pelorus. Would you please make them welcome.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I would like to introduce a constituent from Penticton, Mr.

Derrick Badger.

Brice: I, too, have a young woman who has been shadowing me today: Anthea

Kuan. Anthea is here from Mount Doug. She is a grade 10 student, and she became

inspired to come down here after attending the Minister for Women's Equality's

presentation on Women's Heritage Week. I would ask the House to help make her

welcome.

Hon. C.

Clark: I would like the House to offer a very, very happy birthday

congratulation to our Minister of Advanced Education, who I understand today

turned 39.

An Hon.

Member: Tomorrow.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Mr. Speaker, more good news. In my continuing bid to find friends

around the world, I have found another friend from Tromso in Norway. That's

north of the Arctic Circle. She's a pen pal. I would like to introduce to the

House Eleni Figenschou. She's a Rotary exchange student who is here living in

the Cowichan Valley, the warm land. She's with John Berikoff, who has been a

good friend of mine for many, many years and helps me in the constituency. Today

they've been down here to see the city of Victoria and the precincts and to

enjoy question period. Would you please make them all very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

RAILWAY AND FERRIES BARGAINING

ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. G.

Bruce presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move that Bill 95 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Today I am introducing Bill 95, Railway and Ferries Bargaining

Assistance Amendment Act, 2003.

Part 3 of

the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act of 1976 empowers the

government to invoke a 90-day cooling-off period in labour disputes involving

ferries in the event of an immediate and substantial threat to the economy and

welfare of the province and its citizens. The amendments to this act, which has

been around for nearly 30 years, simply update references to related acts and to

parties involved.

Given the

time of year and the current bargaining situation with ferries, we are dusting

off this piece of legislation. I met separately with the parties last weekend,

and both are telling me they want to solve their dispute at the bargaining

table. The province fully supports the company and the union working together to

resolve these issues. However, at the same time, we have a duty to protect the

public interest and consider the impact a disruption of ferry services would

have at this important time of year.

introducing these amendments, I as Minister of Labour continue to urge the

parties to do their utmost to reach an agreement. I move that the bill be placed

on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 95

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1415]

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

EARLY CHILDHOOD

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Brenzinger: Today I stand in the House to talk about a very successful early

intervention program agency, the Surrey Association for Early Childhood

Education. SAECE has been providing special needs children and kids that are at

risk with quality preschool since 1973 in partnership with the Surrey school

district. The SAECE program recognizes the importance of early screening and

identification in childhood development to ensure that each child reaches their

full potential.

Children

who receive early intervention not only thrive in society, but they also save

taxpayer dollars by avoiding drugs, jail or life on the streets. They learn to

work with their strengths, and their self-esteem is developed in their early

years. In fact, the cost-benefit ratio for preschool programs is $7.94,

whereas

programs for school-aged children receive a net benefit of $1.66. With

statistics like these, it gives me great pleasure to know that this government

has created a Ministry of State for Early Childhood Development.

Further,

the Ministry of Children and Family Development has recognized the importance of

giving parents the tools they need to provide for special needs children. As

such, parents are given funding directly so that they can choose the type of

service they want for their child, such as local preschool, day care, at-home

care or specialized programs such as the SAECE program.

The

commitment of everyone in the community is essential to ensure that children

live in a world that supports and enables them to reach their full potential.

[ Page 8079 ]

It gives me great pleasure today to recognize the accomplishments of the

Surrey Association for Early Childhood Education, especially with today being

National Child Day.

OPENING OF ROCK QUARRY

IN ALBERNI VALLEY

Trumper: A $100 million quarry creating more than 80 new jobs for the next

hundred years has been approved to open near Port Alberni. Eagle Rock Materials

Ltd. received authorization to construct a rock quarry for the production and

export of construction aggregate under the Environmental Assessment Act. The

exciting issue about this project is that it's a joint venture between Eagle

Rock Materials Ltd., the Hupacasath first nation, the Ucluelet first nation and

Polaris Minerals Corp. This quarry will have a production capacity of six

million tonnes a year. The aggregates will be shipped to markets along the west

coast of North America, primarily California. This is a really important project

for the Alberni Valley as it broadens its economic base. As well as being a

partnership with first nations, there is another aspect to this project.

The mining

industry over the past decade left British Columbia. Now, with the changes this

government has made to taxation and regulations, the mining industry is coming

back to British Columbia, which is good, particularly for those resource-based

communities that really have had a very difficult time with the downturn in the

forest industry. As Polaris said and as Norske Skog Canada once said in a public

meeting, they would not be in British Columbia except for the changes that the

province has made to bring investment back to British Columbia. These changes

have brought Polaris back to B.C. This is great news for the residents of the

Alberni Valley and for British Columbia.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE INITIATIVES

Locke: I rise today to tell a story of a province determined to change its

image and its anti-trade reputation. In my short time as the MLA for

Surrey–Green Timbers, I have had the opportunity to help change the image of

this province and to market B.C. internationally. While my visit to India

certainly helped me gain a greater understanding of my South Asian constituents,

the journey was much more than that.

It allowed

me to gain an appreciation of the significant growth opportunities that exist

within the Indian economy. My colleagues and I met with government officials,

small and large business folks, passionate academics and a multitude of industry

leaders. There is no doubt that the contacts that were established will pay off

and provide jobs for British Columbians.

addition, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, or PNWER, is another proactive

group I am fortunate to be part of. The PNWER region ranks twelfth among the

world's leading industrial economies with an annual gross regional product of

approximately $900 billion.

[1420]

I will be

departing this afternoon for Portland to meet with fellow legislators from

Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Alberta and the Yukon. PNWER's goal

is to cooperate regionally to achieve economic growth. The world is watching us,

and investment is coming to B.C. because of this government's actions. Led by

our Premier, B.C. is finally participating and is leading in a complex and

rapidly changing world economy.

conclusion, it is obvious to me that B.C. has reformed its image and style. We

are more sophisticated. We are a province that welcomes opportunity and

investment, and we are a province that will make sure the natural globalization

of economies works to B.C.'s benefit.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL PRIVATIZATION

BID PROCESS

MacPhail: The Premier confirmed yesterday that CP Rail has withdrawn from

the bid to buy B.C. Rail. They complained that the process was unfair. The

fairness report into that process identified two important leaks. The report

said that one leak had no impact on the outcome of the negotiations, but the

report is completely silent on the other leak. We don't know what was leaked or

to whom or what impact it had on the outcome of the bid. The whole process is

now under a cloud, and important questions remain unanswered.

Will the

minister now, after refusing to do it yesterday, come clean with the details of

that leak so that British Columbians can get to the bottom of this mess? And

will she reassure this House that the leaked information did not go to CN?

Hon. J.

Reid: Perhaps I'll just take a moment to explain the purpose of the fairness

adviser. Reading from the very document of Charles Rivers, the purpose of this

portion of CRA's assignment is to provide an independent commentary on the

fairness of the process for the B.C. Rail freight division transaction. Both

governments and private enterprises increasingly are relying on independent

fairness advisers to provide assurance to their constituents, citizens and

stockholders that complex processes are executed properly.

This

evaluation is in two stages. The first stage, the conclusion of the fairness

adviser, has been — quoting from the document: "CRA has concluded that

the province and its advisers designed and managed the B.C. Rail restructuring

process in a manner consistent in all material respects with the current best

practices usually followed in similar transactions." There's a second part

to the fairness adviser. At that time, they will be talking to the proponents

and settling any outstanding questions.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

[ Page 8080 ]

MacPhail: Boy, the minister is sure stepping back from the big foofaraw she

claimed yesterday about how fair the process was and how this report proved it.

There's a giant step backward. The process to privatize B.C. Rail does not meet

the basic test of openness and transparency that this government told British

Columbians it would set for itself. Two of the three proponents have written

letters to the Premier to complain about the bidding process. However, British

Columbians have no idea of the basis of their complaints. They don't know what

role the leaks identified by the fairness adviser played in CP's decision to

pull out or in Omnitrax's decision to register their complaints.

The

minister has a duty now to lay the facts on the table for the public to see.

Will she table those letters of protest from both CP and Omnitrax in the House

today?

Hon. J.

Reid: The member still seems to be absolutely confused about the role of the

fairness adviser. Exactly what she is talking about is what we have asked the

fairness adviser to do.

[1425]

The

fairness adviser is doing that in two stages. The fairness adviser is saying

that the process studied to date has been a process that has been thorough, has

been equitable and has been consistent with best practices. The concerns that

were expressed were investigated and were laid to rest as not being in any way a

problem in the fairness and the equitable treatment of the proponents. Further

to that, there is a further opportunity for these concerns to be investigated.

That is an excellent practice on the part of this government, and we stand by

it.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: Well, what a difference a day makes. Now it takes so long, and the

concerns were laid to rest. That is simply not what the report says about the

second leak at all — not at all. The minister is only making a bad situation

worse by hiding details of this situation from public scrutiny. Her stonewalling

only raises more questions about a process that has already looked like the fix

is in.

The public

doesn't accept the government decision to hide behind the fairness adviser's

incomplete report, a report that begs more questions than it answers. Yesterday

the government was hiding behind this report. Today, when caught out, they say:

"Oh, it's incomplete." The fairness adviser hasn't even talked to the

bidders or many mayors along the line. The fairness adviser is there to protect

the public, not the government.

Again to

the minister: will she table the analysis that the fairness adviser used to

arrive at its incomplete conclusions?

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. member, you have asked the

question. Now let us hear the answer.

Hon. J.

Reid: A thorough process involves more than one stage. What this is, is a

thorough process. The very questions that are being asked are in the process of

being investigated, analyzed, and a report will be issued on that. The fairness

adviser was able to look at the process up to a certain point and will look at

the completion when the process is complete, which it is not. Therefore, the

report to date has been very clear that the process has been fair, has been well

run and has worked exceedingly well for the protection of the public.

The second

part is not complete yet, so the fairness adviser cannot complete their second

stage because the process hasn't been done. I think that is absolutely apparent

to everyone except the confused member.

CLOSING OF BEDS AT

WEST COAST GENERAL HOSPITAL

J. Kwan:

On the front steps of the Legislature today are residents of Port Alberni.

They're registering their anger at a government that's betraying its health care

promises. They are angry that the government is closing the hospital beds in

their community.

The

Minister of Health continues to pretend that he's meeting his commitment of

health care where and when you need it. He said it again just this week, but the

people of Port Alberni know that's not true. Patients arriving at West Coast

General Hospital with serious illnesses are being piled on top of each other in

cramped spaces. Yet the government wants to cut hospital beds in that hospital.

To the

Minister of Health: will he keep his promise to the people of Port Alberni who

have come here today and cancel the cuts to their hospital?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Actually, what precipitated the closure of 19 beds at this hospital

was the fact that a hospital that was built by the previous NDP government and

only opened two and a half years ago had such construction deficiencies in it

that major sections of the floor already had to be rebuilt, necessitating the

closure of those 19 beds.

I think the

member is making a big mistake when she measures access to health care by

counting the number of beds. She knows very well that the number of acute care

beds throughout Canada has been declining significantly, because more and more

procedures are being done as a result of day surgeries and out-patient

surgeries.

inherited an absolute mess in health care as a result of ten years of the

previous government. We are in the process of fixing that. People are getting

better access to care in this province. We see the number of major procedures

and surgeries in this province increasing significantly. We see the number of

surgeries that are being done at West Coast General Hospital increasing

significantly over the last number of years.

[ Page 8081 ]

We will

continue to make sure that the residents of the Alberni Valley get access to the

health care they need.

[1430]

SERVICES AT WEST COAST

GENERAL HOSPITAL

AND HOSPITALIZATION TIMES

Trumper: My question is also to the Minister of Health Services. The

Canadian Institute for Health Information has reported that the average

hospitalization for British Columbia patients has decreased. Many of my

constituents, many of whom are here today, are concerned about proposed changes

at West Coast General Hospital.

Can the

Minister of Health Services explain how this information reflects the changes in

the health care system and assure us, as Port Alberni residents, that support

services will be available when we need them?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I must say I appreciated the invitation from the member for Alberni-Qualicum

to go to Port Alberni, where I was ten days ago today, to meet with the

community health committee and also to meet with the Save Our Services group,

which I did on November 10.

The member

raises the issue of a report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information

that came out just yesterday, which showed that the average time a patient needs

to stay in hospital has decreased in this province by 6.8 percent between the

year 2000-01 and the year 2001-02. That is the largest decrease of any province

in Canada, and what it speaks to is the fact that more and more surgeries are

being done as out-patient procedures because of changing technology and changing

procedures. The number of procedures that we did in this province last year

increased by 38,000.

The number

of surgeries that were done at West Coast General Hospital increased

significantly over the previous year, and we will make sure that the residents

of that member's constituency will continue to get the health care they need.

SERVICES AT KOOTENAY LAKE

DISTRICT HOSPITAL

J. Kwan:

Funny how it is that the people of British Columbia are always wrong, according

to this government. In this instance, the Alberni residents are wrong. They've

brought forward over 30,000 signatures in a petition asking for this minister to

keep his hands off their hospital beds. The residents from Port Alberni on the

steps of the Legislature are joined by the residents of Nelson. They, too, have

come to Victoria to register their anger at this government for its broken

promises in health care.

They're

asking the minister to keep his promise and provide core acute care services,

including general surgery, for the delivery of safe patient care at the Kootenay

Lake Hospital. Is the minister going to live up to his commitment, or is he

going to continue the betrayal of his election commitment to provide health care

services when and where the people of Nelson need it?

Hon. C.

Hansen: What you are seeing happen throughout the province as a result of

the changes, the very important and long overdue changes that we have brought to

health care in this province, is that more patients are getting access to the

care they need in the region that they live. That is true in the area of

Kootenay-Boundary…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …which includes the Nelson hospital, where you see that fewer

patients have to leave that region to go to Kelowna or Vancouver to get access

to care. More surgery is being done; more specialists are being attracted to

that very region. The same is true of Vancouver Island, where we've seen

increased capacity on central Vancouver Island so that patients no longer have

to travel to Victoria or Vancouver to get access to care that they…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …can now get right in the central region. That is the health care

that British Columbians need — when they need it, where they live.

POSITION OF NORTHERN B.C. RESIDENTS

ON PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL

Nettleton: I was shocked by the Premier's comments earlier this week in

question period suggesting that the people of the north are supportive of the

sale of B.C. Rail. I think he used the word "satisfied." That's

certainly news to me and the people who live in the north. Satisfied is not a

word that's been used to describe the sale of B.C. Rail.

[1435]

question, then, to the Minister of Transportation would be this: given the

ongoing protests, numerous city council resolutions asking for a two-year

moratorium and vigorous B.C. Rail worker opposition to the sale of B.C. Rail,

how can the Premier's comments be construed as anything less than a

misrepresentation of the north — a betrayal that will bring about increased

anger and further alienation of northerners?

Hon. J.

Reid: There is, has been and will continue to be widespread consultation

with the people across the north, the communities, the shippers and the people

involved in industry — the people who believe in

[ Page 8082 ]

the opportunities for the north. These people are from all walks of life and,

actually, all types of experiences.

For

example, a former NDP Premier, Dan Miller, wrote particularly on this issue, and

he talks about enhancing economic growth and development in northern British

Columbia. There are a number of people who are looking at opportunities, who

believe that the possibilities are there, and who are encouraging the government

to pursue the partnership that will provide greater investment into a rail

system and, indeed, enhance the economy not just of the north but of the entire

province.

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

G. Trumper:

I have here a petition, of which there are over 4,000 in the building,

regarding the proposed bed closures at West Coast General Hospital. I ask

permission to table them.

Interjections.

Mr.

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

seeks the floor.

J. Kwan:

I rise to table a number of petitions today. Just like the petition tabled

by the member from Port Alberni — from the community of Port Alberni, which

was asking the government to keep their hands off of the hospital beds — I

rise to table a petition signed by over 2,000 residents of Nelson asking the

assembly to act to protect core acute care services, including general surgery

and intensive care services, at the Kootenay Lake Hospital.

I rise,

also, to table a petition on behalf of the people of Grand Forks, some of whom

were here today, signed by 1,700 people asking the Legislative Assembly to act

to save their hospital services and honour their right to health care. They wish

the assembly to know that the Boundary Hospital is a vital part of their

community.

Last but

not least, I rise to table a petition with approximately 4,000 signatures. Today

is International Day of the Child. This petition calls on the government to stop

child labour and is saying that childhood is a time for growing, learning and

play — not for jobs. It is against Bill 37, the Skills Development and Labour

Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Bill Pr411.

Second Reading of Bills

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

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003

J. Bray:

Bill Pr411, Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003,

simply restores Richrock Mines Ltd. to the corporate registry as per tradition.

I move second reading.

[1440]

Motion

approved.

J. Bray:

By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to

be considered forthwith.

Leave

granted.

Bill Pr411,

Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, read a second

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

Committee of the Whole House

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

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr411; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:42 p.m.

Sections 1

to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble

approved.

Title

approved.

J. Bray:

Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:42 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill Pr411,

Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 75.

Committee of the Whole House

SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS

STREAMLINING ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 75; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:44 p.m.

[ Page 8083 ]

On

section

W. Cobb:

I would like to read into the record a letter that I received today in regard to

this bill and the feeling I'm getting from my community in regard to this. It's

entitled "Expediting our economic futures." It's written by Donna

Barnett, mayor of 100 Mile House. She's also the co-chair of our B.C. Council of

Resource Communities.

"From

time to time just about every rural mayor I know will complain about the

federal or provincial governments interfering with their community's economic

future. It's usually related to either (1) delaying investment in economic

projects in a municipality or (2) ramming something through without due

consideration for the community's interests.

[1445]

"For

the most part my experience as a rural mayor has been with governments being

overly restrictive and regulation-bound to a point that potential investors

coming to my community are actually discouraged by red tape.

"During

the 1990s, I saw a Millennium Line shoved down the throats of the lower

mainland and fast ferries shoved in all of our ears. We also saw a provincial

government that tied up thousands of acres of productive recreation and forest

land in what seemed to be never-ending land use consultation processes that

ended every meeting with a group hug.

"Recently

we've been hearing more and more about the B.C. government's commitment to

rural municipalities, to the 'economic heartlands' of B.C. I have to admit I

was skeptical. After all, people in my area had been fighting to get

snowmobiling legislation and snowmobiling trails here for years — to no

avail.

"Then

several months ago I heard about the B.C. government's proposed Significant

Projects Streamlining Act and thought that at least one government was finally

getting it. They were understanding that there are times when you just need to

speed things up to take advantage of any economic opportunity that comes your

way.

"And

just as I was telling all my friends and municipal associates in my area about

how we were going to take advantage of this proposed legislation, a few

municipal leaders started yelling about loss of municipal autonomy. Amazing.

Our province is the most economically beleaguered in Canada, and some people

are more interested in identifying threats than opportunities.

"From

my perspective, as one who has been involved in politics and municipal

government for more years than I'd really care to remember, I think the SPS

Act is written for municipal governments, especially rural ones. This act says

that I can get my MLA, or go direct to the B.C. government, and get some

special attention for a new investor who might come courting us with a new

mill, resort or other economic incentive.

"It

says that I will be assured that if the government decides to apply the SPS

Act to my special economic project, that I need to show that people in my

community really want and need it. It says the same thing to a proponent that

might want to try to do an end-run around municipal government — to get the

B.C. government to impose an approval of a new 'significant project' without

the blessing of the local government.

"I know

my municipality is protected from getting a project rammed into our community

because, as a local 'approval authority,' we will have every right to impose

our needs and requirements on a significant project. A project proponent must

show how he will deal with 'anticipated constraints' that would be identified

in an area through full public consultation. I would also add that part of the

SPS regulations should say if your municipality does not wish to use the SPS

Act, so be it. Make it so this can only be implemented by a resolution or

bylaw or council of the day. But make this optional. Don't impose it on us.

"I see

the act as being a safety valve to allow for the appointment of a referee in

situations that may require a sober second thought. That's the defensive side.

On the entrepreneurial side, we finally have

an act that takes a can-do

approach to helping municipalities cut through provincial red tape for

significant projects we might want.

certainly don't see the SPS Act as a threat. I do see the need to apply it in

the spirit in which I believe it was intended: to ensure that the dominant

municipal interests are included in proposed significant projects. The

challenge for all municipalities and for the provincial government is to

ensure that the guidelines that are developed to accompany the act are

developed with municipal government representation so that our interests will

be protected when the act is applied.

"From

where I sit in rural B.C., I see an olive branch being extended by this

government, and I see a door being opened. For once, I don't see the

government trying to take something away from my community. It's up to

Minister Kevin Falcon to ensure I have a say in the guidelines he plans to

include in the act. We hope he takes us up on our offer.

"Note:

I understand that someone else also is purporting to represent my interests on

another matter — B.C. Rail. For the record, MLA Ms. Kwan apparently

mentioned in the Legislature that I was opposed to the leasing of B.C. Rail.

This is not true. Yes, I am concerned about who apparently is still at the

B.C. Rail table and about the shippers' and communities' issues, but I am not

against the leasing of B.C. Rail."

It's signed by Donna Barnett.

[1450]

MacKay: I've already spoken in support of this proposed bill, but I do have

a couple of questions that I'd like to put to the minister. The first one deals

with the definition

section of Bill 75 where it talks about constraint. It says:

"…in relation to a project, a measure that, unless replaced under

section

4 or 5, may impede or otherwise interfere with the completion or operations of

the project…."

I have to

ask the question: would that include the native consultation and accommodation

that has been imposed on the province by the Supreme Court of Canada? Where I

live, that is one of the big hindrances to any project being completed in the

northern part of this province. I'd just like to know if the accommodation and

consultation is considered a constraint.

Hon. K.

Falcon: No, actually, the first nations consultations are a constitutional

obligation of government. No statute of this province can override our

constitutional obligations. But I will say that one of the efforts, as the

member well knows, that we are trying

[ Page 8084 ]

to undertake as a government is entering into as many relationships, measures

and agreements as we can with first nations — trying to build mutual trust,

trying to build mutual foundations of economic opportunity.

In fact,

while I was touring the province recently on some resort task force business, I

did receive some encouraging signals from first nations that also have economic

development projects that they get frustrated with too, in terms of government

process. So I think there are opportunities to work together. To summarize, we

must and still do and are required to undertake consultations with natives, and

accommodations if required.

MacKay: Well, a follow-up to that, then. It basically means that the

constitutional requirement that we have as a province to consult and accommodate

could, in fact, be a hindrance to any future project in British Columbia.

Hon. K.

Falcon: It could very well be, but that, again, is why our government is

working so hard with first nations to try and create opportunities where we can

work together and where we can create mutual opportunities that benefit both

first nations and respective governments. It's something we'll continue to work

forward on. Frankly, I think we've been making some significant progress, and

we'll work to make continued progress.

MacKay: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Designated projects

definition means a project that is designated as a provincially significant

project. Could you explain to me: is there going to be a dollar value attached

to it before it becomes a significant project, or is it the size of the project?

What's going to determine what becomes a designated project?

Hon. K.

Falcon: That is an excellent question, particularly as a member representing

rural British Columbia. One of the things that cabinet did not want to do —

and this was specifically intended — was fetter ourselves with too much detail

as to what would allow a project to be considered for designation. You know, for

example, initially there were some suggestions that projects should not be

considered for designation unless they were well in excess of $50 million or

$100 million or what have you.

We made the

decision early on that we wanted to ensure that projects, even if appearing

reasonably small in dollar value…. I'm always fond of reminding people that a

$15 million project in your neck of the woods could have the same impact as a

$50 million project in the lower mainland of British Columbia. What we did is

established some guidelines, and those guidelines suggest that the projects must

have at minimum a regional economic, environmental or social impact — so they

must have benefits that go beyond the location of the particular project.

MacKay: That's good news, particularly for those of us that live in rural

British Columbia because, as you said, a small project down south could in fact

be a large project up north. That's good.

[1455]

My final

question on the

definitions

section deals with a "responsible

minister." I just want to know if I'm reading this correctly here. If a

sawmill is being proposed to be built in a community and then it runs into some

problems and becomes a significant project by designation, which minister is

going to assume the lead role to see this thing through to completion? Is it

going to be the Minister of Forests? Is it going to be the Minister of

Competition, Science and Enterprise? Which minister is going to take the lead

responsibility on that?

Hon. K.

Falcon: That's a very good question. That is what cabinet will do. Cabinet

will designate the responsible minister. In most cases, it will be the minister

that has responsibility for that area. If it's a major transportation project,

it would likely be the Minister of Transportation. If it's a forest issue, it

would likely be the Minister of Forests. It would make sense to align the

minister with the expertise and background in that, but it would be left to

cabinet to make that determination.

Trumper: I wonder if I could have the liberty of just asking a general

question on this issue. I have received quite a lot of feedback from various

municipalities with different views on this particular bill. It does seem that

the rural communities are certainly very comfortable with it. It seems to be the

urban areas that are not. I wonder if you could tell me whether or not there has

been any further discussion with the UBCM regarding this particular bill, which

I know has some grave concerns about it.

Hon. K.

Falcon: There have been consultations, going back to the spring, with the

UBCM, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. I would characterize those

discussions, especially at the beginning, as being largely non-supportive of the

direction of the bill. I don't mean to downplay that at all. I think that

generally speaking, the suggestions they made to me at that first meeting, where

I gave a very detailed briefing, were that (1) they would want to have much more

comfort that it would only be used infrequently, and (2) they wanted a strong

sense that cooperative aspects would be built into the bill.

When I left

that meeting, actually, a couple of things happened. One was that we changed the

name of the bill from the "Economic Development Streamlining Act,"

which was the original name of the bill, to the Significant Projects

Streamlining Act. That was to reflect the fact that we are in fact just talking

about significant projects. The second thing we did was build in many steps of

process involved under

section 4 to ensure that local governments and the

provincial government — all approval authorities — have the ability to work

together to try and come up with a solution that will work to the benefit of

proponents and approval authorities and the government.

[ Page 8085 ]

G. Trumper:

The other question I would ask of the minister is if he could clarify the

process as it goes through. One of the issues that has been raised with me by

municipalities is that it is "a minister" who has the power to do the

designation. As you know, in other bills that have gone through, we've been very

specific about the cabinet having that power to designate. I wonder if you could

clarify that particular issue, which is bringing some concern to some

municipalities.

Hon. K.

Falcon: There would be a minister to which local governments or proponents

could bring forward suggested projects for designation. That minister would take

the project through the appropriate reviews and determine whether it meets, at

least initially, the thresholds we've set out in the guidelines. Then that

minister — if the minister decided or determined that it met at least the bar

that we set, a fairly high bar in terms of the ability of the project to be

considered designatable — would bring that to cabinet, who would ultimately

make the determination as to whether the project would be designated.

[1500]

MacPhail: Okay. Well, let's actually try to narrow this down in terms of the

generalities that the minister is just giving without any substance to refer to

in the legislation at all.

On the

definition of approval authority, subsection (b), it says an approval authority

means "a public body, including a person or other entity, empowered by an

enactment or otherwise to perform a function or duty of government…."

Could the minister be very specific about what he means by an approval

authority? Name the public bodies that can be overridden.

Hon. K.

Falcon: What that refers to is that obviously it would differ from project

to project, but generally speaking, it's used throughout the act to refer to the

local or provincial government, individual or entity responsible for reviewing

projects, issuing approvals and carrying out other actions that are required to

bring a project from the conceptual stage through to and including the

operational stage. That could vary from project to project. It totally depends

on what kind of project you're talking about — construction, transportation,

manufacturing. There's a whole array of them. What this

section does is speak to

the vast army of different approval authorities and entities out there.

MacPhail: Okay, but it does include local government. Let's see. An approval

authority — could that be Workers Compensation Board?

Hon. K.

Falcon: No, it would not be WCB, because WCB is not an approval authority in

that sense. They maintain standards set out under their statute.

MacPhail: I beg to differ. WCB can shut down a project, so it is an approval

authority. Where in the legislation does it exempt WCB?

Hon. K.

Falcon: No. I would argue the member is incorrect there, because when WCB

does act under its legitimate authority to shut down something as you say, that

would be because it's in violation of some standard that WCB holds — either a

safety standard or whatever the case may be — and that's perfectly legitimate.

Again, as I've said repeatedly throughout this bill, this bill does not impact

on standards; it impacts on review and decision processes.

MacPhail: There's no evidence of this. No matter how much the minister

stands up and makes those statements, his guarantees are not encompassed in the

legislation. He can stand up and say all he wants, but if it's not contained in

here, it doesn't mean a thing.

Let's ask

about the Labour Relations Board. Is it an approval authority?

[1505]

Hon. K.

Falcon: I would refer the member…. When you read this bill, it's important

that you read it in its entirety so that you understand the full flavour and

meaning of the bill. Under the definition of "constraint," you would

have to determine whether or not a constraint was holding up a project. Then you

go over to

section 4, and the question would become whether that constraint was

an unreasonable constraint. It lays out in

section 4 in quite a bit of detail

that the proponent must consult with the approval authority, that they must meet

the reasonable requirements of that approval authority. Only if there is an

unreasonableness alleged…. Then at that point, the minister has the ability to

sit down and try to see what the nature of the unreasonableness is. Then we can

bring in all the other facilitators, etc.

MacPhail: The Minister of Labour just appointed a judge to investigate the

film industry because somebody filed 46 grievances. That's getting in the way of

doing business in this province. Maybe the minister wasn't aware of that. I'm

not making these things up. These are people who have come to the government and

complained about grievances being filed getting in the way of doing business in

this province.

Could the

minister answer my question? Is the Labour Relations Board an approval

authority?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, again I'll say to the member: only if it is creating a

constraint which is an unreasonable constraint as defined under

section 4 of the

consultation for removal of constraints. If that board is creating an

unreasonable constraint that reasonable people cannot work out, then it would be

something that could be dealt with.

MacPhail: Is it an approval authority? Yes or no.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Absolutely, if it meets the requirements, then it depends on the

circumstances. It would have to depend on the set of circumstances you have for

whether it would meet the requirements.

[ Page 8086 ]

MacPhail: Great. Government can now override an independent authority like

the Labour Relations Board. Wow. Isn't that great? Land and Water….

Interjection.

MacPhail: I just asked the minister whether it was an approval authority. He

was forced to admit yes, and therefore the government can override the Labour

Relations Board. There is no other conclusion to reach — none.

Land and

Water B.C. — is that an approval authority?

Hon. K.

Falcon: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, along with every

other ministry of government, would be considered an approval authority. Again,

just to anticipate the rhetoric I know will come flying across the way, we've

made it very clear under this bill that nothing in this bill affects standards

associated with environmental, health or safety standards — just to pre-empt

what the member is going to try and say.

MacPhail: Could the minister answer my question? I asked about Land and

Water B.C. It's a Crown corporation. It's not a ministry; it's a Crown

corporation. Is Land and Water B.C., a Crown corporation, an approval authority?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Yes.

[1510]

MacPhail: Well, isn't that interesting? Is the minister aware that Land and

Water B.C. is the corporation responsible for approval of siting of fish farms?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'm fascinated by that, member, but I would ask you what it has to

do with

section 1,

definitions. We're trying to talk about

definitions.

MacPhail: I am stunned by the minister's lack of comprehension. He just

stood up and gave a big rhetorical rant, in anticipation of my question, that

this bill has nothing to do with environmental standards. I asked him whether

Land and Water B.C. is an approval authority which this legislation allows him

to override. He said yes, so I link the two. But I'll be slower. I'll go slower

here.

Land and

Water B.C. is responsible for the siting of fish farms. He may be aware of the

massive controversy from the environmental standards point of view around the

siting of fish farms. He said no environmental standards would be affected by

this legislation. Siting of fish farms directly impacts and is about

environmental standards. What's not right about what the minister just said?

Does this bill affect environmental standards, or is Land and Water B.C. not an

approval authority?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Yes.

Locke: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Locke: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House today a group of L.A.

Matheson students. They are 27 grade 11 students from a very exciting school in

my riding. They are here with their teachers: Ms. Cheryl Paul, Mr. Peter Hadow

and Mr. Steve Wilson. I ask that the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair, I asked a two-part question, which was probably

too fast for the minister, and he answered with one answer. Let me repeat it.

The minister said this is not about affecting environmental standards. He then

went on to say that Land and Water B.C. is an approval authority that can be

overridden. Land and Water B.C., responsible for the siting of fish farms, is

responsible for environmental standards directly. Now the minister has said….

I've asked him which is not true, then.

Let me put

it in the positive. I get in trouble when I talk about truth. Is it true that

this legislation does impact environmental standards, given that Land and Water

B.C. is an approval authority and responsible for environmental standards? Or is

Land and Water B.C. exempt from this legislation?

Hon. K.

Falcon: The member is causing me to jump ahead a little bit, but I need to

in order to edify her lack of understanding here. If that member reads

section

3(2)(a)(i), it says very clearly: "…ensure that decisions they are

required to make in relation to a designated project are made

expeditiously…." Sub-subsection (a)(ii) says: "…if and to the

extent that it is decided that the designated project is to proceed, facilitate

the expeditious completion and intended operations…."

The

critical thing there for the member to understand is that, as I have hammered

home in first reading and as I have hammered home in second reading, we are not

talking about standards. We are talking about expediting decisions. That's a

very important difference.

[1515]

MacPhail: That's what I'm talking about — processes and decisions. Land

and Water B.C. is the process, is the organization responsible for deciding the

siting of fish farms, and it is an approval authority, by the minister's

admission. In siting those fish farms, environmental impact is a major factor

— environmental standards. I don't think there's anyone in this House who

would dare to stand up and say that's not true — even those who are huge

champions of fish farming, and rightly so. Maybe I'll make it clearer, then. Is

the siting of fish farms…? Is aquaculture exempt from this bill? That's a

pretty simple question.

[ Page 8087 ]

Hon. K.

Falcon: Again, I would say to the member that what this bill is doing is

allowing expedited decisions. Whatever decisions need to be made have the

ability, through a process set out very clearly in

section 4, to expedite those

decisions. It does not in any way impact on those standards; just the decisions

that are required to go through can be expedited.

MacPhail: And how is fast-tracking the siting of a fish farm not about

environmental standards?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, it's very simple. You know, right now it probably can take —

who knows? — a year and a half or two years to make a decision. If there's a

belief that without impacting on the reasonable requirements of the approval

authority, you could make that decision in eight months or nine months, then

that ought to be allowed as long as you're expediting the review and process

provisions and not impacting on the standards. We as a government have been very

clear that we will be governed by the best, soundest science available. We will

continue to do so. Nothing in this act will take away from that.

MacPhail: The minister just says that fast-tracking the siting of fish farms

has nothing to do with environmental standards. Is that correct?

Hon. K.

Falcon: No. I'm saying that what the member is trying to do is make a

correlation between the fact that you only have safe scientific standards if

something takes a long time. What I'm saying to the member is that it is

actually possible in government that people can accelerate that. Do you know

what that actually may mean, member? That may mean taking a file from a desk and

putting it on the middle of the desk so that some attention is paid to it, so

that a decision could actually be made in a timely way.

Why would

that happen? That would happen because the government has signalled, through the

designation of a project as being provincially significant, that this is

something we want to pay attention to. So perhaps if an individual has a pile of

files on their desk, they may want to reach under that pile and pull out the

file and be able to make their decision, but in an expedited manner. I know

that's hard for the member to understand. Her government loved piles and just

left things in piles, but we like to do things a bit more efficiently.

The

Chair: Leader of the Opposition, I would prefer that you not stand until the

minister is finished his….

MacPhail: My apologies.

The

Chair: Leader of the Opposition.

MacPhail: Just to be clear, the siting of fish farms is subject to this

legislation through Land and Water B.C.?

Hon. K.

Falcon: To the member: correct me if I've got your question wrong. I think

you said: "Is a fish farm a designated project?" Is that roughly the

question? It wasn't? We misheard your question.

The

Chair: Would the Leader of the Opposition like to clarify the question.

MacPhail: Is the siting of fish farms by the approval authority, Land and

Water B.C., subject to this legislation?

[1520]

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, that would obviously…. You would have to go back to the

guidelines that govern this legislation. Those guidelines are very clear in that

it must have, at minimum, regional, environmental, economic or social benefits.

It must have benefits that go beyond the project location. There's a whole set

of criteria there that would have to be met. Cabinet would have to determine all

of those considerations and then make a decision.

For the

member's understanding, she should know that tonight I will not be standing here

trying to pre-guess future decisions of cabinet. That won't be happening this

evening.

MacPhail: No, I can well imagine that. The minister was very clear in

answering very specific questions from his government caucus, and he did that

glibly. Yet with the very specific category of projects, which this government

has championed over and over again, the minister refuses to answer my question.

Is it that they haven't contemplated this? A member of his cabinet got in

trouble over a huge aquaculture firm objecting to the slow process of approval

of an aquaculture licence. Is the memory of this cabinet so short that he thinks

I'm making these questions up?

All right,

I'll ask this. You know, it's not my riding that's going to be affected by this.

Courtenay-Comox will definitely be affected by this. Prince Rupert,

Nanaimo-Parksville and the Gulf Islands will be affected by this. I know none of

these members is standing up to say how to justify any of this.

This isn't

hypothetical. In fact, if the minister hasn't taken into consideration the

siting of fish farms and whether they are subject to this legislation or not,

then he can't speak with authority on anything else in this legislation. I

guarantee some of the first requests for use of this legislation will come from

the aquaculture industry.

Let me ask

this, then: is this the first time the minister has contemplated fish farms and

aquaculture and the siting of fish farms in relationship to this legislation?

Hon. K.

Falcon: No, I actually haven't. I will say to the member that there will be,

I'm sure, lots of people that would love to bring forward projects for

consideration by cabinet, but those projects are going to have to meet a very

high test. That high test includes what I

[ Page 8088 ]

talked to the member about. It must have at least regional economic

significance or positive economic impact. It must have at least regional

environmental or social benefits. That is a pretty big package of obligations

that it's going to have to receive.

Should a

fish farm licensee wish to avail themselves of this, they would have to come

forward, either to their local government or to the provincial cabinet, and make

a request. I can tell you that this is

an act that is going to be used maybe a

handful of times a year, and there's going to be a lot more disappointed people

than there are people that are going to be able to avail themselves. That's why

the act was designed that way.

[1525]

MacPhail: Well, that and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee at

Starbucks, because there's no evidence whatsoever about any constraint on this

legislation. Here we have a minister standing up and saying: "Gee, I hadn't

even thought of fish farms." His Liberal MLAs stand up here in the

Legislature every time aquaculture comes up and say how it has regional benefit,

social benefit, economic benefit. They stand here and champion…. The member

for Nanaimo stands here and champions all those every day, and how we've got to

get on with building fish farms and siting them.

It is

clearly coming as a surprise to the minister responsible for this draconian

legislation, but it isn't coming as a surprise to anyone else in this

Legislature. In fact, the member for Nanaimo could be standing up and asking the

flip side of my question, the way he's done all the time before, saying:

"Gee, I sure hope fish farms are exempt from this legislation." That's

been his tenor of comment in this Legislature all along. He will make that

appeal on behalf of businesses in his constituency. So will the member from

Campbell River.

This

minister is standing here saying he hasn't even thought about it, and yet

there's no exemption for fish farms or the siting of fish farms or for Land and

Water B.C. in this legislation. In fact, the minister says they're an approval

authority that can be overridden as long as the circumstances are okay. Well,

every Liberal MLA in this Legislature has risen to justify the circumstances of

the siting of fish farms. What about administrative tribunals? Are they exempt

as approval authorities?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, again, that's going to depend on the circumstances of the

case. If the administrative tribunal is quasi-judicial in nature, then clearly

it would not apply. If it's, say, a licensing function, then clearly that may

apply. It totally depends on the situation, and that would of course be

governed…. Again, as you get through sections 3 and 4, you will see that there

would have to be some form of breakdown in the consultation process, where

they're having difficulty getting approval from the respective approval

authority.

Hunter: I appreciate a moment ago the Leader of the Opposition attributing

to me support for the aquaculture industry. She's quite correct. It is actually

an environmentally sustainable and environmentally responsible industry, and

I'll continue to support it.

But I want

to get back to

section 1 of Bill 75. I do appreciate there's been some

canvassing of what might an approval authority be under paragraph 1(

b) of this

bill. I'd like to kind of shift attention a little bit, because I think I

understand, from the answers given by the minister to the Leader of the

Opposition, the kind of areas that we're talking about in terms of a public body

that could perform the function or duty of government.

I'm a

little less clear about

section 1(d), a public body which is empowered by an

enactment as a duty of local government. What might that be? Would it, for

example, be the greater Nanaimo water district? Is that an example? Perhaps the

minister could answer that and give other examples that would help clarify what

is meant by this particular section.

Hon. K.

Falcon: It could in fact be a water district, or it could be a corporation

set up by a local government to undertake certain activities on its behalf.

[1530]

Hunter: I guess a similar clarification I would ask of the minister is with

respect to paragraph (f), "any other prescribed entity." What does the

minister imagine would be such an entity, and could he clarify who would

prescribe such an entity and how that prescription would be made?

Hon. K.

Falcon: That really speaks to the question that if you discover an entity

you were unaware of, you would have the power, through prescribing regulation,

to identify that particular entity.

Hunter: I'm not sure I understood the answer. I can understand and I

appreciate there may be an entity out there that isn't covered in paragraphs (

a) through (e). Let's imagine entity X is out there. The prescription. How is that

entity prescribed? You said through regulation. Can you just expand on that a

little bit? The prescription would be by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Is

that what I understand?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Thank you to the member for Nanaimo. You would find that power

described under

section 12(2)(a), "Prescribing an entity as an approval

authority."

MacPhail: Carrying along the lines of the member for Nanaimo, we now know

this government can override a water district authority. What about the Building

Code Appeal Board? That has a direct relationship to construction projects. Can

this legislation override that?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Again, we've moved past

section 1, and we're into

section 3 and

section 4. I need to walk this member through, because you keep raising

questions.

MacPhail: Point of order, Mr. Chair. Maybe the minister

misunderstood. He's claiming that I'm beyond

[ Page 8089 ]

section 1. I'm asking whether the Building Code Appeal Board is an approval

authority.

The

Chair: I'd like to remind the members, as well, that I have been giving

leeway on both sides of this issue, with the member and the minister. I

understand where we're going.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Again, the definition of approval authority is broad by its very

nature, but it's brought to bear by the clarifications that are given under

section 3 and under

section 4.

[1535]

MacPhail: I am honestly taken aback by the unwillingness or the inability of

the minister to answer these very specific questions. These are actually boards

— authorities — that deal with projects, so this shouldn't come as a shock

to him. Has the minister contemplated the Building Code Appeal Board in the

drafting of this legislation?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Yes, all of those are in fact contemplated, and those would be part

of the reasonable requirements of an approval authority that come into play

anytime you have a major project. That's very much contemplated.

MacPhail: So it is an approval authority. That's the question I asked.

Interjection.

MacPhail: No, Mr. Chair, it isn't good enough for the minister to say that

it depends on the circumstances. We know that. If the Building Code Appeal Board

is doing its job and someone complains about how that's taking time, can that be

designated as an approval authority according to

section 1 of the legislation?

Hon. K.

Falcon: It could be considered an approval authority, and depending on the

circumstances of the case, it would be required to expedite their particular

decision-making. Again, that would depend on the circumstances of the case, as

laid out in sections 3 and 4.

[R.

Stewart in the chair.]

MacPhail: How about the Community Care Facility Appeal Board? The minister

has said this bill is not about environmental health or safety standards.

There's no exemption for the community care facility act. This act actually

deals with the construction of community care facilities, and it's an

administrative tribunal. There are no exemptions for administrative tribunals.

So is the Community Care Facility Appeal Board an approval authority?

Hon. K.

Falcon: The first question that would obviously arise is how on earth that

would be a provincially significant authority project, so that in itself would

relegate it to the fact that it's very unlikely to meet….

MacPhail: That's interesting.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Yes, thank you.

It's

unlikely to meet the standards and the guidelines that are set in place — that

it must have at least regional economic benefit or regional environmental

benefit or what have you.

Again, I

would just encourage the member to actually read the act. The other thing I

would say to the member is that were a project to be built, whatever the case or

type of project the minister wants to talk about, the decision-making

authorities that do the review and decision-making authorities would be required

or could be required to expedite those decisions — not impacting the standards

but just expediting those decisions through — so we can get timeliness

associated with that particular provincially significant project.

MacPhail: Listen, Mr. Chair. I have to tell you that this minister

better…. We better either adjourn this legislation so that he can actually be

briefed on these matters, or else he should stop being so cheeky on behalf of

the people of British Columbia. These questions have come from people around the

province who are faced with this situation exactly.

[1540]

Maybe the

Minister of State for Long Term Care would like to intervene, because community

care facilities in some areas of the province are the only significant building

projects going on. That's exactly what the member for Cariboo South was talking

about when he was saying that there's a big difference between lower mainland

projects and projects elsewhere.

He was

quite polite to answer that member's question, to say: "Oh yeah. Don't

worry. Smaller. It's not a dollar value." Now he stands up and says:

"Oh, I can't imagine how that would be significant." Perhaps he'd like

to talk to the people of Williams Lake.

The

Community Care Facility Appeal Board deals with approval processes and must take

into consideration environmental, health and safety issues. Why isn't it exempt,

then?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I can only gather, because the member keeps going on about care

homes, that she has a particular interest in ensuring that care homes are

expedited in British Columbia. I don't want to take away from that concern at

all. I mentioned to the member that I think the provincial Significant Projects

Streamlining Act actually stretches a fairly high bar, but if the member wants

to recommend and bring forward projects such as that so that the processes can

be expedited while preserving the standards, then I would encourage her to do

that.

MacPhail: Can the minister point to any place in this legislation where

rules set out by independent tribunals are exempt from Bill 75 — anywhere?

[ Page 8090 ]

Hon. K.

Falcon: Member, again, you have to read the legislation, but it would not

be. You would first of all have to determine whether or not it was a constraint.

If it became a constraint on the project, then you would go to

section 4(1) in

which you would have to see whether the project can be facilitated or the

constraint can be…. I'll read it into the record: "…must consult with

the approval authority having responsibility for that constraint in order to

arrive at a means by which the completion and operations of the designated

project can be facilitated in a manner that is consistent with the reasonable

requirements of the approval authority."

[1545]

MacPhail: Here's the problem. The bill stands as it is. There are no

regulations coming — none. That's what we were told in our briefing by staff

— no regulations coming for this legislation. There are no regulations to tell

us or the public or anyone how cabinet will use these powers — none.

The

minister standing up and stating what he just said has no substance in the

legislation whatsoever. His words can't be backed up by statute. The minister

has said it's not about compromising environmental, health or safety standards.

I've just given him three examples where that's a distinct possibility: fish

farms, building codes and community care facilities. Those are just three. He

can't point to a single

section in the bill where those concerns are addressed.

Section 11

exempts only two acts from this legislation. Everything else, by

interpretation,

applies and is open for application. The way laws are interpreted, it very

clearly says if there's a list of exemptions, then it means everything else is

included. All of these bodies I brought up are deemed to be included as being

able to be overridden.

Let me

actually quote from a piece submitted to the Vancouver Province on

November 10 after the legislation was introduced. It was written by Dave Hanley

of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Did the Liberal bench get that? The

Canadian Taxpayers Federation. He writes: "It's imperative for risk-takers

and investors that the regulatory burden be unburdensome and predictable. Bill

75 does the opposite. It makes the approval process unpredictable, unfair and

potentially costly." I'd be happy to read his entire letter into the

record, but that is not taking anything out of context.

Can the

minister point to the

section where it lays out how cabinet will decide to

override an approval authority?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, first let me respond to the inaccuracies of the member

opposite. In fact, if she read

section 11 in its entirety — and I will, so

that she's forced to listen to it.

Section 11(1) states: "If there is a

conflict between this Act and any other enactment, this Act prevails."

Subsection (2) says: "Subsection (1) does not apply in the event of a

conflict between this Act and (

a) the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the

regulations made under that Act, or (

b) the Environmental Assessment Act and the

regulations made under that Act."

Now, that

member should know that the Environmental Assessment Act sets up environmental

assessment review processes which consider all relevant environmental reviews

— including, in fact, federal ones — because the Environmental Assessment

Act coordinates and harmonizes with the federal government. That is a very

broad, sweeping piece of legislation, and it states right there in

section 11

that it is covered. So enough of that.

The other

criticism that member makes is from somebody from the Taxpayers Federation who

I've actually never heard of. I will point the member to some other letters that

have come in — from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, for example. The president

of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, John Winter, says: "This is a bold and

creative solution to address this province's needs for economic

investment." The chamber also goes on to say that this legislation is

necessary to put teeth in the government's heartlands economic strategy.

The ICBA

came out and said: "Red tape is not just bad for big projects; it's bad for

all projects. This new act should be the first step to streamline the entire

project approval process. We can't underestimate the economic losses caused by

layers of bureaucracy and paperwork."

From the

Business Council. "This act is a very important tool for potential

investors wishing to invest in the province," said Business Council

president and CEO Jerry Lampert. "It sends a clear signal to the investment

community that process and red tape will not get in the way of investment, jobs

and opportunities that are significant and beneficial to all British

Columbians."

[1550]

We've got

more letters. I've got stacks of letters — from the British Columbia

Construction Association.

MacPhail: Would that be Mike Geoghegan?

Hon. K.

Falcon: That would be Mike Geoghegan, in fact. He recognizes….

Interjection.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I can't hear, because the member across the way is yelling.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, please. Could we let the minister respond.

Hon. K.

Falcon: "Our members," he says, "work in every municipality

in B.C. Reducing the regulatory burden and red tape they deal with on every

project is critically important to them. To the extent that Bill 75, the

Significant Projects Streamlining Act, achieves this purpose, our organization

is strongly in support."

[ Page 8091 ]

What is the

common message coming out of this? The common message is that investment capital

in British Columbia and, indeed, around the world actually has choices. It's

something the previous government never understood, you see, because they chased

investment capital out of British Columbia. As we have the world looking to

British Columbia and as we get closer to 2010 and people are knocking on our

doors, we want to make sure we're rolling out the red carpet, not rolling out

the red tape.

Sadly, over

the last decade, under that member's government, we created an environment of

red tape and process that was so ridiculous that we literally chased away

companies. In the late nineties alone we lost over 500 corporations and 30,000

people just to Alberta. You know, I make no mistakes.

MacPhail: How many of them have come back? Zero.

The

Chair: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. K.

Falcon: As a matter of fact, I'm glad the member asked that question.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, please.

Hon. K.

Falcon: If the member actually looks at the migration patterns….

The

Chair: Order. Minister, could you sit down for a moment, please.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Sure.

The

Chair: Could we please allow the member to finish speaking. We'd all like to

hear the answer.

Hon. K.

Falcon: In conclusion, I was just pointing out that we are seeing the

positive news already coming in — the October job reports, where half of all

new jobs in the country were created right here in British Columbia, the

strongest numbers since 1976. Net migration is coming back to British Columbia,

and we're seeing the growth in biotechnology and high technology and industries

right across the great breadth of this province. This bill will send another

signal. It'll send a signal that if you have a major project with wide

environmental or investment or economic benefits to British Columbians, we will

promise this: process and red tape and the review and process provisions are not

going to get in the way of those benefits being realized by all British

Columbians.

MacPhail: Well, I can hardly wait to see this government tout the job

numbers when they come in, in December. I hope the government touts them exactly

the same way they did at the beginning of November, because every single

economist who spoke to the job numbers said they were flukes. There's a reason

for that, and it has to do with the firefighting activity that occurred in

October. I actually put it to the government that they issue news releases and

claim credit for the job numbers the first week in December the same way they

did in November.

Maybe the

Finance minister's information is wrong in his statistics, but the

interprovincial out-migration is on the increase. I'm sorry — I just took that

from the Minister of Finance's numbers. Maybe the minister of state has his own

numbers, which are different from the Finance minister's numbers, but I don't

think he does.

[1555]

I love the

fact that he likes to deride the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I love that

fact. I did ask a specific question on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayers

Federation, and the minister didn't answer it, so I'll repeat it. Can the

minister point to the

section where it lays out how cabinet will decide to

override an approval authority? Where is the predictability? That question is

from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Having already stated repeatedly that the bill will not affect

environmental, health or safety standards, I'll walk the member through

section

4 so that she understands completely that a proponent must deal with the

reasonable requirements of an approval authority. Should there still be a

problem and the proponent is having difficulty with the reasonable requirements

of an approval authority, then the minister may try and intervene and sit down

with them and see if they can work out whatever that unreasonable or reasonable

requirement — as the case may be — is.

Then the

minister has the ability to bring in an independent facilitator. That

independent facilitator can then do a fact-finding. They can talk to all the

parties involved, determine what the information is and then come back to the

minister with recommendations.

There is

still another step before a minister could issue direction to actually replace a

measure. That minister must, depending on whether he has been authorized by

cabinet to do so or may return back to cabinet for such authorization…. He or

she must consult with the approval authority and consult with the proponent

prior to making that replacement measure — again adding a whole number of

steps and processing to this to ensure we are working cooperatively together to

get reasonableness and timeliness.

MacPhail: My question was: how is cabinet going to do the approval? The

minister stood up here and said, "I'm not going to through project by

project and guess how cabinet's going to make the decision," so I asked him

for the guidelines of what will be the process for cabinet to reach a decision.

Hon. K.

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

section 3, which I'm happy to

do…. I do feel we should at least get through our

definitions, but I will

answer that. Under

section 3, if the minister brings

[ Page 8092 ]

forward a recommendation to cabinet, cabinet would review that recommendation

and make a determination as to whether to issue a designation on a specific

project. That's outlined, for your convenience, in

section 3(1) and 3(2).

Suffredine: I'm going to ask a few questions about the general concept of

the projects, but before I begin the first question, I want to clarify. I noted

that the Leader of the Opposition said just a moment ago that the job numbers

were up because of the fires in October. Being from a riding where almost 50,000

acres burned, I'm pretty sure the fires were out by then. I think they were out

in September. I just wanted to be sure it was clear on the record that August

and September were the times when the fires were burning. If the job numbers

were up, the jobs were finished by that time.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, please. Order, please.

Suffredine: Now, what I'd like to do is just get a picture of this for

constituents. I am getting inquiries from people about what the general nature

of this legislation is and why it should be there, so I'm going to give an

example — and it's only an example — for illustrative purposes. There was

recently a proposal in Nelson where someone produced some pretty extensive

mapping and documentation for a project — a major ski area just on the edge of

Nelson that probably would involve investment of between $50 million and $100

million if it were to go ahead. I guess step 1 is: does that concept fit the

nature of a project that might be eligible for designation under this section?

[1600]

Hon. K.

Falcon: As I mentioned earlier to the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the

challenge with sort of taking a one-off example I know next to nothing about is

that it's very difficult for me to prejudge any decision that cabinet may want

to consider when making a designation. So I would suggest to you that a number

of things would have to be in place.

The

identity of the proponent and the financial capability of the proponent would be

important. The position of the local government would certainly be of interest

and some sense as to what kind of support there is in the business community,

etc. I think all of those characteristics would probably want to be in place.

Suffredine: Assuming that it met the criteria described by the minister —

that it appeared to be a significant project, would create significant

employment in the community and was eligible — can the minister illustrate

some of the types of things that might be considered as constraints that a

developer would be coming to the ministry for and saying: "These are the

types of things that are making our project unworkable. Would you help us?"

Hon. K.

Falcon: I can speak from some knowledge of that from the resort side of

things. Typically, what happens when someone applies under the resort

application is that they initially start dealing with Land and Water B.C., but

very quickly a proponent will find themselves dealing with multiple ministries

of government and then also multiple — and I do mean multiple, in the dozens

— permitting provision requirements that they have to go through.

In dealing

with various ministries of government, you often have governments working at

cross-purposes. That can be both provincial government and local government, so

it can create a lot of confusion. There's no timeliness associated with

decisions. You are required to invest often hundreds of thousands or even

millions of dollars in studies, with no sense whatsoever as to whether your

project is even going to get a green light.

Those are

typically the kinds of barriers one would find in undertaking a project like the

one you've mentioned. Again, as I say, it's difficult — and in fact not just

difficult but irresponsible — for me to comment or to pretend to understand

what decision a future cabinet would make on a project. I hope that helps edify

you a little bit.

Suffredine: I wasn't intending to do more than illustrate the principles in

asking the question, but I'm sure the minister understands how most people grasp

things in terms of real concrete examples they can relate to.

Finally on

this, you spoke in terms of timeliness and projects being delayed. I think it's

fairly important to the average person whether eligibility under this act would

in any way affect the obligation of, say, a proponent in the example given to

comply with standards such as the Building Code or health standards. Is there

any possibility that they would be held to a different standard, or are we

simply speaking of the timeliness of getting a response?

Hon. K.

Falcon: No, that proponent would be held to the standards that are in place.

MacPhail: Just for the minister's clarity, I'm asking questions about

section 1(

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

"…(

c) a local government." That's just in case there's any confusion

on what

section we're on. Local government is defined as an approval authority

that can be overridden. Can the minister tell us…? He talked to the member

from Alberni a bit about the consultation that went on with local governments.

I'm going to present to him a much different version of what he said. I'll

probably read it into the record, into the correspondence. But who did he

consult with about including local governments? Who was on the UBCM committee he

consulted with, or what local mayors did he consult with?

[ Page 8093 ]

[1605]

Hon. K.

Falcon: Back in April, I met with the table officers, I believe they call

themselves, from the UBCM. The president at that time was Pat Wallace, and the

vice-president was — the current president, actually — Frank Leonard. I

don't recall all the names of the other table directors. I know Marvin Hunt was

one of them. I'm afraid I forget the other few that were there. That was back in

April.

I also had

several meetings with the Council of Resource Communities, which represents 38

mostly rural resource communities, and elicited largely pretty strong support

from that group.

MacPhail: That's interesting. Did he consult with Mayor Colin Kinsley as

part of any of those groups?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Mayor Kinsley is part of the Council of Resource Communities, so

yes, he was part of the consultation.

MacPhail: Let me just talk about Mayor Colin Kinsley. It's very interesting,

because I want to turn to an

article from the Times Colonist, November

16. It says:

"And

according to communications materials rubber-stamped by the Deregulation

minister, 'the Council of Resource Communities, a group representing 38

communities, was strongly supportive of the proposed legislation.' The news

release announcing the legislation even included an encouraging quotation from

Prince George mayor and council co-chairman Colin Kinsley."

Then this

article from the Times Colonist by Sean Holman goes on to

say:

phoned Kinsley to check up on his support for the streamlining act."

This

article was on November 16, this past Sunday. The

article goes

on to say:

"When

I reached him in Toronto, he told me he was surprised to hear the legislation

'will take away from the rights of municipalities…. From my discussions with

Minister Falcon, that's absolutely not true, nor would municipalities stand

for that. So I think some careful dialogue and discussion needs to take place

about what this legislation stands for, because I would never stand for the

kind of things that were said to me about taking away local government

authority.'"

Let's

clear up a few things for Mr. Kinsley, the mayor. To the minister: does Bill

75 give cabinet the ability to override local governments — yes or no?

Hon. K.

Falcon: First of all, let me comment on your comments on Mayor Kinsley,

because you're referring to an

article written by Sean Holman. I understand he

used to work for your government. I think that….

MacPhail: No.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Yes.

MacPhail: He worked for the public service.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Oh, yes, of course.

Let me just

say this. Can I answer the question? May I answer the question?

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order. Order, please. Can we let the minister answer the question,

please.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Thank you. I appreciate….

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, please. Order, please. Would the Leader of the Opposition….

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, please. Order, please. Would the Leader of the Opposition

please let the minister answer the question.

MacPhail: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. He deliberately attacked a person who

was a public servant, and he's surrounded by public servants. What's the

difference?

The

Chair: Can we please have the debate focused on the

section at hand. Please

let the minister answer the question.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I would actually refer the member to Mayor Colin Kinsley's most

recent comments I just saw in the paper, perhaps even today. I believe the

comments of the mayor, and I paraphrase, were that he felt the UBCM is

overreacting to the concerns raised in this bill and that he sees the positive

benefits of the streamlining bill for both his area in Prince George and the

province as a whole. By the way, I also had a long conversation with Mr. Kinsley

over the weekend, and he confirmed that.

MacPhail: Does the minister take pride in pitting one set of mayors against

the other? Is that what he's saying here — that he can talk to Mr. Kinsley and

he can get Mr. Kinsley to back up his legislation? Let me ask the question,

then: did the minister promise Mr. Kinsley that this legislation wouldn't

override local governments? Did he make that promise to him?

[1610]

Hon. K.

Falcon: I've made no promises to anyone. I've been very clear about what the

intent of this bill is. I'd be happy to go over that again in great detail with

the member. I would just again remind the member that in all her discussions

about things, she needs to know this: this bill does nothing new. Actually,

government has always had the authority to override local government. I refer

you to

section 874 of the Local Government Act. It's already there. I hate to

shock the member, but it's there. We can override all their planning, their OCPs,

zoning bylaws or what have you.

[ Page 8094 ]

What we did

here is said: "Look, if a project is deemed to be in the provincial

interest — that there's provincial significance associated with that project

— then let's build into place a means by which we can cooperatively ensure

that red tape and process and review processes are not going to get in the way

of that project." It does not guarantee certainty of outcome. It may, in

fact, get a fast "no" to a proponent, and that's okay too, because as

the Premier is fond of saying, most business people would much rather have a

"no" in 30 days than an "I don't know" in 30 months. Right

now in British Columbia you're much more likely to get an "I don't

know" in 30 months.

We as a

government believe that those disciplines we're imposing on ourselves as a

provincial government, in the rare and exceptional cases where we designate a

project, also apply to local approval authorities. Where there is a problem and

a proponent is trying to meet with the reasonable requirements of a local

authority, assuming that's what you're now getting at, then they must comply

with the reasonable requirements of that local approval authority.

It is only

if there is an unreasonable requirement or an allegation of an unreasonable

requirement that the minister may try and intervene and say: "Okay, what is

the problem here? Can we work this out?" The minister may even bring in an

independent facilitator to actually look and establish the fact base and

determine whether the unreasonable approval authority is, in fact, unreasonable

— maybe you've got an unreasonable proponent — and make recommendations to

the minister.

If the

minister decides and makes a determination — possibly in consultation with

cabinet — that there has been an unreasonable approval authority, then and

only then, after consulting with the proponent and the approval authority, may

they, he or she put into place replacement measures.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, that's a very long-winded way of saying that the

cabinet can override local government. Did the minister make that clear to Mr.

Kinsley, the mayor of Prince George, when he talked to him this week?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I made that abundantly clear when I met with all the mayors at the

UBCM table executive. In fact, I even had a chart up on the wall that outlined

exactly what the powers of the legislation would imply. I've also reminded all

of them that we already have those powers. The provincial government has had

those powers for 30 years now under

section 874.

MacPhail: Let's address that issue about this minister's reliance on the

powers under 874 and what advice he received from local governments on that. He

started his consultation in April, as he admitted to, with the table officers of

the Union of B.C. Municipalities chaired by Patricia Wallace, the president.

Here's the

first feedback the UBCM gave this minister on that. Let me read this into the

record because they're getting really upset. Local governments are getting

really upset with this minister standing up and saying: "We've always had

this power; there's nothing new here."

[1615]

Here's what

they said back in April immediately to this minister. This letter is from

Patricia Wallace, the UBCM president: "We listened with interest to your

proposals with respect to legislation." They refer to the economic

streamlining legislation. The minister said he made a big breakthrough to call

it the significant projects streamlining legislation. The letter goes on to say:

"We

provided our very direct assessment of any intention to override local bylaws

or other approvals. I would caution you about relying on using Local

Government Act

section 874 as a precedent for your actions.

Section 874 is

broad, covering OCPs, zoning, development permits, inspection fees, and

subdivision and development requirements, but it does not provide a sweeping

override of all bylaws. The

section 874 defence, in the context of expanded

powers today is a weak, ineffective and offensive justification. The

predecessor to

section 874 was enacted in 1977. It has never been used in 25

years, probably because it was not needed or, if considered, was deemed

unacceptable. Twenty-five years later there is a more progressive attitude

toward local-provincial relations. To enact similar provisions in 2003 will

provoke a massive opposition among local government and community

representatives. Ask yourself: if for over 25 years, no minister — and there

have been at least a dozen — has needed recourse to this provision, why

would you consider it to be a viable option now?"

What's

the minister's response to that?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, in fact, I'll read into the record my response, because on May

7, I wrote back to Ms. Patricia Wallace, and I said:

"Dear

Ms. Wallace:

"Thank

you for your letter dated April 16, 2003, that follows up on our April 10,

2003, meeting concerning the proposed economic streamlining legislation. I

appreciated the dialogue and particularly the suggestions put forward by you

and your colleagues at that meeting. I have subsequently attempted to

incorporate the suggestions in our proposed legislation.

"With

respect to your suggestion that cooperative efforts need to be emphasized as

the best way to resolve problems, I could not agree more. As such, this

concept has been more fully incorporated into the draft legislation. For

example, project proponents will be required to work with approval authorities

to seek resolution of any measure the proponent believes to be a constraint.

In fact, we will require the proponent to consult in a manner that is

consistent with the reasonable requirements of the approval authority.

"We

then add another step in the event a solution is not realized. The minister

may appoint a facilitator to assist and seek a resolution to the identified

constraint. In addition, in the event that a resolution is still not achieved,

the responsible minister will then be required to consult with the approval

authority, the facilitator and the proponent. These stages provide ample

opportunity to address constraints in a cooperative manner and achieve mutual

benefit. I believe that good-faith

[ Page 8095 ]

negotiations between parties will resolve most potential constraints

before they ever become problems.

"Another

point raised in the April 10, 2003, meeting was that we should not imply

that a project, once designated, is guaranteed a certainty of outcome. I also

agree with this statement and point out that this is not the intent of the

legislation. Once a project is designated, approval authorities will be required

to take all reasonable actions to expedite their reviews and decisions. We have

always said that a business person would rather have a 'no' in 30 days than an

'I don't know' in 30 months. Project proponents will still be subject to all

federal and provincial environmental, health and safety standards. Furthermore,

the proposed legislation will not affect the Environmental Assessment Act or the

Agricultural Land Commission process.

"The

provincial government takes local government powers very seriously. As

such, the proposed legislation will reflect our intent to see a balance between

the important principle of local autonomy and the province's responsibility to

act in the best interests of the citizens of British Columbia. That principle is

entirely consistent with both the Local Government Act and the Community

Charter.

"While

I understand some local governments may express concern over the

authority provided under the legislation, I believe many will also recognize the

benefits and tools that this legislation has to offer. Under the proposed

legislation, local and provincial approval authorities will be treated equally.

The same disciplines will be placed on inefficient or unreasonable approval

authorities at the provincial level. Local governments will also be able to make

use of the legislation and seek designation for projects that are important to

their regional economy.

"This

legislation will also provide a means to build public-private

partnerships for key infrastructure projects. This will close a gap that we all

recognized in that meeting exists under current legislation. New investment will

provide benefits to local governments, the residents and to the citizens

throughout British Columbia. Investors and others in the business community have

long complained about the high taxes, overregulation and generally hostile

business policies in British Columbia. This government was elected with a

mandate to restore hope and prosperity that once defined this province and to

build the necessary infrastructure, and to retain and attract business.

[1620]

"After

much consideration, including an examination of what a number of other

jurisdictions are doing, cabinet decided that British Columbia needs a framework

to allow streamlined reviews and approvals for significant provincial projects.

As a tool to enhance competitiveness, I believe the proposed legislation

establishes a reasonable degree of discipline and accountability on provincial

and local government approval authorities.

would be pleased to continue our discussions on ways we can cooperate to

create a better investment climate in British Columbia and to send a clear

signal that the province is open for business.

"Sincerely,

Kevin

Falcon."

MacPhail: That was the response to her letter of April 16. Her entire letter

was about the government using

section 874 as a justification for this

legislation. That letter didn't mention

section 874. I don't see the connection

between the two letters.

The

minister keeps invoking that the government has always had the powers that it

has under this legislation. Pat Wallace's entire April 16 letter was about

saying: "No,

section 874 of the Local Government Act has never been

used." That letter didn't even reply to that.

Why does

the minister keep saying that

section 874 of the Local Government Act gives him

the right to bring in this legislation?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, I'm tempted to remind the member that we are actually on

definitions, under

section 1.

MacPhail: I'm talking about local governments.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I realize you're talking about a number of issues, but I would hope

that at some point the member will actually get back to

definitions in

section

Interjection.

Hon. K.

Falcon: The member is asking why I raised

section 874. Well, because

section

874 does provide those powers to the provincial government — always has

provided those powers. Those powers are available.

One of the

reasons and one of the arguments I've made with local government — very

successfully to many of them, by the way, who support this bill….

Interjection.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Rather than use 874, which is a very blunt instrument, we would

rather have something that where we designate a project, we alert everybody that

this is a provincially significant project and that we have an ability to put

into place — as we did under

section 4 — a whole series of steps so we can

actually work cooperatively together to create opportunities and benefits for

British Columbians.

MacPhail: Is the minister suggesting the UBCM president and the table

officers are wrong in saying that

section 874 of the Local Government Act has

never been used in 25 years? Are they wrong?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I have no idea whether they're right or wrong. I know that under the

Right to Farm Act, we have recently had to use legislation to amend local

bylaws.

Whether

we've used

section 874 in the last 25 years…. I'd have to go back and check.

I'm not sure, off the top of my head.

MacPhail: Well, I guess the minister should stop making the argument, Mr.

Chair, that this is nothing new. That's what he says. He stands up and says:

"Oh, this legislation, Bill 75, is nothing new. It's just the same

[ Page 8096 ]

section 874 of the Local Government Act." He's been told over and

over again — from the very beginning, I might add — to stop using that as a

justification for his legislation, because 874 has never been used.

So what

does he do? He continues to poke the eyes of local governments by justifying his

draconian legislation by saying: "Oh, it's the same thing that was on the

books under the Local Government Act." He pokes a stick in the eye of the

UBCM and the mayors, knowing full well his logic doesn't exist.

[1625]

Well, let's

carry on about the definition of approval authority. Let me make it very clear

where my questions are coming from.

Section 1(c), which we're discussing right

now, defines a local government as an approval authority, and cabinet has the

right to override an approval authority.

Let's see

how far this government has come in getting the Union of B.C. Municipalities on

board. It's very interesting. I wonder if the minister is going to stand up and

badmouth Frank Leonard because he disagrees, the same way he just badmouthed Mr.

Hanley of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation — he said he's never heard of him

— or badmouthed Sean Holman, a public servant. Let's see if he's going to do

that to Frank Leonard, the president of the UBCM, as well.

Here's what

Frank Leonard had to say about being included as an approval authority under

Bill 75. It's to all UBCM members. It's dated November 7. It's from Frank

Leonard, the president.

"We

are writing to you on a very serious matter. On November 3 the Minister of State

for Deregulation introduced Bill 75, Significant Projects Streamlining Act.

Attached is an in-the-House bulletin describing the content of the bill.

"The

UBCM executive is shocked by the degree of intrusion of this legislation

into local affairs. It allows any minister authorized by cabinet to replace any

local government bylaw, plan, regulation, policy, etc., to facilitate the

approval or development of a 'provincially significant project.' Cabinet can

make the determination without any prior notice to the local government or the

community.

"The

Community Charter, which is not yet law, promised us recognition as an

independent, accountable and responsible order of government. Bill 75 has a

minister assuming all the powers of a duly elected council or board and

substituting his/her decision for those of local councils and boards which have

been developed with citizen input. The charter touted public accountability and

openness, but Bill 75 replaces local publicly developed plans, including those

developed through public hearing processes, with fiats from the provincial

minister.

"We

recognize there is a need to balance local and provincial interests. We

also want a strong and competitive economy. We support timely approvals,

especially from provincial ministries. This just is not the way to achieve it.

The executive is calling on the provincial government to remove local government

from Bill 75."

Here's

the letter that the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities wrote directly

to the Minister of State for Deregulation, dated November 7. It says:

"Dear

Minister:

"In

the spring of this year, representatives of the UBCM met with you to

discuss your initiative on economic streamlining legislation. We advised you of

our concerns; you listened and did not proceed at that time. We offered to

consult further with your ministry over the summer, and we thought we had an

agreement to that effect. That consultation did not happen, so consequently we

were not surprised to see that the legislation you introduced is seriously

flawed, in our opinion.

"We

share the goals of improving the B.C. economy and our global

competitiveness, but we do not agree on the approach you have introduced. The

executive has reviewed Bill 75, and I shared your letter of November 2003 with

them. The executive are requesting that Bill 75 be amended at this time to

remove the reference to local government as an approving authority."

The

government hasn't tabled such an amendment, and I will do so now. Just a second.

I'll sign the amendment. That's for the Table and for the minister.

[SECTION 1, by deleting subsection (

c) under the definition of

"approval authority".]

On the

amendment.

[1630]

MacPhail: My amendment, Mr. Chair, deletes

section 1(

c) so that a local

government would be removed as an approval authority. I'm wondering whether the

minister has…. What consultation did occur with the UBCM after the initial

spring consultation, where the minister promised he wouldn't introduce this

legislation?

Hon. K.

Falcon: First of all, the member opposite is mischaracterizing what actually

happened. We had a complete and full briefing with the table executive of the

UBCM in April. We actually offered to continue the dialogue with them. We

encouraged them, in fact, to make input particularly into the guidelines, where

we felt they could provide some important input. Not a single mayor did approach

us subsequent to that meeting. Even at the UBCM meeting, when we had a meeting

again in September, no one brought forward any suggested changes. In fairness to

UBCM, maybe it was their hope that the bill just went away,

I had

written back — and I've read that letter into the record here — thanking

them for the input that I did get out of that meeting and committing to them to

incorporate those changes, as I did, into the bill. Those changes included

adding the ability to bring in independent facilitators, making sure that any

proponent must deal with the reasonable requirements of the approval authority,

making sure that we changed the name from the economic development streamlining

act to the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, thereby emphasizing the rare

nature for which this bill would be used. So I just disagree.

At the end

of the day, let me just say this to my friends in UBCM — and I have many. I

think many of the folks at UBCM legitimately have made the argument to me:

"We like the fact that you're putting a discipline on the provincial

approval authorities. Two

[ Page 8097 ]

thumbs up for that. But we don't want any disciplines put on ourselves."

While I

understand that argument, I just respectfully disagree with it. I disagree with

it because I believe there are times when there are items or things that

actually are in the provincial interest. If they are in the provincial interest

and there is an overriding provincial interest we're trying to look after,

surely we can work together in a cooperative way to make sure that process and

red tape don't get in the way of frustrating projects that could have enormous

potential for British Columbians. That's where I think some of us from UBCM part

ways.

Fortunately,

there are many members of the UBCM that are very, very supportive. That includes

a big-city mayor like Mayor Doug McCallum, who was telling me that he just

travelled back from chairing a very influential event in South Africa — cities

from around the world — and that one of the messages that came out of

there…. One of the most important messages that he advised me of was that

investment capital needs to have certainty of timeliness — not certainty of

outcome, just certainty of timeliness.

That's what

this bill speaks to. It speaks to ensuring that we get people answers and we get

them quickly, even if it's a "no" answer. Let's get a "no"

to them fast so that they can move on and look at their other investment

possibilities, hopefully, in British Columbia.

So I'm

sorry that through all our discussions with the mayors and UBCM, we weren't able

to get all of them on board. We were able to get a significant number,

particularly from rural resource British Columbia. They recognize the value of

this bill in helping them build their communities, particularly those

communities that have been hard hit by the resource sector and are looking for

some hope and opportunity. It's totally consistent with our heartlands economic

strategy and the commitment by our Premier to revitalize the heartlands of

British Columbia.

MacPhail: So is the minister now blaming the UBCM — that they didn't get

changes in, in time, and therefore he felt completely justified in proceeding

with Bill 75?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Obviously, the member didn't listen to what I said. No, that's not

what I said….

Interjection.

Hon. K.

Falcon: If the member would stop talking and listen, you might hear what I

say. What I said, actually, was that I had a meeting with them. They made a

number of recommendations back in April, and that's why I read my letter into

the record. The letter I read into the record actually identified a whole number

of those issues that they raised, so we incorporated them into the proposed

legislation.

Look. At

the end of the day, the UBCM executive — not the entire organization, but the

executive — still wasn't prepared to support it. Now, I must say, in fairness,

that we are in discussions with the UBCM and that we have worked on a memorandum

of understanding, sort of a cooperation protocol that could go in line with

this. It's something that we drafted together and that UBCM is going to take

back to some of their executive members for consideration. It is my hope that it

may be something that may bring comfort to some of those members of UBCM.

[1635]

MacPhail: Well, I guess I can just leave it up to the UBCM and the mayors to

read this transcript and see whether the minister is representing properly his

discussions with them. Certainly, I know that the November 7 correspondence from

the UBCM and the continuing public comment by mayors other than Mayor McCallum

and Mayor Kinsley are all against this legislation.

Well, feel

free for the minister to put those on record. Here's what Mayor Herb Pond said.

He is from Prince Rupert, that great group called the heartlands. His town's

doing really well with the heartlands economic strategy. Mayor Herb Pond is

among those concerned with the proposal to give the provincial government the

ability to override the Municipal Act for significant projects. His end quote

is: "The UBCM sees the legislation as giving the province the power to

override municipal public hearings. The UBCM is firmly opposed to this."

Then, of

course — and I can just imagine how the minister is going to react to this —

Vancouver city council brought forward a resolution. I'll read it into the

record. I know how much the minister relies on Vancouver city council. He lauded

them about how wonderful they were during the PNE act and the changes to the

Hastings Park Trust. He couldn't say enough good stuff about the Vancouver city

council. Let's hear what the Vancouver city council has to say about Bill 75.

"Whereas

Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, seriously erodes municipal

autonomy and independence and could result in the province overriding any

municipal decision, including the city of Vancouver's, from bylaws to land use

to services and taxation; and

whereas Bill 75 enables the province to override

municipal processes for considering and approving projects; and

whereas Bill 75

allows for deals to be made and projects approved without any public

transparency; and

whereas Bill 75 will not be subject to freedom of information

and protection of privacy legislation; and

whereas there has been a lack of

consideration of the concerns raised by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and

individual municipalities regarding this significant change in legislation;

therefore,

be it resolved that the city of Vancouver endorse the UBCM executive

in their efforts to oppose Bill 75."

That's why I've put forward this amendment. That's why I put forward

an amendment that says that I move — in Committee of the Whole on Bill 75,

intituled the Significant Project Streamlining Act — to amend as follows:

"Section 1, by deleting subsection (

c) under the definition of 'approval

authority.'" That would remove local governments as an approving authority.

I'll just

carry on, then, in terms of an interesting view of the legal analysis. Has the

government re-

[ Page 8098 ]

ceived the legal analysis by UBCM, written by Sandra Carter of Bull, Houser

and Tupper, of the Significant Projects Streamlining Act?

[1640]

Hon. K.

Falcon: No, I have not seen one. They have not yet passed that along to us.

I imagine at some point they will.

I do want

to state for the record, because the member is quoting some mayors that she

knows…. She may be pleased to know that there are a number of mayors —

including the mayor of Surrey, the second-largest city in British Columbia and,

I might point out, the fastest-growing city in British Columbia — who

recognize the value of this. We have a mayor with leadership who recognizes how

important it is that all approval authorities work together to create

opportunities for the benefit of their residents.

I'm

interested in your comment on Herb Pond. I believe he told me he was misquoted

in a newspaper article. I do have a letter from Herb Pond, actually, that says

— and I quote in part: "There is no doubt that this will send a positive

signal to industry while continuing to protect the values of British

Columbians." In my conversation with Mayor Pond, we both saw the value, for

example, of their potential cruise ship port as being a project that could have

enormous regional benefit.

But there

are also people like Gerry Furney in Port McNeill. There are people like Clint

Hames in Chilliwack. There are people like Mayor Steve Thorlakson in Fort St.

John. There are other mayors that have called in and left messages and said:

"Stick with it. We disagree with UBCM." I think it's understandable

that when you have a large organization like that, you're going to have some

differences of opinion. There will be some that support and others that don't,

but I think we've got the balance right in this legislation.

MacPhail: Could the minister read Mr. Pond's entire letter into the record,

please?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Certainly.

"Dear Minister Falcon:

"It

is good to see the Significant Projects Streamlining Act finally

introduced. There is no doubt that this will send a positive signal to industry

while continuing to protect the values of British Columbians. It is also

encouraging to those of us trying to make things happen in the heartland. Thank

you for your hard work, and congratulations on your progress to date.

"Yours truly,

Mayor Herb Pond."

MacPhail: Where's the

section that you read before?

Interjection.

MacPhail: Okay. And what was the date of that letter?

Interjection.

MacPhail: Yeah, well, I'm sorry. My letter is more recent than your letter

— through you, Mr. Chair. So Mr. Pond has actually received the discussion

from the UBCM…. That's quite disingenuous of the minister to read that letter

into the record, quite disingenuous in terms of saying that Mr. Pond supports

the legislation.

Interjection.

MacPhail: No, no, I'm sorry. All right, that's fair enough for him to

suggest that I asked him to read it. It's disingenuous for him to use tha