Hansard — Monday, April 30, 2007 a.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Point of Privilege		7259
	L. Krog

Private Members' Statements		7259
	Big business for B.C.
	J. Yap
	G. Robertson
	Accountability
	L. Krog
	R. Hawes
	The downward trend
	D. MacKay
	L. Krog
	Island living
	C. Trevena
	D. MacKay

Motions on Notice		7268
	Federal government involvement in flood prevention in B.C. (Motion 51)
	R. Hawes
	M. Sather
	D. Hayer
	S. Simpson
	J. Yap
	C. Puchmayr
	V. Roddick
	N. Macdonald
	L. Mayencourt
	G. Coons

J. Yap: As we mark the start of Retail Week in B.C., I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak on big business in B.C. As all members of this House appreciate, small business is big business in B.C. Whether it's a one-person home-based business or the typical mom-and-pop shop employing a few family members, through to business enterprises with many employees and more than one location, small business is well represented in British Columbia.

Certainly, my riding of Richmond-Steveston enjoys a vibrant and diverse small-business sector, including the retail shops of the historic village of Steveston and other businesses offering a variety of goods and services. Small business, as we all know, is generally defined as any business with up to 50 employees, and we sure have many, many such businesses in British Columbia.

Small business plays a vital role in all areas of British Columbia's economy. Small business constitutes 98 percent of all businesses in the province. That's 363,000 businesses. Small business employs approximately 971,000 people. That's almost a million people. Small business plays a major role in the high-tech sector, where 95 percent of employers are small business.

Small business accounts for 57 percent of all private sector jobs, and small business contributes 26 percent of provincial GDP — the highest ratio of any province — with the Canadian average being 22 percent. Small business employment in B.C. grew 3.3 percent from 2003 to 2004, the second-highest rate of growth among the provinces and well above the national average of 1.9 percent.

Since 2000 B.C. has been Canada's leader in small business growth, and in 2005 B.C. had the second-highest number of small businesses per capita in Canada. Between 2000 and 2005 the number of small businesses in the province grew 7.2 percent, way above the national average of 0.2 percent. Clearly, B.C. leads the way in encouraging and fostering small business, and this in turn drives overall economic growth in our province.

As we see our economic prospects continue to be positive, it's important to keep B.C. small business–friendly and to foster entrepreneurship in this sector. A small business sector means job growth and a strong economy, which in turn means government can provide more services to the people of British Columbia.

Our government has helped small business become big business in B.C. There have been numerous initiatives that have helped bring this about. Firstly, our government lowered taxes. The corporate income tax for small business was lowered, as was personal income tax, benefiting individual entrepreneurs and their families.

In the year 2000 personal income tax rates were the highest in the country at 54 percent. I'm mindful that today is the deadline for filing income tax and that it's on the minds of many British Columbians and Canadians — the fact that we have this opportunity to pay income tax. At the start of our government's first mandate, personal income tax rates were reduced by 25 percent. This year's budget saw a further reduction in personal income tax rates, so that we now have in B.C. the lowest income tax rates for those earning up to $108,000 annually. B.C.'s small business corporate income tax rate is among the lowest of any province in Canada.

Since 2001 our government has brought in 68 tax-related measures, including 15 new measures announced in Budget 2007, returning billions in tax savings to consumers and to businesses every year. In addition, our government has made it easier to do business in B.C., reducing excessive red tape by regulatory reform.

In 2001 we set a goal of reducing red-tape and regulatory burden by one-third within three years. This goal has been not only achieved but exceeded. We have made such great progress in this area that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business last year honoured our government with a special award for excellence in public policy for those regulatory reforms.

Beyond reducing taxes and reforming regulatory regimes, our government has also improved services to small business. For example, some of the rules governing the collection of provincial sales tax have been at times challenging for small business to deal with. Our government has undertaken a review of these, making improvement to the rules and providing better clarity for small business people.

Entrepreneurship is the foundation of our economy, and small business is at the very heart of this foundation. We are very fortunate to have in B.C. a vibrant and growing small business sector. We should continue to support this sector and ensure that we keep B.C. small business–friendly, because small business is in fact big business in B.C.

N. Simons: I notice that in the gallery today we have Rev. Tim Schindel and his wife Barb. I'm very happy to

see them here. We saw them on the day that the House opened on the 13th, when the reverend gave the prayer to open the session. Will the House make them welcome.

G. Robertson: I rise to speak to big business and small business. I think it's interesting that the topic of this morning's initial statements was big business, and the member opposite chose to focus on small business collectively representing some sort of big business interest.

I would, first of all, contend that this business seems to have a great deal of confusion between big business and small business in terms of who they support, which sectors they support, who they play favourites with and where the subsidies go.

L. Mayencourt: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for some clarification. It's my understanding that private member's time is not to be used for partisan attacks, either on the opposition or on the government. If that is correct, I would ask that the member be reminded of that.

I would think that the members opposite would be proud of their support and subsidy of big business in this province, specifically regarding the oil and gas industry. For example, I was with the Minister of Energy debating the royalty and subsidies for big business in the oil and gas sector, where over $260 million will flow this year in subsidies. Clearly, these subsidies supporting big business and natural resources are supported by this government, encouraged by this government.

I just want to point out a difference here. These big businesses are here for our natural resources. They are here because B.C. has extraordinary wealth from our forest products, our minerals, our fossil fuels and our energy resources. These are all publicly owned assets, and they must be managed with the utmost responsibility. The rent stumpage royalties and, of course, the jobs are what remain here when these resources are traded through big businesses.

Giving big business opportunities to make a competitive return on investment is of course necessary, but ensuring that B.C. citizens enjoy the maximum benefit from these natural resources is paramount. Currently, the returns for many of these natural resources are nowhere near what they could be — whether that's jobs per unit of raw resource to financial returns from our natural resources…. Clearly, there is room for improvement here.

In addition, there is room for improvement in terms of worker safety. Weakening standards and lack of enforcement have led to a sharp increase in worker deaths on jobsites. This is unacceptable.

Environmental impact is another factor in natural resource extraction, whether it's related to forest practices, oil and gas exploration or mining. They have the potential to create long-term costs to ecosystems and therefore to B.C. citizens. The standards, the monitoring and the enforcement are critical to ensure that we aren't stuck with the devastation and costs of remediation from these industries.

I just want to clarify the importance of supporting small business. In response to the member opposite, the small business tax rate has been stalled at 4½ percent for the last six years. We are no longer among the lowest in Canada.

The government's failure on deregulation, where 80 percent of small businesses in the province have failed to notice any effect of that deregulation…. Clearly, it's important to focus on regulation that does impact small business to reduce the burden on those small businesses. It's critical to support the small businesses, of course, in the resource sector, the value-added forest sector.

They're having great challenges right now with the forest policies and the lack of support provincewide for small business that is active. It's really critical, particularly in the resource sectors, that the jobs through small and medium-sized enterprises are supported and that the investments, the incentives and the regulatory framework support a robust sector that grows into the big businesses that will be based here for the long term.

J. Yap: For a moment there I was wondering if the member for Vancouver-Fairview had actually listened to my private member's statement. There seemed to be some confusion, but there is no confusion on the government's side. Our government stands strongly in support of a strong small business sector, and that is what we have today.

It brings to mind, coincidentally, the words "negative," "destructive" and "pessimistic." It's unfortunate that members of the opposition just can't bring themselves to recognize….

N. Simons: All I ask, Mr. Speaker, is a bit of fairness on both sides of the House. We have the same rules in the morning with the private members' statements.

J. Yap: We on the government side believe that B.C. is on the right track. British Columbians agree that we

are on the right track, and we'll continue to ensure that we're on the right track.

It's great to see that government values the small business sector and has established the Small Business Roundtable to advise government and the small business sector on issues, strategies and potential actions which can help make B.C. Canada's most small business–friendly jurisdiction. The round table has held consultations in communities around the province, involving small business people by getting them together to meet and discuss issues of concern for small business.

Entrepreneurs can provide input directly to government. I've had the opportunity to participate in the round-table discussion when it came to Richmond, my community, and I can confirm to the House that the input from small business entrepreneurs at these consultations was very valuable.

Small business has to be allowed to do what it does best. Small business asks for nothing less and nothing more. Small business needs to know what the rules and regulations are, what is expected of them, and information that is accessible and easy to understand. Our government has done just this, introducing easy-to-follow information. The innovative taxpayer fairness and service code is part of this strategy to provide a higher level of customer service and resolution of customer service opportunities or complaints.

The third edition, and this is leading edge…. I think the following introduction to this code says volumes about the government's approach, and it says as follows: "The third edition of the taxpayer fairness and service code is a living document that sets out the ministry's fairness and service values and affirms taxpayers' rights to courtesy, respect, confidentiality, fair treatment, help, information, dispute resolution and timely appeals."

Our government believes in the power of a strong economy. A strong small business sector is essential to keeping our economy strong. I'm proud of our government's record and look forward to continuing strong results in this sector.

L. Krog: Accountability. When this assembly was built nearly 110 years ago, the offices of government were housed in this place. The ministers worked here. The public servants worked here. It's probably fair to say that most everyone knew one another. Victoria was a small community. Vancouver was an up-and-coming community — and New Westminster and Nanaimo. But these were small places. It was a small province in terms of its population.

One could argue that accountability was a great deal easier. People literally knew one another. Anyone who walked into this building to discuss or meet with a government official was seen by probably most of the citizenry of Victoria, arguably.

We have become a far more complex province, a much larger province in terms of population and the complexity of government. Government offices now are housed around the cities of Victoria and Vancouver and across the province. This isn't a small community, and therefore that small-town ability to know everyone else's business is gone.

Cabinet ministers and deputy ministers and government officials and senior public servants and MLAs meet with all kinds of people day in and day out, and there is arguably no opportunity for the public in that simple, small-town way to scrutinize who is talking to whom and, indeed, what they are saying to one another.

Public trust in how government is conducted is absolutely fundamental to the success of our democratic way of life. We know from the corporate world, particularly in the United States most recently, that even accounting firms — in which everyone historically reposed great trust — have been found to be wanting. We know that heads of corporate organizations have been found dipping into the trough in a way that is almost unparalleled in history.

If we are to ensure that what we do in this place — and what government does in this place and what government officials participate in — is seen to be aboveboard, then there has to be, and obviously is, over time an increasing regulatory regime.

My friends opposite — lest any of them think a partisan thought here this morning — will probably accuse my party of being the party of overregulation. If a New Democrat sees something, they want to regulate it or tax it, or whatever. The fact is that we are in a time where the public expects a high standard and, unfortunately, is often disappointed. So it is important that if officials of the government or ministers or MLAs are being seen by parties, the public wants to know. They want to know why they are there and what they are doing and what they are up to and on whose behalf they're working.

Every one of us every day as an MLA is lobbied by all kinds of people. It may be a constituent with an issue that's entirely personal to them. It may be the executive director of a charitable organization or a community organization. It may be an officer of a corporation. It may be a developer. It's all kinds of people.

What we do know is this. People need to know who they are and what they are doing. It is important that we have a system for reporting that kind of information and that kind of activity. If we don't and we continue to see a reduction in the amount of trust that the public has in government and politicians, then eventually, I suppose, we'll end up being elected at this place by less than 50 percent of the voters who could put us here. People will lose all trust in government officials.

This is even more so with respect to high ministerial officials now, because we are paying more in the public sector. We are paying more to senior public servants than historically was the case. There was a quiet understanding at one time that if you went into the public service and stayed there long enough and you rose to the dizzying heights of the assistant deputy minister's office or the deputy minister's office or whatever, you wouldn't get the same kind of pay you would expect to

see in the private sector. But there was a pension, and there was an honour that went with that public service.

That has changed. We now see senior public officials — for instance, the head of the Securities Commission — receiving salaries and benefits far in excess of what members of the assembly receive, far in excess of what the Premier receives and indeed commensurate with what is received in the private sector by many senior executives.

What is it that we can do as legislators to ensure that people have trust in how we and those senior public servants conduct our business? It is to ensure that there are records kept of what we do and who we meet with, and full public disclosure. That is for me the most non-partisan of all issues. If we make that very clear through legislation and motions in this House and by the way we conduct ourselves, then what we do for one another is enhance the reputation of the public service of the government of British Columbia and the MLAs who serve the people.

It works for all of us. It will work whether we sit on this side of the House or whether, after the next election, we sit on the other side of the House. The rules will be the same, and those rules have to meet a very high standard to ensure that people are confident that everyone who is seeing senior government officials or politicians is being aboveboard — in other words, we know what's happening.

We know that in the United States, the lobbying industry is a huge industry. There are literally tens of thousands of highly paid professionals who work in Washington, D.C. It's hard to keep track of it, and I come back to my point about the simplicity of government.

We can't expect somebody standing on the steps of the Legislature to keep track of who comes in and out of here anymore, or who goes in and out of the deputy minister's office. But if we do keep track and ensure that all in the public know what is happening, then we restore confidence in the system. When people see legislation and action taken in this place, they will be confident that nothing untoward has happened, that people have had their say but that we know who they were, and we hopefully have some idea of what they had to say.

If we don't — if we continue to see the kind of development that's occurred in the United States with thousands and thousands of lobbyists, and as we see the allegations made about the public servants and lobbyists generally — we will destroy public trust. And public trust in what we do here is, I think, absolutely paramount. This is an honourable place, and all of us are honourable members.

R. Hawes: I would like to thank the member for his comments. I have to say that I couldn't agree with him more. I agree totally with what he's saying. In fact, I would say that our government agrees with him. We did pass a lobbyist registration act three or four years ago, which does require lobbyists to register. Every time they see an official, they are to record that in the registry.

It does call for the lobbyist, though, to do that, not for the MLA or the civil servant to actually go down and record it. It's the lobbyist. The onus is on the lobbyist, and there is a fairly substantial fine. I think it's a fine of up to $25,000 for failure to comply with the act.

I think the member in his statement was alluding to the workload, to some degree, that all of us have. We all have very, very busy schedules. I know that none of us really would be able to keep track, because all of us are lobbied on a fairly frequent basis by constituents, oftentimes by government relations people that are paid lobbyists and often by spokespeople who are directly in an industry that aren't really GR people but who come to talk to us about what they want in their industry.

I suppose they may fall in the definition of a lobbyist. If they do, then they are to register under the act. We're not compelled to go down and register every time we are lobbied. It's on the lobbyist. That's where the onus lies.

I'm sure the member would not be implying that MLAs should somehow be recording every time somebody comes to speak to them and publishing that. That is, as I say, the registry's place and the lobbyists' place. I will say that all of us on the government side of the House get a publication each year that tells us who has lobbied us individually. That's off the registry, and it is available, so we all take a look.

It's very surprising to me that when I look at who has put my name down as having lobbied me, often I can't remember having seen them. This is not really a slam against government relations people, but sometimes they get paid for who they see on behalf of their client. If they see a whole group of people in a room, for example, they will put all their names down because, of course, it makes them appear a little better to their clients. I would think that in many, many cases there is actually overreporting by lobbyists rather than underreporting.

I'm not sure that the public is out there asking the questions that the member thinks the public is asking. I have never, ever been asked who is lobbying me by a constituent. I've never known of a constituent that's come in and said: "Can I get access to the lobbyist registry, so I can see who is lobbying you?" I've never had that happen.

I think it's a wonderful thing that lobbyists are forced to register. I think the act…. Is it perfect? Maybe not. Does it need to be tightened up in future? Maybe it does. But I think that as we watch it run its course, as the member said, more and more tightening up will be required from time to time in all kinds of areas because, as we progress as a society and — as he said — get bigger and society gets more complex, we need to be constantly revising and looking at how we operate functions like the lobbyists registry.

The fact that we put that in place — that we require lobbyists to not only register but to report every time

that they lobby somebody in government — is a very, very good thing, I think. If there are some lobbyists that aren't following the rules, there is a way to deal with that. Under the act, there are officials that would look after that. If there are complaints that come forward, they would be looked at, and the appropriate penalties would be put in place. So on balance, I think the public is well-served with the way that we deal with people who come to lobby us and the way that it is reported out.

I do agree with the member that I would not want to see us ever go to the way that it works in the United States, where elected people often, on the first day that they are elected, start putting together a war chest of money collected from lobbyists and from various groups for their next election. That's not the way that we should be operating, and we don't.

On balance, again, I say that I'm personally quite satisfied with the way things are operating. I'm looking forward to hearing the rest of what the member has to say.

L. Krog: I want to thank the member for Maple Ridge–Mission for his thoughtful remarks this morning. I'm pleased to see that he himself acknowledged…. I believe I'm quoting him correctly when he said that the act isn't perfect and that it may need tightening up.

I think that's the point of my remarks. If the act is to have real impact, it has to have real teeth. We have to have real authority in the statute, and enforceability as well.

Someone once said — an RCMP officer in my law 11 class, actually — that a law that couldn't be enforced was a bad law. Arguably, a law that doesn't have many enforcement provisions in it isn't a very good law. I would suggest, following along on what the member for Maple Ridge–Mission has said, that we need an act with real teeth, with enforcement provisions, that ensures that that public trust I talked about earlier this morning is enhanced, that people feel confident.

He did suggest in his remarks that people don't come to him and ask those kinds of questions, but the fact is people do ask in a very general way who's talking to you about issues. People want to know who's doing that.

I think that's a particularly important matter when it comes to the senior public servants. Modern government, as I indicated earlier, has become so complex and a far larger body than can be housed in this building anymore. Then senior public officials have a great deal of power simply because they have to provide through the ministry staff the kind of knowledge, information, factual and background material and policy recommendations that are necessary in order to enable politicians — who are, frankly, always busy, as the member points out — to come to the kinds of decisions that are necessary in order to create good, thoughtful public policy that represents an understanding of the issue and its complexities.

If that is to happen, then people need to know who's influencing that process and have to be satisfied that they are in fact registered and that if there is some breach, enforcement will follow. If we don't — the point I made earlier — then we lose public trust in our institutions.

I think the member is right. It isn't perfect. It is time for some tightening up. It's time for us to make some changes. After the baby has had — what? — six years to walk now, perhaps it's time to get the baby out of smaller clothes and into something that looks a little more adult, that might be more consistent with the complex nature of government today and the way it operates.

D. MacKay: What I'd like to do is take us back to 2001 when we were first elected. I didn't do a lot of air travel prior to being elected, but following the election in 2001, I was required to travel to and from Victoria on a fairly regular basis.

It was during the travel time between Smithers and Vancouver that it became very obvious to me that there was either something wrong with the aircraft I was travelling on or something wrong with my eyesight, or there was something taking place on the land base below me that I was totally unfamiliar with.

As I travelled back and forth the first couple of times, as I looked out the window over the Burns Lake–Houston area, I started to notice there was a red colour starting to show up on the land base below me. The colour actually should have been green because I was looking at a forest below me, but the colour was starting to turn red. This caused me some concern. The first thought I had was maybe there was something wrong with the glass in the aircraft or maybe it was the way the sunshine was hitting the window, and it was starting to discolour my eyesight.

As I travelled back and forth on numerous occasions, it became very obvious that we had a forest health problem in the pine beetle–infested area of our province that was attacking the lodgepole pine trees. As I travelled back and forth, this red tide appeared to be growing at an alarming rate to the point where today, seven years later, we anticipate that the mountain pine beetle will in fact destroy about 85 percent of the standing lodgepole pine stands in the province.

It's not just restricted to British Columbia. It's actually moving into the province of Alberta, which has now taken steps to address the infestation that it is experiencing.

There are a number of issues we have to look at, which are the unknown consequences of what actually is taking place on the land base. We're seeing the canopy open up, where before the land underneath the lodgepole pine trees was not exposed to the amount of sunlight that it is getting today. The dead trees are not absorbing the water that they used to.

In the area west of Houston and Burns Lake we have the large Nechako Watershed that feeds Kemano, which produces the power for Alcan. That watershed is rising at an alarming rate, and it is creating some downstream impacts on the community of Vanderhoof,

where the Nechako River runs through. The Skins spillway, which is the ability and the point of discharge of the water from the reservoir, is now being opened up at an alarming rate. The Cheslatta River and Cheslatta water system, which eventually finds its way into the Nechako River, is starting to create some problems downstream for the people in the Vanderhoof area and other areas down there, including the Cheslatta native band that live along the Cheslatta water system. So there are some unknown consequences.

I expect that we're going to see, over a period of time, some things that we hadn't planned on. As these trees start to fall down, we're going to find out that the animals are no longer able to move around the forest land like they used to. There are a number of issues down there. We have no idea what's going to take place in the long term.

However, we have several communities…. I think of Houston and Burns Lake, Vanderhoof, Prince George, Quesnel and Williams Lake. All those communities that are forest-dependent are going to see a huge impact down the road, once the fever of the increase in the allowable cut starts to take effect. We are seeing a dramatic increase in the annual allowable cut that is taking place to maximize the value of those trees before they actually fall down.

It's now becoming very obvious that the actual tree is deteriorating on the stump at a much faster rate than we had anticipated. So we may in fact see an increase in the cut once again to maximize the value of those trees for the people of the province — before they start to fall down and become less valuable.

Those communities that are dependent on the one industry, and that is the forest industry, are facing a number of challenges. Many of the jobs rely on the logging industry and the sawmilling industry. Once the annual allowable cut starts to reduce, we're going to see some dramatic job losses in the forest industry, I would suspect.

The forest industry as we know it in the interior is going to change. People are going to have to look at different ways of providing for their families, and the mayors in those small communities are going to have to look at different ways to make sure that their communities remain on the map and remain there for the people that they serve.

There are a number of challenges that we have to look at. What are we going to do with the people who are presently employed in the forest industry? Well, there's some good news coming into the northwest part of our province, and that's the mining industry. The mining industry is looking in the area that has been devastated by the mountain pine beetle. As we go out there and chop down the trees and bring them in to be processed, we're opening up new parts of the province that were before not available by road. So we've got exploration taking place out there, and it's taking place in a very positive manner. There are some great finds being discovered out there.

The province also understands the challenges faced by those communities and, through the northern development initiative, has provided $185 million worth of funding to those communities to be spent by the mayors to address, to some degree, the mountain pine beetle issue and other ways of keeping our communities viable and the people living in the north.

So $30 million of that NDI money has actually been targeted for pine beetle initiatives. Just recently in Prince George I attended a cheque presentation to the Omineca beetle action committee, to her worship Mayor Bernice Mcgee from Burns Lake. She received a cheque for $900,000 from the Minister of Forests to help all the communities that are part of that Omineca beetle action committee address the concerns and issues that they are going to face as communities.

For the first time, rather than seeing the communities all separate, we are seeing these communities come together because they're all facing exactly the same problem.

L. Krog: The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine's topic this morning was "The Downward Trend." Arguably, it applies to more than the north in terms of the pine beetle in terms of downward trends, because that is having a tremendous impact across British Columbia. We know what enormous concern it now is for the province of Alberta as well.

The fact is that we are all paying the price for what we have done or failed to do in the past. You know, if British Columbians could say that the pine beetle is here because of what we did alone, it would be one thing, but the responsibility for it stretches far beyond our borders, as does every issue of concern around the environment.

I did have the pleasure of talking to a former member of this assembly — Len Fox, the mayor of Vanderhoof — on Wednesday, when he was down at the presentation at the Lieutenant-Governor's house for the B.C. Achievement awards. He expressed great concern to me about what happens in British Columbia when the pine beetle wood is gone. He did say with some satisfaction that his own community is working very hard on its own plan, but he is extremely concerned, as all British Columbians are or should be, as to what happens to our forest economy — in the interior, in particular — when the beetle wood is gone.

I know many members of the assembly have had the opportunity to listen to Dr. Richard Hebda from the Royal B.C. Museum, who has provided some excellent, absolutely non-partisan scientific information about the impact of climate change on the province's forests — not just in the interior but, obviously, on the coast as well. Within a few decades the Garry oak, which is a native species to only southern Vancouver Island, will in fact be able to be grown in Prince George.

These represent dramatic changes. If anything, what we are doing as a society through government, I would submit, is frankly not enough. The member has talked in a mildly partisan way about some of the things that government has done, but frankly, in light of the fact that we know what's happening in terms of

climate change and we know how serious it is, it's not going to be nearly enough.

We are going to see within ten or 15 years an almost complete change of the way of life in the interior of the province. Mining will certainly help. Further exploration will help, but it is not going to replace the mainstay, which is the forest industry.

Some have hoped that we'll be able to turn former forest lands into agricultural lands, but that requires irrigation in some places. It requires crops that are suited to the area. It requires a transportation network to get those crops to marketplace.

We are facing some dramatic challenges. I would suggest that at some point the generation that follows ours and the generation that follows that will look back on our time in history and say — in particular, to those of us in this chamber today and those who have served here for the last ten or 15 years — that we didn't do enough.

We were told over and over again. We can go back to Rachel Carson and Silent Spring. We can go back to people who talked about climate change, including former Vice-President Gore when he was just a junior Congressman in the United States. The handwriting has been on the wall, and we're not responding quickly enough because none of us want to see the economic devastation that will follow in the interior when the pine beetle has run its course and the forest industry as we know it in the interior is gone.

L. Krog: One member suggests mining is the answer. If that hon. member was correct and it was as simple as that, I'd be delighted to agree with him. But I think the hon. member figured out a long time ago that if British Columbia's economy is to survive in the global marketplace in the world, we have to have a far more complex economy than one that simply relies on mining. On the coast we used to rely on forestry, and we know how much trouble the forestry industry is on the coast right now, let alone what's going to happen in the future.

The fact is that we need more planning, and we need a more thoughtful process. I would suggest, in light of the member's remarks this morning, that the government seriously look at a standing committee of the Legislature to deal with the impacts of all of these things.

The government has had the wisdom to bring into place a standing committee around the issue of fish farms, which is of topical interest, but if we really want to be non-partisan in the House this morning, let's talk about doing something where we figure out how British Columbia's economy is going to survive when the pine beetle wood is gone.

D. MacKay: In my closing comments I would just like to reiterate a statement that was made in this chamber by a previous member, who is no longer in the chamber. He said: "Governments can do anything they want."

Well, they may be able to do anything they want, but there's one thing they can't do, and that is control the weather. I think we all acknowledge the fact that the weather has played a big role in the spread of the mountain pine beetle, so I don't think I was throwing aspersions on anybody on what actually took place. However, we do have a problem, and we have to address that problem.

Will we be able to address the problem satisfactorily? I suspect we will see some job loss. I'm certainly hoping not. I'm hoping those people involved in the forest industry will be able to transition to the mining industry for a couple of generations until the forest grows back and once again the forest industry is number one in our province. But, in the interim, the mining industry is in fact creating a great deal of excitement in the part of the province where I live.

I just want to talk on a couple of the projects that are currently underway and presently operating. We have two mines operating in the northwest part of our province. One is at Eskay Creek, which is north of the Bob Quinn airstrip. It employs about 300 people, and that mine is coming to a close in the next year or two.

We have another mine operating south of Houston that's called the Huckleberry mine. Huckleberry is also starting to run out of ore. However, our government has indicated that we will enhance credits for mineral exploration. I've been told by people up there that if in fact we can identify these problems and give them the locations where the enhanced mining credits will be extended, that they will continue to explore to see if they can't continue the life of those mines because those are good-paying jobs in the Huckleberry mine.

But I want to just take you a little bit further north, again up to just north of the Bob Quinn airstrip, which seems to be the golden triangle. Galore Creek — I think you've heard me talk about Galore Creek in the past — is an absolutely amazing deposit, and I can tell you the excitement that's taking place in the community of Smithers and communities west of Smithers and along Highway 37 is quite remarkable.

This summer they are going to start building six camps on the way into the deposit. The community of Smithers is full of Atco trailers, which will all be airlifted into these camps. You can't get an electrician or a plumber. They have all been employed by Galore Creek to go out and set the camps up for the thousand people they expect that they are going to have at those facilities to open up the route to bring the ore out of Galore Creek alone.

C. Trevena: It may be trite to say that we're living on an island, but it's Monday morning. We live on an island, and our services have to come to us. They have to be provided to us through some system. How do they get here? That is the subject for my statement this morning, and I hope that the hon. Chair doesn't find it too political. What I'm going to be trying to do in the

The rest of Canada may regard us out here on the west coast on Vancouver Island as living in some sort of idyll. There's no question that we are exceedingly lucky living here and working here. There are members who don't live on Vancouver Island or on one of the islands who actually have the pleasure of working here.

I think it's very important to remember and to remind people that it's not a continual holiday. We are living and working, as are our smaller islands. I think perhaps one of the prime examples might be Texada, which isn't in my riding, but there it is. It's an island with a working community and a very large gravel pit, which is extraordinarily important for a resource-based province.

I represent a constituency with a number of islands. Some are accessible by boat only; four are accessible by ferry. I'd like to give a picture to the House of these ferry-accessible islands.

The first one that one comes to in my constituency is Quadra Island. It's ten minutes from Campbell River. It's a working island. It's got a population of about 2,500 to 3,000; it grows in the summer. It's got an elementary school, a children's centre and a fish-processing plant, which processes farmed salmon brought over from the west coast of the big Island. It's got a number of woodlots, a TFL held by one of the larger logging companies, a gravel pit, fishing, stores, a credit union. It is a working community as well as being a place that does attract tourists.

If you cross Quadra Island, you get to the Cortes Island ferry and a further 45-minute journey, which is spectacular. There is no question about that. It's another working community. It's that much further from the big Island, so it's more self-sufficient. It has aquaculture, artists, a health centre, two schools, a provincial park. There's logging and there's farming on the island.

If you then go up through the constituency up to Port McNeill, a couple of hundred kilometres further north, you can reach two other island communities accessible by the ferries — Malcolm Island and Alert Bay on Cormorant Island. You get the ferry from Port McNeill to either of these islands. It alternates.

Malcolm Island is the home of Sointula, which again is a large working community. It's a place which has been home to fishermen for many years. It's the place of the longest established working co-op in Canada. There's also logging there. There's some fishing. Again, there's an elementary school — another vibrant community trying to stay alive.

Alert Bay, the other destination from the same ferry, is a small island with two distinct communities — the 'Namgis First Nation and the village of Alert Bay. They work and live very close together. Alert Bay is one of the medical centres of the north Island, with a hospital and a health centre. There isn't much fishing left, but there is a growing tourism industry. Again, there is an elementary school and a first nation school. It's a living, working community.

It used to be that these islands — Sointula on Malcolm Island; Alert Bay on Cormorant Island; Quathiaski Cove, Granite Bay, Bold Point on Quadra Island; Whaletown and Squirrel Cove on Cortes — were the main communities. Well before Campbell River or Port McNeill grew out of the logging industry, people plied up and down the Inside Passage from island to island. People used to, in fact, go from the small community of Campbell River over to Quathiaski Cove on Quadra Island to pick up their mail, because that's where the mail delivery was. Not long ago I think that everybody across B.C. would have recognized Alert Bay as really the thriving centre of the north Island, with its strong fishing community.

Over the years, largely with logging, communities have grown on the big Island and developed on the smaller islands too. As they developed, ferries were instituted to ensure people could get easily from one of B.C.'s working communities to another. Up until the late '50s these ferries were private, but then a Socred Premier decided that they were too valuable to leave to the private sector, that transportation, highways and ferries are part of the infrastructure of a vast province — a vast province which has its capital on an island and many of its resources on other islands. A ferry system was established, and our marine highway was implanted in people's psyche.

The vast majority of people using B.C. Ferries are doing so because they need to. They're going to work; they're going to school; they're transporting goods; they're going to meetings; they're going to the dentist. They may even be coming over to see their MLA. Yes, tourists use their ferries, but most of them are using the ferries because they need to. If anybody challenges that, I would suggest that they take the ferry to Cortes Island when the wind is blowing about eighty kilometres an hour and see whether this is a pleasure ride.

This need for our ferries seems to be ignored under the ferry system as it's structured at the moment. Instead of recognizing that we are living on islands and that we need to use the ferries for our work — in fact, to sustain the economy of B.C. — ferry-dependent communities are being penalized.

It's something that's very hard to understand. It seems like the psychology is that we are all living on islands and that our islands are our holiday homes. Otherwise, why would the inland ferries listed on the Ministry of Transportation website be free, and those of us who are living and working on islands have to pay for our ferries? I would like to quote from the ministry's website, which says that the inland ferries operate under private contract with the Ministry of Transportation but that all inland ferries are free of charge to users.

One can only assume that the logic of this is that the Ministry of Transportation sees that roads continue from one side of a lake to another, and instead of having a bridge, there is a ferry. Why should the logic be in place for one part of the province but not for our coastal communities? I think the classic example for many people is Highway 1, which is the Trans-Canada. It's the highway that goes right across Canada, and part of it is broken between the mainland and Vancouver Island. To get from one part of the highway to the other

D. MacKay: I have to say that living in north central British Columbia is somewhat different than living on an island in the lower mainland off Vancouver Island, but there are some similarities living there to some of the circumstances that the member for North Island just spoke about. I should qualify my statement by saying that I have to admit that I did live on the Island for a very short period of time back in 1961 and again in 1977 to '79. I was in Shawnigan Lake, and I came back and was in Duncan in 1989 for six months. I do have a little bit of exposure to living on Vancouver Island surrounded by all these beautiful islands.

I have to agree that I don't think anybody says for a moment that if you live on Vancouver Island or one of the small islands surrounding the main Island, you're on a continual holiday. I don't think anybody would for a moment believe that. However, there are some circumstances that make island living somewhat nicer than living in the north central part of our province.

We start coming down here in February, and already the grass is green down here, if it's not covered by snow. The crocuses are up, the trees are starting out in bud. When I go home, I have to shovel my driveway out. Sometimes it does seem like a continual holiday, living on the Island or one of the smaller islands that surround Vancouver Island itself.

Speaking of islands, I want to take you now up into northern British Columbia, up to the northwest part of our province to the small community of Atlin. Atlin has got some rather unique attributes, and they also have an island. They've got an island that has some rather unique features.

The island is called Teresa Island. When you're sitting in Brewery Bay Chalet in Atlin having your morning coffee, there's nothing out in front of you except Atlin Lake — which is, by the way, British Columbia's largest natural freshwater lake. The largest freshwater lake in British Columbia is Atlin Lake itself. Surrounded by Atlin Lake is an island called Teresa Island. Teresa Island is a remarkable sight to sit and have a look at from the Brewery Bay Chalet as you have your morning coffee.

The unique feature about the island itself is that Teresa Island has the distinction of having the highest elevation of any freshwater island in the world. Birch Mountain, which is located on Teresa Island, reaches 6,153 feet above sea level. That is a remarkable feature about living in the northern part of British Columbia.

I suspect the people who live in northern British Columbia don't have to concern themselves with ferries to get from point A to point B. However, they do have to drive and drive great distances generally with fuel costs that are far in excess of what they are on Vancouver Island. So we do have challenges up there as well, challenges getting from point A to point B, because we don't have scheduled airlines or scheduled bus service, and we certainly don't have ferry service up there because we don't need the ferries to get around.

We do need good roads, and roads are being improved all the time. When I compare the first time I was on Vancouver Island with the small island highway that used to creep along the ocean with the oceanview all the way up there…. My god, what a mess that was. When I look at Vancouver Island today with the twinned highway going all the way up through the central part of Vancouver Island…. [Applause.]

I think I must have touched on a note there, and I will admit that I enjoyed driving on the Vancouver Island Highway much better this time than I did back in 1961. But, you know, we are trying to improve the roads in the northern part of our province. Highway 37 is 750 kilometres in length. We're spending a considerable amount of money upgrading that highway, even though it has little use right now.

The mining industry is looking at Highway 37 to move their product down to the port of Stewart, and they want great roads to be able to do that. The other thing that we miss up in the northern part of our province is cheap hydroelectric power. All our power up there is generated by diesel generation, and we all know what that does to the environment.

So we are working, and I'm hoping that soon we will have hydroelectric power running most of the way on Highway 37 to help with the mining industry, to help with the communities so they can shut down their diesel generation and clean up the environment.

C. Trevena: Let me assure the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine that this year we also were shovelling snow well into the year on our more remote islands.

He makes the point about the fact that, living in rural and isolated communities, roads are exceedingly important and access to the communities. I think we're in agreement. Our isolated communities are really the heart of B.C. We are the economic source of B.C., and we should not be penalized for being that.

Whether it is roads that need repair or the introduction of hydro to the member's constituency, I would agree. But the issue for people who are reliant on roads is that they pay their taxes, they get their roads built and repaired and the infrastructure is there. People who live on islands pay their taxes and get their roads built and repaired, but then have to pay extra for travelling on the ferries.

I travel on the ferries regularly across my constituency, and I do acknowledge that regular users get a discount to travel on the ferries. We buy books of ten tickets. But since the new system was put in place in 2003, the cost for a car and a driver has increased exponentially. It's almost doubled in price for just one route, Campbell River to Quadra Island.

We then have fuel surcharges to pay, and we see that the prices continue to go up. I think what ferry-dependent communities would like to see is that they are not being charged for running the ferries, that they have their ferries treated in the same way that the rest of British Columbia expects their infrastructure to be treated, which is paid for through the tax system.

I don't think anybody expects that we're going to see on the coast the same that is seen inland, where the

ferries are free — and it is emphasized that the ferries are free on the Ministry of Transportation's website — but I think that people would like some equality here. They'd like to see that there is a sense of equity — that we pay our taxes, we pay something for our ferry fares, but we are not paying exponentially higher.

Crunching the numbers for the new increases, if the preliminary cuts become a reality in April 2011, we could be paying up to $25.81 for tickets to, let's say, Quadra Island. In 2003, that was $10.65. It's almost three times the cost.

I would like the House to acknowledge the importance of our island communities, our island homes and our island workplaces and consider that many of the residents in many of our communities are facing real financial problems because of an illogical philosophy that puts the company's profits ahead of the needs of the communities and the people they're supposed to serve.

Deputy Speaker: Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 51 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

R. Hawes: It's my pleasure to move the motion standing in my name on the order paper, and that motion reads:

As I think we all know, this year we have an unusually high snowpack — the fifth-highest in 50 years — and that is causing a great deal of risk that we're going to face very severe flooding situations, particularly in the Fraser Valley. There are other parts of the province that are also potentially affected and that could see severe flooding this spring.

The government took some steps to provide some emergency mitigation work. A month or so ago $33 million was put forward, and communities throughout the Fraser Valley and other parts of the province have been asked to take a look at what emergent flood mitigation measures they could take, with dike raising or whatever, that could mitigate potential flooding and that could be completed by May 15.

The key here was that they be completed by May 15 and that the works that are being done are engineered and are permanent in nature. The $33 million was arrived at by calculating the kinds of work that would need to be done and how much could be done within that window of time.

There were communities that asked for a great deal more money, and I know some of the members opposite have been critical of the government only putting $33 million out when some cities asked…. For example, Abbotsford asked for $42 million, which couldn't possibly be done by May 15. So for this year, for emergent work, there's little point in talking about what needs to be and doesn't need to be a long-term strategy — which is the $42 million Abbotsford asked for, or $9 million in the case of Maple Ridge. Those are long-term strategies.

For the members opposite, and I hope they're going to join us on this motion, I want to remind them that in 1999 — when the snowpack was actually somewhat higher than it is this year, and we got really lucky with the right kind of weather in the spring and averted the flood — their flood mitigation measure totalled $7.6 million for the entire province. The $33 million that we've put in is the highest ever in emergent works that have been put into this province.

I'm kind of proud of that in some ways. In other ways, I'm really sorry that it had to come to us having to do emergent work, because we have — as I've spoken about many times in the House — first, the siltation of the river and the fact that we haven't been able to take out the kind of material from the river we need to take out to ensure we have safety and stability on our dikes.

The river has become dangerous. It has silted in, particularly in the upper reaches in the Hope to Chilliwack and down to Mission area. It is desperately needed that we go in and clean some of the bars and that we do some rechannelling in the river to stop the scouring of the dikes.

We have a great deal of infrastructure along the Fraser River that is at risk this year. It has been estimated by the Ministry of Environment that if the worst catastrophe hits, we could face a loss of up to $6 billion. That's huge, but for me the worst part of it is that the folks who live along the Fraser — the people that I and others in the House here represent along the river — are living in fear. They shouldn't have to do that year after year.

What's needed is a long-term strategy. We need to get out of this year. Hopefully, and with God's grace, we will. If we get past this year, we have to start — and we have to start right now — talking about a long-term strategy so the folks along the river don't ever have to live with this kind of fear again.

That kind of long-term strategy would involve not just taking gravel out of the river, which is desperately needed…. Somewhere, DFO has to be made to understand how important this is. They need to be cooperative, and

they have not been. That's attested to by every mayor along the valley and every MLA. We've all dealt with them over the years and know how difficult it is to deal with DFO on this matter. We need to get them to understand the problem and to work with us. They're not doing it.

Hopefully, with the help of our federal government, we can get them to understand that, but we need the federal government to also come to the table with funding, along with the province of British Columbia. I know the Minister of Environment is very, very interested in a new agency. The B.C. flood protection agency is probably what it would be called — something like that — that would be a three-way partnership between the federal, provincial and municipal governments right across the province to ensure we have the kinds of protections built over time that are going to make sure we never, never have to face this kind of threat again — that we are protected.

It's only through building that kind of a partnership, putting together a long-term strategy and understanding our risks that we're going to be able to ensure that the people we represent can stay home and feel comfortable and safe in their homes, which they can't do today.

If we are underwater this year in the Fraser Valley or any other part of the province, I would have to be looking at past governments at the federal level that pulled their funding from the flood protection and flood mitigation strategy that was in place for many years and was cancelled in the mid-1990s. That program needs to be returned. It does have to be. It can't work with just the province or just the municipalities or just the federal government. It must be a three-way partnership.

I'm hoping all members of the House will join in what I consider to be an important motion. The result of this motion, I hope, is that the federal government is going to agree and is going to work with us to get UBCM and the municipalities, who I know will be happy to partner, so that we can protect our people in our province the way that we should be.

M. Sather: Certainly, it's an important issue in my community, as well, after the Fraser Basin Council report came out in December of last year with information revealing that Pitt Meadows could be flooded up to 90 percent of its land mass.

When the report talks about loss of life, as well, we know we have a considerable concern. I agree with the member for Maple Ridge–Mission that the federal government needs to be more engaged in this process, but I have to say, also, that the province has not come forward in a timely fashion with the resources that are required.

Pitt Meadows, for example, requested $15 million even before the report came out and now realize they need some $28 million. They got $2 million from the province — same with Maple Ridge, where they requested about $9 million and got about $2 million as well.

This report was out in December, so I would ask why the province didn't…. It's not an emergency situation in that they had the report back in December and could have provided for money for it in the budget. I wonder, too, if the province has looked at the costs that could be incurred by the provincial emergency program to pay for damages and how that would compare with the cost of paying now.

The member mentioned gravel removal, and I want to say a bit about that because it's a contentious and misunderstood issue in some respects. There are specific locations along the river that may well be appropriate for the removal of sediment for flood protection. However, the gravel accumulation on the gravel reaches, they call it, between Hope and Mission…. The section from Chilliwack to Hope has had a negative increase in gravel deposits there since 1952. There is some increase in the area between the Agassiz-Rosedale Bridge and the confluence of the Harrison River.

One has to ask, though: what caused that? If the section of the reach above that has not increased, where is the sediment coming from? It's more likely, I would suggest, that it's coming from changes in the river course and from some of the structures that have been built in there, including wing dikes.

The deposit of the gravel between Agassiz and Mission is offset by the loss of sand and silt from the area, so there is no net deposition. The gravel reach is not rapidly filling up with sediment, leading to the imminent danger of overtopping the banks, overall. As I said, there are some specific areas that are of concern, and we do need far more study of the issue than we've had, to determine what the case is and where the work needs to be done.

Many of the sites that have been mined for gravel to date did not provide any benefit to flood relief, so there is obviously another purpose. As we know, there is a use for the gravel, and that is the large reason why it has been taken out.

The easily accessed gravel bars in the river that may have provided flood protection have been removed, and gravel removal targets have not been reached, as a consequence. The aggregate folks have not been able to get out the gravel that they could have, because it's not available. They've been aware of this for ten years or more, but they continue to lobby politicians. I'm sure the member for Maple Ridge–Mission gets that kind of material lobbed at him.

There have been considerable damages to gravel removal. We had a large fish kill at Big Bar island not long ago, and there has been no demonstration that net loss of habitat objectives have been reached. I have to ask: what are the member's interests in the issue? Certainly, he's concerned about the flooding, like we all are, but we also know that the member for Maple Ridge–Mission has a large interest in the aggregate removal. He chaired a Fraser Valley regional district aggregate committee meeting recently — it is unusual to have a member of the Legislature chairing a local government committee — and he's a big supporter of the Genstar Development in Mission that is going to bring in some 30,000 more people and require a lot of gravel.

It's an issue that we have to look at carefully, Madam Speaker. There are habitat concerns. The DFO

is not the big bad boogeyman that the minister would suggest. They have legitimate concerns. There are also legitimate concerns for flooding. I do support more involvement by the federal government.

D. Hayer: I want to commend the member for Maple Ridge–Mission for putting this motion forward today, and I want to congratulate him for the dedication he has shown to this issue. Since first being elected in 2001, this member has been pushing for a strategy to combat the infill of the Fraser River and for action to mitigate the threat of flooding in the Fraser delta. We have a riverbed that is rising beyond the capacity of the diking system to keep the river under control and within its banks.

Every year, millions of tonnes of silt and gravel are flowing to the lower reaches of the Fraser River, and without the federally approved strategy to remove this gravel, the riverbeds have risen to unacceptable levels. As the Fraser Basin Council pointed out in November, the riverbeds in the Chilliwack area had risen more than 1.5 metres. Without a corresponding rise in the height of dikes, that means five feet of flooding protection has been lost.

There has been a gravel removal strategy for some years, but the federal government, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, has backed away from that, claiming the potential damage to the fish-rearing areas.

Well, the bottom line is that if we have a major flood in the Fraser Valley, fish habitat will be severely impacted, almost destroyed, and that is because the federal government has failed to realize that their lack of action is threatening homes, farmland, industry and infrastructure to the tune of billions of dollars in losses should the Fraser River breach its banks. With the near-record snowpacks in the mountains in the Fraser drainage and the riverbeds constantly rising, we have a recipe for the perfect disaster that could have been avoided had the federal government acted during the past few years.

Our government, on the other hand, has acted. We have allocated some $33 million to floodproofing, yet the federal government had refused to step up to the plate. Now, Madam Speaker, you have to remember that when the last government was in power, they had more snowpack in '99 than now, and they only invested $7.6 million. In the meantime, we are putting the $33 million into the short-term solution. Over the long term, we have to work together with all three levels of government.

Everyone knows that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and if we have a disaster of epic proportion, the federal government will be on the hook for millions or even billions of dollars in disaster mitigation. Yet they could save the taxpayers that vast sum of money if they could contribute now to the cost of protecting communities along the Fraser River.

In Surrey-Tynehead major flooding will impact many industries in the Port Kells area, costing workers their jobs, causing untold damage to property and equipment and potentially to some homes in Surrey too. Barnston Island is also in particular jeopardy. Fortunately, our government has stepped in with assistance of more than $1 million for upgrades to the existing dikes in Surrey and an additional $415,000 to help fortify the flood protection area on Barnston Island.

I have talked with Surrey's mayor and council, its civic administrators and municipal workers to help avert this disaster. They welcome the help of our provincial government, but they certainly need more money from the federal government. Higher water and silt levels in the riverbeds also affect the very valuable Fraser Docks in Surrey, which are a major contributor to the economy of B.C. and Canada.

The Fraser Docks are a huge job generator, and yet they are constantly dealing with the river silt and the need to keep the river dredged. In the past the federal government has undertaken this work due to the importance of this to the national economy, but recently the government funding has been lacking.

Therefore, to help protect the vast investment in land and business, to help protect the many jobs, to help protect homes and farmlands, everybody must support this motion. And to protect some of the most valuable land in the country, we must have the federal government on side before the fact, not after.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to get the opportunity to stand and speak to this motion. I think we all know about the great and very legitimate concern that's out there about what the impact of this snowpack will be, and we all know that action needs to be taken.

The government, as we've heard numerous times, has put $33 million on the table as a crisis measure, I would call it, to deal with this. We also know that that money has been spent, and clearly, it's not enough money. There is a need for additional money. We know that communities throughout the province that have wanted to draw down on the $33 million have found there are insufficient funds.

As the motion says, the hope is that the federal government will come to the table and also put dollars on the table. Everybody in British Columbia hopes that would be the case and that the federal government would in fact come to the table and put those dollars on the table to allow additional resources to go to those communities that are in desperate need, should the situation become as challenging as it potentially could.

However, I guess that the reality of the situation is this potential looming crisis, depending on how the snowpack melts, is one that is somewhat a creation of government inaction, I believe, at both senior levels of government.

We know that sometimes what we need to do is look at what's happened in the past to determine what we do in the future, and that's sometimes wise to do. We know that the government in 2001 chose at that time to begin to phase out the flood prevention programs of the previous government. That phasing out of those

programs continued until Katrina happened in the United States. Following Katrina, the government did bring in the natural hazards mitigation fund as a response, I think, to great concern that was raised around Katrina. When that occurred, it was funded.

Consequently, we know that in subsequent years, after that first year, the funding levels have been less than adequate. The problem with this is that we've known about these issues for a significant period of time. The Union of B.C. Municipalities has made the plea year after year, for the last half-a-dozen years or so, looking for support for prevention programs.

From the last UBCM convention, I'll just read the resolution that was passed from Kamloops, putting forward funding for diking and flood protection measures. It says:

What we know is that those types of resolutions have been passed year after year, and the program hasn't materialized. That's a problem.

The other thing that I think is telling is that those communities which have tried to step up and do work around these things have also been frustrated. I would like to read one other issue here just briefly.

What we know is that in March of last year, the mayor of Delta sent a letter to the Premier asking for support for some flood protection improvements in Delta. The Solicitor General responded on behalf of the Premier back in July of 2006. I think the most telling part of the letter was the last paragraph of the letter from the Solicitor General back to the mayor, where it says: "Your letter indicated concerns within your community and projects that will reduce the potential for floods. You have a challenging task in front of you, and the provincial government will help where possible. However, we will not be able to provide financial assistance for your projects this year."

That's part of the challenge — the lack of funds. Now, we have seen the $33 million. I think at this point, what we need to see here — and I believe the province does need to lead on this — is for the province to come and take an initiative about what that broader flood prevention looks like.

We've talked about the B.C. flood protection agency. I think we need to see some substantive commitments of resources, and then I believe it will be much more compelling to get the federal government to come to the table in the way that it needs to, as a partner in this as well. But I think the province needs to step up and lead on that.

I would hope that this motion would pass, but I would hope, even more importantly, that the provincial government will actually come to the table with substantive resources for prevention measures so we're not talking about dealing with crisis but prevention.

J. Yap: It's my honour to speak on this motion as well. I'm grateful to my colleague the member for Maple Ridge–Mission for bringing forward this very timely motion for us to debate in this House.

I would like to start out by first of all responding to the final comments of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who said that it's time for the province to step up. I believe that our government is stepping up to deal with this emergent challenge that is facing us.

As we've heard from a number of members already, this is a potential crisis that is brought on by something that we don't have control over, which is the weather. We've had unusually heavy snowfall — near-record snowfall, near-record snowpacks — which, compounded with challenges with the dredging of the Fraser River, have come together to really heighten the risk of potentially major flooding.

My colleague from Surrey-Tynehead is very wise and eloquent when he says that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that's really what we're talking about here. I have no doubt — as I'm sure many of my colleagues and, indeed, British Columbians would feel — that if we were to have a disaster, if somehow the unthinkable happens, fellow Canadians through the federal government would come through with aid. But that would mean billions of dollars in post-disaster assistance.

What we're talking about here is investing a fraction of that amount to take care of the potential risk, to prevent a major disaster from hitting communities — of which my community of Richmond is one — along the Fraser River that are potentially at risk because of the record snowpack and the potential for record flooding. Our government is being proactive. We're stepping up. We're saying: "Let's get these critical projects done."

There's a list of very critical projects for communities along the Fraser River, from Richmond right through to Agassiz and beyond. These projects will address what can be done, what needs to be done, immediately. As we speak in this House, shovels are in the ground, gravel is being poured, and engineering is being done to shore up dikes that are the most in need of being heightened for this potential flooding or potential high run of the Fraser River.

In Richmond we have one project at No. 7 Road and No. 8 Road, where the dike has been identified as in need of being raised. That's one of the projects on the list that will be done and which is being worked on immediately.

I think we can all agree that when we're talking about a magnificent river like the Fraser in the Fraser Basin — which has been flowing for thousands of years

and will flow for thousands more, God willing — there's the short term and the long term that we have to deal with. What we're talking about here is the short term.

I agree with the comments that have been made that we need a long-term plan. Our government has proposed a long-term plan, with reference to a partnership with the federal government to make this long-term plan work, with sustainable funding into the future to ensure that we have dikes that protect our communities and with dredging that is done on an ongoing basis to ensure that our communities are protected.

I think that what we're talking about here is the short term that we have to deal with. Our government is taking the correct course of action in putting in record-level funding, as $33 million is the most in one year that any provincial government has put into this kind of risk management — emergent risk management. I support this motion.

I believe that this is a very timely opportunity for the federal government to partner with us. I encourage the federal government to look at this as a small investment to partner with our province to prevent what could be just a terrible disaster if the flooding should happen as we think it might.

I want to close with a word of thanks. In the last couple of weeks, the federal government did step up in my community, in Steveston. Just at the south end of No. 2 Road, for those of you who know Steveston, there is a shearboom that extends out into the river to protect from debris that might be flowing down from upriver. The federal government recently stepped up and repaired that shearboom because of the potential for damage and the potential for flooding.

I encourage the federal government to follow from that small example and to step up and partner with us in this project, as part of this $33 million to protect our communities along the Fraser.

C. Puchmayr: I do support the motion, and I do so with some further comments as well.

We've heard the comment from the other side that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that is absolutely true. We are seeing some flood mitigation from the $33 million that has been allocated, but we're also seeing some areas that are being neglected and aren't being looked at in the same serious capacity. My mayor and I met with the minister last week, and we look forward to getting a report early this week about the concerns that we may be experiencing in New Westminster, specifically down by the New Westminster Quay area.

I want to talk a little bit about why we feel that the obligations go beyond a municipal obligation. The New Westminster Quay area has numerous residents, who pay taxes in New Westminster. They pay taxes to the province and to the federal government, and only a very small portion of those taxes actually go into city coffers. For a municipality to do complete flood mitigation on their own is impossible. It needs the big players of the province and the federal government working together with them to ensure that it's done.

I'll talk a bit about that route. The route in question in New Westminster is a major transportation route. It's part of the North Fraser perimeter road, which ties into the 91A north-south border infrastructure program — the new overpass heading to the border. It's been identified as a significant goods-movement corridor.

It also has three railroads. It has B.C. Rail. I'm sorry, Freudian slip. It doesn't have B.C. Rail anymore. It has CN. It has Canadian Pacific.

C. Puchmayr: Oh, we can tell the difference, believe me, between B.C. Rail and CN. There's a big difference. I want to remind the member across that there's a big difference between the two railways.

We have CN, and we have CP. We have a significant goods movement. The loss of that rail line, those three railways, on that strip would result in millions of dollars of lost revenue in the goods movement, and that's quantified by the railway companies, which I've brought to the table to have discussions on this issue as well.

West of the quay properties, we have a large paper plant, Scott Paper, which is a huge producer of tissue papers, a very big employer in New Westminster. It's a significant contributor to the provincial economy as well.

The last two key issues. There is the guide rail. The SkyTrain guide rail runs right along that area. If there is a breach in that area, the footings of the SkyTrain will be completely underwater. That could pose long-term future effects on that guide rail itself. Then the final component. There's a $15 million rainwater collection pond that's been put in. It's a tank that's underground. It's a partnership between the GVRD, the city of New Westminster and, also, the province.

The loss of that environmental initiative would mean that when there are heavy waters flowing down the trunk line that runs along Front Street in New Westminster through that area, there's a gate that opens up, and the effluent goes into the Fraser River when it's backed up. So we would be putting raw sewage into the Fraser River in the event of an issue in that area.

There was some mitigation done in 1999. I was on civic council at the time. I was also a chair of the emergency advisory committee and worked on some flood mitigations. The community has done some really good work. We have our own FM radio station where people can tune in, in the event of a flood. We also have places…. We have an emergency response centre that we can activate quite quickly. We have arrangements made for vehicles that are going to have to be moved from the buildings along the New Westminster Quay area there.

There are good community mitigations, and the city has put considerable money in the last couple of months into mitigation. Very little of that has come from the province. In view of the fact that this is such an economic corridor for the entire province and, also, the federal government and the railways, there needs to be more done by the other two levels of government that really haven't come to the plate on this issue.

Certainly I do support this motion. I look forward to further comments from the minister or from the Solicitor General after the meeting with the mayor and me, and I anticipate we will have some plans put in place so that in the event that there is a significant failure in that area, we are able to ensure that there is still an active goods movement and that the residents in that area are protected. I support this motion, and I will yield comments to the other side.

V. Roddick: I rise today to fully support Motion 51 in its entirety because dikes and ditches are a vital part of the agriculture drainage and irrigation system. They safeguard from flooding some of the province's most productive and valuable agricultural and commercial land as well as significant urban areas.

The dikes and ditches were built by farmers to protect farmland and urban areas that lie below sea level. In the Fraser Valley region alone this includes parts of Delta, Surrey, Richmond, Coquitlam, Langley, Abbotsford, Mission, Chilliwack and Hope. Think about it: millions of people and their livelihoods are affected.

Each year, on a rotational basis, the ditches, dikes and the Fraser River used to be cleaned of silt and gravel, maintaining their holding capacity to protect flow rates. The work was programmed on a ten-year schedule and implemented by local engineering departments and authorities.

This schedule has ceased to exist, largely due to environmental priorities placed on man-made ditches. Maintenance today requires special permission from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This lack of ditch maintenance and river dredging, which is part of this motion, is dangerous and potentially disastrous for both the farming and the urban communities because it will ultimately cause flooding that could lead to billions of dollars of damage.

We have a working system here that requires very little cost in comparison to the construction of Duff's Ditch, which has kept Winnipeg dry since 1962. However, the drainage system itself now requires a major overhaul. We must return to organized and regular ditch and river maintenance programs that include dredging. We cannot operate under the current restrictions.

As various levels of government maintain the infrastructure, we have not done the kind of capital spending on dikes that we should be doing. What little money has been spent has been on a very ad hoc and short-term basis without any sort of long-term planning to get good value for the money spent. It has been done on an emergency basis, as we are doing right now, virtually as I speak. The only way we are going to mitigate risk is to maintain the infrastructure on an ongoing basis. Do it economically, do it properly, and do it now.

I ask that the federal government, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, all the various port and dock authorities work together with our province to ensure the managed safety and security of our environment, its people and its wildlife for generations to come.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the ability and the resources to help our country and our province work with our licensed biologists and engineers to draw up the necessary plans; engage urban, industrial and agricultural expertise; and work to develop sustainable drainage plans based on science, yes, but also with a large dose of common sense.

I would like to remind this House, just in case it has happened to have slipped anyone's mind, that we still have to eat to live.

N. Macdonald: I think I'm the first of the speakers from the interior. There's nothing like danger in the Fraser River to focus our attention on flooding issues and the need for dikes.

The communities that we represent in the interior are often located in areas at risk of flooding. The flooding issues that we have are often different. For instance, in the community that I'm from and that I was mayor of, we've had difficulties with winter ice floes.

There needs to be recognition that we have created rivers that are managed and that need to continue to be managed. So I'm agreeing with the motion — just as, I think, all of the speakers have said.

There is clearly jurisdictional overlap. The federal government has responsibilities for the rivers. At the same time, we have responsibilities as a provincial government. Of course, as community leaders, we are the ones that will be forced to bear the brunt if things are not done properly.

It's one thing to blame the federal government. They are part of it. In the past, what we have done in Golden is taken a delta and changed that to one channel. Then we have diked along that channel and kept the river flowing through there. Each river is different, but there's no question that in the Kicking Horse the gravel accumulates over time and that it needs to be dealt with.

Now, there was a time…. The old-timers in Golden will say that you just get out the cat and run it down the river. Those times have long since passed, and I think everyone would agree that's the wrong approach. But I think we would also agree that there needs to be a balance, because what we run into now is a never-ending cycle of studies that make it very, very difficult to get into the river until there is an emergency. In that case you're just sent in there very quickly with the previous concerns forgotten about.

The federal government does have a role. I think they also have a role in making sure that a full river management plan is in place and that part of that is to do with diking. But we're responsible here for provincial actions.

Dikes are expensive. We had a program in place previous to 2001. When I was mayor, we were able to apply for funding through the Ministry of the Environment. We received three-quarters of the funding for diking from the province. That was something that we were able to plan for. In 1996 several hundred thousand dollars were spent. We were able to do it in a coordinated, planned way.

What we have is the removal of that program. There is now an emergency that is evident, and communities

have access to money. The good part of this is that Golden received a very generous amount of money.

The argument that I would make for a continuous program and continuous thought about management of rivers — not just in emergencies — is that what you have now is the community working quickly to get the resources that they need.

The quarry that we access is still deep in snow. With a plan that wasn't an emergency, you would be able to get up there and do that in a more coordinated, more cost-effective way. It's the same thing with equipment. For all of this, if you're doing it year after year, applying for funds that are always there is a much more thoughtful way.

The opportunity that I would give for the minister responsible is that having given emergency resources to Golden, you have a need for diking in Invermere. There are dike improvements needed on Crown land near Toby Creek. I think the minister should be looking next at providing those funds.

It protects an important investment, both from the province and from the community. It's the water treatment plant. We have a dike there that needs funding. I would look, as part of the new commitment that…. I hope we see from all involved for funding for a diking plan that that's one area that they're going to look at.

L. Mayencourt: I'm very conscious of the time, so I want to get a couple of points across really quickly for this debate.

There's something that I have not heard from that side of the House, and it is this: are you in favour of dredging the Fraser River and the other rivers or not? So far, I haven't seen anybody stand up and say that they have to do that.

We've heard from the member for Delta South, who is a very passionate person and very involved in the agricultural community, and we know that we face a real potential problem here. It's time for us to deal with that problem.

It's time for the NDP to actually own what they've done in the past. In the 1990s that government decided to walk away from the table with talks with the DFO and the federal government on a funding arrangement for flood protection. They walked away from it.

The NDP also agreed in the 1990s to a moratorium on dredging the rivers and taking the gravel out. That was a very irresponsible action. What's happened is that because we haven't been dredging it, because we haven't been maintaining our dikes and because we haven't been maintaining the riverbeds, we've put our communities at risk.

It's no secret to me and no secret to British Columbians that during the 1990s, between 1992 and 2001, the NDP cut and closed 134 early warning systems throughout the province. Why? Why can't they stand up here today and say: "Look, it's time for us to dredge those rivers. It's time for us to reinforce those dikes"? No. Instead, we get a little bit of bafflegab. It's time that they take responsibility for the way that they have let British Columbians down.

As we speak here today, we have the Fraser River from McBride to the lower mainland at risk. We have the Thompson River, including Kamloops. We have Skeena River in the Bulkley Valley — in Smithers, Terrace and numerous first nations along the Skeena Basin. We have the Similkameen River in Princeton and Hedley. We have the Kettle River in Grand Forks and Westbridge. We have the Nicola cold water rivers in Merritt, and the Peace River tributaries, but not the main stem of the Peace itself.

The irresponsible action that they took ten years ago, to say, "We don't need to talk to the Department of Fisheries, we don't need to talk to the feds, we don't need to talk about a funding arrangement for flood mitigation," has come home to roost, and now our government is faced with this.

I want to tell you that I'm proud our government bucked up and provided $33 million to assist communities in flood mitigation. That's a very important first step. I know that with the passage of time, we have an opportunity to work with our federal counterparts — and I will do so with all the passion I can — to ensure that we repair our dikes, ditches and riverbeds. We can only do that when we're united in this House.

I ask the NDP members to please stand up. Are you in favour of dredging the riverbeds so that we can protect our dikes? If you're not, then what do you want us to do? Just pile more gravel on top of the existing dike?

I'll tell you what happens when you pile more dirt or more gravel on top of an existing dike. You get something like we had in New Orleans with Hurricane Katrina, where an entire city was wiped out. So it's time for you guys to stand up and take your lumps and get out there and decide what we're going to do.

It's time for you to insist for the federal government and for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans…. It's time for you to get at the table. It's time for you to say, "Let's dredge those rivers, let's protect our dikes and let's protect the millions of acres of land that are going to be under water" — because of your bad judgment.

G. Coons: Noting the hour, I'd like to thank the member for bringing this motion forward because it gave me an opportunity to review this government's B.C. Flood Plan, the 2007 edition. You've had six years to do something about this. This side has had six years, and….

G. Coons: I got up here to talk about some of the concerns on the north coast of the constituents I represent in Stewart and the Nass Valley who have been crying

out with concern about all the studies that were commissioned. Nothing has been done by this government in the last six years.

If we look back at the legislation from your B.C. Flood Plan — in '96 the Emergency Program Act, in '94 the emergency program management regulation, in '95 the local authority emergency management regulation, in '95 the compensation and disaster financial assistance, the Dike Maintenance Act in '95, the safety regulations in 2000 — nothing has been done since by this government.

You talk about responsibility. Responsibility lies on that side of the House, and you've done nothing for the last six years as far as looking after mitigation of flood concerns and urgent things that need to be done.

As we look at the river forecast centre for the Ministry of Environment, we see that in the north it is double the snowpack there than has been in the rest of the province. This government is negligent in the Nass Valley and negligent in Stewart for bringing forth the funding that needs to help those communities.

G. Coons: Thank you. I'd like to conclude. The Solicitor General says he is confident they'll be ready for the expected floodwaters. I just hope this government is confident that when the floodwaters go through the Nass Valley, through Stewart — that they're confident they will have to come through, help out those communities and take some responsibility.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.