2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 22, 2010

Morning Sitting

Volume 11, Number 8

[ Page 3439 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2010

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE

D. Barnett: For as long as commerce has existed, traders have banded together for mutual advancement, protection and governance. This concept has evolved into what we now know as a chamber of commerce. This term can be traced back to the 17th century in Marseilles, France, where a city council established such an organization. This idea quickly spread to Germany and then all through Europe.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Today chambers of commerce can be found in nearly every community around the globe. In fact, there are over 13,000 chambers registered in the official World Chambers Network registry.

In British Columbia the B.C. Chamber of Commerce is a not-for-profit volunteer organization that has been in operation since as early as March 1867 and was re-established in 1951 to promote and improve trade, commerce and the economic and social welfare of British Columbians.

It now represents the interests of 126 B.C. chambers of commerce as well as approximately 380 members from across the province. The chamber is comprised of paying members who benefit from networking and partnership opportunities, education and, most importantly, routine advocacy to the provincial and federal government on behalf of members.

[1005]

I am fortunate to have two chambers of commerce in my riding: the South Cariboo Chamber of Commerce and the Williams Lake Chamber of Commerce. They both provide valuable yet unique services in support to the region. The South Cariboo Chamber of Commerce is comprised of local businesses with the common goal of advancing the economic prosperity of the South Cariboo and its communities, along with common benefits such as group insurance.

The South Cariboo Chamber of Commerce has several other programs in place designed to benefit local business. Members can take advantage of a member-to-member program where chamber members receive mutual discounts and other benefits from participating members' businesses.

The chamber also runs a coin program. Coins act as a local currency and are accepted as payment by local businesses. This program makes consumers aware of the talented businesses in the South Cariboo as well as the importance of buying regionally.

The Williams Lake Chamber of Commerce motto is "The voice of business." The chamber consists of a dedicated group of local businesses committed to providing a unified voice for the interests of the business community. They work with businesses to make their community a better place to live and work.

Membership in the Williams Lake Chamber of Commerce provides many benefits. The chamber organizes regular networking opportunities, educational guest speakers and affiliations with other governing bodies. The chamber also offers its members many discounts and benefits.

In addition to traditional chamber of commerce functions, the Williams Lake Chamber of Commerce operates the visitor centre in the city of Williams Lake. The visitor centre offers information on attractions, events, community contacts and resources. The information covers not only the city of Williams Lake but also the surrounding area and the province of British Columbia.

The welcoming staff provides visitors with information on local accommodations, restaurants and activities. Local residents and the general public use the information provided at the visitor centre to keep current on community events.

To ensure the smooth operating of the visitor centre in Williams Lake, chamber of commerce sponsors a SuperHost program. This program provides training on communicating, improving customer service and handling complaints.

SuperHost has also developed workshops dealing with specialized business needs, such as customers with disabilities and service across cultures. These workshops not only provide valuable employee and volunteer training; they ensure visitors to Williams Lake receive the best experience possible.

The chambers of commerce in my constituency are invaluable. Owning and operating a business in a rural setting is a unique and exciting challenge. However, as a former business owner, I know that it is not without its trials. That is why it is particularly important to recognize excellence in business.

Each year the chambers of commerce award local businesses for their hard work, innovation and community involvement. I would like to take a moment to congratulate this year's recipients.

The South Cariboo Chamber of Commerce, 16th annual awards. James Clancy of the Red Rock Grill was awarded entrepreneur of the year and new business.
[ Page 3440 ]
Howie McMillan was awarded the South Caribooster award. Gold Trail Recycling received the first-ever Go Green award. The community service award was won by the 100 Mile House Food Bank. The greatest improvement award and business of the year was taken home by Central GM. The 108 Supermarket was awarded the customer service award, and the people's choice award for best business was received by Fascination Street Toys and Games.

The South Cariboo Chamber of Commerce at its annual yearly event also awards a citizen of the year. That award this year was given to two very worthwhile recipients, Dennis and Ruth Tupman, who have lived in the area for years and who have given of their time for many, many years to provide the arts community with much assistance.

[1010]

In Williams Lake the 15th annual awards were held last week, and the award for greatest improvement was won by Janelle Lamont of Tickled Pink.

D. Donaldson: I stand today to acknowledge and support chambers of commerce across the province. I'm a member of the Smithers and District Chamber of Commerce. Whenever I can, I go to the meetings. If I can't be there, one of my staff members goes.

I recognize the networking that occurs at these meetings, the relationship-building and the advocacy work that chambers do on behalf of small businesses.

Most chambers of commerce in this province are in rural communities. In fact, over 70 percent of the chambers of commerce are situated in communities of 10,000 people or less and many in communities of 5,000 or less. Most are small businesses.

Unfortunately, this government has done little to support the rural economies upon which these businesses depend, and I'll give a couple of examples. In my constituency many chamber members depend on the sport-fishing industry. There are bed and breakfasts, hotels, motels, restaurants, people in transportation, tackle shops, guides, boat manufacturers and even those in real estate who depend on this sport-fishing industry. It's millions of dollars in this industry in the upper Skeena and in the Stikine.

What has happened is that the province has undertaken a review of sport-fishing regulations in my area. It's called the Skeena quality waters strategy. There was an extensive consultation process, and then the new regulations were promised by the government in December, then in January and February. Now it's March, and the new regulations are still not up on the website.

Small businesses in Smithers and Hazelton, the ones that are members of the chambers of commerce, and all along the line are suffering as fishermen and -women from elsewhere book other trips for next summer because of the uncertainty. They're not getting the bookings because people book a year in advance. So the uncertainty around the regulations not being released is a major problem to chamber members in my area.

I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment: when will he end this unnecessary delay that is hurting local businesses and release the new regulations? Why did it take so long? Does the minister not understand the impact on small businesses that this delay is having?

The other avenue I would like to talk about around how the government hasn't supported rural economies that the chambers depend on is in the area of HST. The Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. has said this will have a huge impact — thousands of jobs. These are jobs that my chamber of commerce members depend on, and chamber of commerce members across the province.

I'd like to finish off. I'm a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance. When we were in Prince George the chamber of commerce made a presentation. I would like to briefly quote from that presentation.

"Many may think that business is interested in the bottom line, but any successful entrepreneur will tell you that the social structure and amenities that are available to their employees play an important role in whether the organization is able to attract the quality employees needed to make their businesses successful."

That is the social structure and amenities. It's not just about taxes. It's about, in the words of the Chamber of Commerce of Prince George, the social structure and amenities. I'd just like to point out that cuts to libraries, cuts to recreation, school closure and health services — these kinds of cuts — do nothing to support the social structure and amenities that many chamber of commerce members in my area depend on, and depend on across the province.

D. Barnett: I would like to finish by saying that in Williams Lake the New World Coffee and Tea House won the Food Services Award. Newsmaker of the Year was received by the Cariboo regional district. Gary and Peggy Zorn of Ecotours received the Tourism Award. Daryle Halfknights received the Community Booster award.

The Hugo Stahl Award was received by Mark Law of Save-On Foods. Allied Blower and Sheet Metal Ltd. took home the Manufacturer award. Customer Service was won by Creative Accents, and Business of the Year Award was received by Canadian Tire.

I would like to say now that this government has done much to support small business. I, being in small business, understand the need for a government that recognizes that small business needs many benefits, which this government has provided.

[1015]

We've accelerated reduction in the small business corporate income tax from 4.5 to 2.5 percent — a 44
[ Page 3441 ]
percent reduction — for an estimated total savings of $401 million for small businesses over three years. On January 1, 2010, the province increased the small business income tax threshold to $500,000, making B.C. the highest threshold in Canada.

Our small businesses and our chambers of commerce are the backbone of our community. They provide some of the social programs. They provide many, many volunteer hours of organizing and delivering social programs to our communities, and without strong business, we would not have those types of programs.

Adopting a harmonized sales tax effective July 2010 will encourage billions of dollars in new business investment, improve productivity, enhance economic growth and create jobs. The harmonized sales tax in rural B.C. is there to help our resource industries. Our resource industries are the backbones of our communities, and in rural B.C., by providing the harmonized sales tax to the forest industry, the forest industry can cut their costs, which is so important to keep people working in our resource sector.

That is what the harmonized sales tax will provide — jobs so that people can go and buy that cup of coffee and that ice cream cone for their families, jobs so people can live in warm shelters and jobs so our social programs can move forward. Our government is here to provide opportunities and to assist those who provide the resources to provide the jobs for this province.

Deputy Speaker: I'd like to remind members that this is private members' statements.

rising electricity costs

J. Horgan: I'm pleased, in fact delighted, to be standing in my place today in private members' statements to offer up my thoughts and reflections on electricity rates here in British Columbia. Members will know that, over the past number of years, we've seen approximately an 18 percent increase in residential electricity rates for our constituents. Taking effect starting in 2008, a 3 percent increase; in 2009, an 8.12 percent increase; and then in April 2010, a further increase of 6.5 percent.

Interestingly, the budget this year, the 2010-2011 budget, forecasts an additional 9 percent increase in 2010-2011, a 12.9 percent increase the year after that and then, to round out the three-year cycle, a 5.8 percent increase. That's significant — a 29 percent increase over the next three years after already absorbing an 18 percent increase.

I want to bring the House's attention to the focus, the intention, the raison d'être, if you will, of B.C. Hydro, and that is to provide low-cost, clean, green energy for British Columbians. Somewhere along the line, since 2001 and the ascension of the government on the other side, I think they've lost touch with what the focus, intent and purpose of B.C. Hydro should be.

It has always been the view of previous governments, whether they be Social Credit or NDP…. They've looked at B.C. Hydro as an opportunity to generate economic activity in the regions, to provide low-cost energy — clean, green, reservoir-based energy — to industry and to citizens. As members will know, over 90 percent of the electricity generated in British Columbia comes from clean, green sources.

We hear the government talk about the need for a clean energy act. We hear the government talk about the need to green up our energy sector, and it's my view — and I think anyone's who has spent any time looking at electricity policy in British Columbia — that there is no particular crisis on the green front at this point in time. Rather, there is an intention by the government to transfer public wealth to private hands.

I want to touch for a moment…. I know my colleague from Nechako Lakes is going to be speaking on this later on, and I know that he gets his partisan blood roiling on this subject, as does his colleague from Whistler.

The fact of the matter is that the government on that side of the House directed B.C. Hydro to purchase new sources of supply only from the private sector within the boundaries of British Columbia.

[1020]

Now, we had a number of contracts signed with private sector companies in 2006-2007 where the average price per megawatt hour was $87. The spot market price for electricity today — $37.70 a megawatt hour. Now, I know that the free enterprise zealots on that side of the House understand market economics. They truly do. They're buying power for $87 a megawatt hour and selling it for $37 — brilliant, brilliant work.

The question is: why have our hydro rates gone up 18 percent in the past three years and another 27 percent going forward? B.C. Hydro talks about the need to upgrade and maintain existing facilities, and that is partially true. This has been going on forever. Annually B.C. Hydro puts aside revenue to put into maintenance and operations.

This is not new. This is not something that just happened last week. It's been going on since the 1960s to a greater or lesser extent. Each year during that time B.C. Hydro also provides a dividend or revenue back to the Crown so that we can pay for our social programs — our health care system, our education system and so on.

I want to just rattle off a couple of numbers. The average dividend is in the range of $350 million to $400 million a year. In 1998 it was $369 million. In 1999, $395 million. In the last year of the NDP government it was $446 million.

The B.C. Liberals continue to take numbers similar to that: 2002, $400 million; 2005, $400 million; 2007, $400 million; and in the most recent budget year, $355 million. On average, it's about $400 million a year.

We froze rates in the 1990s. We kept them flat and constant for consumers, as we believed that to be the
[ Page 3442 ]
mandate of our public utility. The B.C. Liberals have gone in the other direction. Although there is revenue from B.C. Hydro from our rate increases going to operations and maintenance, there's also an additional $250 million going directly to the Minister of Finance. In this year's budget, the dividend is projected at $600 million; next year, $660 million; the year after that, $640 million.

"Unprecedented," says my friend from Nanaimo. Unprecedented in the history of B.C. Hydro. We've got a government that's driving rates through the ceiling and taking that revenue and putting it into the public purse. In addition to that, as if that were not heinous enough — not being honest with the taxpayers that they are paying for the fiscal ineptitude of the Minister of Finance — they're also paying to purchase high-priced private power. That's the challenge.

I'm very delighted to hear what the member for Nechako Lakes has to say on this matter, and before that, I'm sure I'll get a point of order from the Minister of Aboriginal Relations.

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: I welcome your guidance on this point, but I thought that while the member constrained himself admirably through most of his private member's statement, near the end he crossed over what I think is a very clear line about partisanship in private members' statements, Madam Chair. I'd welcome your advice on that.

Deputy Speaker: I would like to advise the member to be a bit more cautious in his use of language.

Debate Continued

J. Rustad: I want to thank the member for Juan de Fuca for raising this issue and actually bringing this debate to the Legislature, because I think this is a very good debate to have in this building. You think about electricity rates, and you think about what needs to happen in this province.

I want to go right back to the beginning, where the member said that they froze rates in the 1990s. He pointed that out, saying that that's the right thing to do; that's the right way to go. What that ended up doing, though, was that.... It resulted in absolutely zero capital upgrades — no additional power being put on throughout a period of time and B.C. Hydro then having to play catch-up — with the exception, of course, of encouraging B.C. Hydro in the 1990s to go off to Pakistan and develop some sort of power project.

However, having said that, here's the nub of the issue that the member is getting at. We want to be competitive. We want to have very competitive power rates in B.C. We want to be able to provide those power rates as competitive as possible to help to drive an industrial advantage that we have in our province — as well, of course, as to our ratepayers in our province.

It's interesting that even with the higher rates that are being proposed right now over the period of time and that are on the books, the latest study that came out showed that we would still be in the bottom three in terms of jurisdictions in North America in terms of our power rates. I find that very interesting. But I also find very interesting that what the member is arguing is that we shouldn't be investing in power.

[1025]

He says that at the spot rate of $37, it would be a good rate to pay for power. That spot rate of $37 is coal-fired power. Maybe what we're hearing from the opposition is actually some policy. Perhaps what the opposition is saying is that we shouldn't become energy self-sufficient or, more to the point, that we should be having coal-fired power in this province because that is the cheapest way to put new power on line.

I also find it interesting, when you think about the costs of these independent power projects that are bringing on line…. There was a project that B.C. Hydro took on. I think it was called Aberfeldie, which is a very small power project. However, when they did the upgrades on this project, the costs tripled. It's interesting. You can't build power in this province for the kind of rates that we used to be able to build 40 or 50 years ago, when we put in dams.

Things are going to cost more, whether that's for upgrades like the $1.8 billion we're spending this year in upgrading some of our public facilities or the more than $2 billion in infrastructure being planned next year to upgrade so that B.C. Hydro can bring on more efficient power so we can expand our power network. Things cost more in today's dollars.

We need, as well, to be able to drive private sector investment, because those are opportunities to attract capital within our system, to be able to track expertise on small projects that B.C. Hydro is not suited to be able to do and, at the same time, meet our goal of being energy self-sufficient with clean energy by 2016. Those are laudable goals. Those are goals that we need to have in this province.

What we're hearing from the opposition is that we should have freeze, have low rates, which means that we would not be able to have the capital investment that we require in the projects, we would not be able to meet our goal of being energy self-sufficient, and we would be closing our eyes, blindly, to accepting coal-fired power from other provinces. If that's the policy you want to state as a party, I mean, come out and say it. It's great that you're going down those roads.

The other thing that is so critically important is that these independent power projects that we're having around the province drive an enormous amount of invest-
[ Page 3443 ]
ment in jobs, particularly in rural communities. Those are the kinds of opportunities that we need to see, particularly at this time with our economy in the shape it is. Those are the kinds of jobs in construction to get us through and to also be able to bring that reliable power on.

The final point I want to make on this is that there will be a premium for clean, green energy. There will be opportunities for us to be able to drive those dollars in terms of where people want to attract that energy when they need to buy energy from the market.

We are on the right path with the clean energy. We are on the right path in terms of what we need to do in this province. You know, it's a shame that we have some criticism from the opposition, but we have no plan whatsoever except that perhaps we should just continue to buy power from coal.

Once again, I thank the member for Juan de Fuca for raising this issue.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to wrap up. I just thought that — from memory, Stave Falls, Seven Mile and upgrades on the Bridge River system in the 1990s; Keenleyside, 150 megawatts through Columbia Power Corporation; the purchase of the Brilliant facility and the upgrades and expansions there — there was a lot of activity in the 1990s. The government on the other side just doesn't want to talk about that.

Again, there's this notion that there's bankruptcy on one side and a font of wisdom on the other. This is fundamental. Our friends who are watching today are probably wondering: "My goodness, how could those people be so diametrically opposed on an issue that seems so basic — turning the lights on, providing electricity for British Columbians?" We've been doing that for generations through B.C. Hydro, a publicly owned utility that's providing low-cost energy and providing investment in communities at the same time.

I want to talk a little bit about the jobs, as well, that the member references through the independent power sector. My colleague from Surrey-Whalley and I visited Dawson Creek and had a tour of the Bear Mountain wind farm, the first wind farm in British Columbia, and we did meet two employees. They were contractors from Germany — two young kids in their mid-20s, having a great time visiting northern British Columbia.

They were anxious to go back home to Berlin, but while they were here, they managed to put a little bit of money in their pockets. They got to taste the culture and ambiance of the Peace River country. That's all good for them, but they weren't local residents, and they were not planning on staying in British Columbia. So the ephemeral jobs that the member references are just that. They come, and then they go.

[1030]

There are, of course, capital upgrades that B.C. Hydro is involved in right now, and we certainly support that — the upgrades and the installation of units 5 and 6 at Revelstoke and at Mica. There's a whole host of public opportunities that we could investigate: the Waneta expansion — I've talked about that in this place before; the Columbia Power Corporation, a publicly owned utility in partnership with the region, community-based energy providing local jobs and providing local revenue.

These are innovative approaches that we implemented in the 1990s. They were supported at the time by the members on the opposite side. They don't like to remember those today because, again, there needs to be this stark polarization between left and right and each side of the House. Even on these non-partisan private members' days we seem to see that. It's unfortunate.

I know I'll endeavour in the last moment or so that I have at my disposal to speak one more time to the notion that B.C. Hydro's prime obligation and responsibility should not be to transfer public wealth to the private sector. It should be to provide low-cost, clean, efficient energy for British Columbians and British Columbia industry. It's pretty basic. It's pretty fundamental. Every government since W.A.C. Bennett, except the one on that side of the House, has endorsed that position.

Building Community Through Sport

H. Bloy: Building community through sport. Well, February and March have been a special time for sport in our province, our country and in fact the world. We've just hosted the most successful Olympic and Paralympic Games ever. These events were wonderful, and the residents of my constituency, I know, were so proud of how British Columbia and the Lower Mainland were able to pull off these events.

You know, I think we have to give a great big thank-you to TransLink. They don't get too many of them, but they sure were able to move people around the Lower Mainland for these events.

We're always reminded of the significance of sport and the power it has to bring together our young people and the best people in sport. Sport promotes inclusion and, especially for our young people, encourages hard work. It teaches them to make the most of their abilities.

Most members of this House that were physically active in their youth still remain physically active today.

Interjection.

H. Bloy: A perfect example there, who still may play basketball on a regular basis.

Being physically active as a young person is important for children. As they get older, they will establish a healthy lifestyle that will help them in virtually every area of their education. The price of equipment and fees to join leagues and teams prevents families from entering their children into community sport, which is
[ Page 3444 ]
why this government is supporting youth sports in B.C. with nearly $40 million in new funding for groups like Sport B.C. and KidSport.

Programs like KidSport, run by Pete Quevillon, executive director, are a great support for families in our province as they attempt to offer kids a place to play. KidSport works to help with the cost of enrolling in community sport programs for families who might otherwise not be able to afford to. This government has partnered with KidSport for the last three years as we recognize the valuable work they do in our communities.

I also know that the National Hockey League Players Association provides a lot of age-appropriate equipment to sports teams in British Columbia.

Also, we have groups in my community. We have the Burnaby Mountain Mantas Summer Swim Club, of which I was a founding parent many, many years ago, and their president, Dong Xue, and all the volunteers who provide healthy activities for their children. We have Burnaby Minor Hockey and Larry Hayes, their executive director, and again, the hundreds and hundreds of volunteers that help provide sport — all volunteers in our province. We have Cliff Avenue United, our football club run by Guido Titotto.

In the past years we have contributed $11 million to sports organizations, aimed at encouraging participation in community sport. Of course, the advantages for sport from hosting an Olympic and Paralympic Games are endless, but it's not only these games. We have the B.C. Summer Games. We have the B.C. Winter Games that are held each year throughout communities in our province. We have hundreds and hundreds of other events.

I know that the Royal Canadian Legion offers a national track meet every year in British Columbia. We have parts of the province that like to call themselves the sports capital of British Columbia for hosting competitions. There is a lot of sport going on.

[1035]

The facilities that we have in communities across the province will be great places to nurture sport and the positive impact it has on our youth. Our government has invested significant funding — more than $655 million — in sport infrastructure in B.C. during the past five years.

This funding has provided for Olympic venues — the Paralympic training development centre in Kimberley, the Charles Jago Northern Sport Centre in Prince George, the Pacific Institute for Sport Excellence in Victoria, as well as more than 70 other sport and recreational facilities across the province. These facilities will be used by residents for many years to come and, I'm sure, will be the starting point for future Olympians.

We also saw, with great success, Own the Podium. What a great name, and what great results we were able to show from Canadian and from British Columbian athletes in these past Olympics.

Our province played a huge role in funding and supporting athletes as they trained in B.C. We are committing a further $30 million to sport in B.C. communities through our sport and art legacy funding. This fund is targeted to enhance youth participation in sports and in athletes' and coaches' development.

Coaches' development. We received a letter just recently, which I read to the House, from the Coaches Association of British Columbia thanking us for the funding that we've been able to provide them so that they and their volunteer bases can help our youth in this province.

Ensuring that there are safe places to play is also very important in the overall experience of sport. We also offer the SportsSafe program to create safer environments for kids in sports. SportsSafe is designed to address safety issues such as harassment and abuse, violence in sport and recreation injuries. Through the harassment and abuse programs, training workshops and harassment abuse investigations and adjudications, we are building a safer place in this province to play sport.

We saw an excellent performance in the past week by our Canadian Paralympic athletes. Our province provided more than $535,000 in 2009-10 to fund sport programs for physically disabled youths and adults. The province also funds the B.C. Disability Games, for athletes with physical disabilities, with $120,000 annually.

The positive impact of sport for youth goes beyond how you can measure the final impact. Sport — sport team involvement, learning how to play in a group and being active — is what's building our communities.

J. Brar: I appreciate the member for raising this really, really important issue for the people of British Columbia — building community based on sports.

As a former national basketball player, I can say this with confidence. Sports give our young people every skill they need to succeed in life. One can learn from the field of sport every skill to be a good team player, which is very important to succeed in life. One can learn from the field of sport how important it is to make tough and quick decisions, which is also very important to succeed in life. One can also learn from the field of sport how to accept defeat without hurting oneself, and one can also learn from the field of sport to celebrate the victory without hurting the relationship with the opponent.

Sports give our young people all the skills they need to succeed and jump high in their lives. Therefore, I agree with the member that it's very important for us to think that we can build community in British Columbia through sports.

But at the same time, I would like to say this. Our ideas must be followed by real actions. That's where I think the question is.

Just a couple of weeks ago I was in Terrace attending the B.C. Winter Games, and I spoke to a lot of coaches,
[ Page 3445 ]
a lot of people who were part of organizing the games. I learned from them a number of questions they have, particularly on how to build on the Olympics legacy, how to motivate more young people, how to involve more young people of the community in sports after the Olympics. They had a number of questions.

[1040]

The key question was that there is no real plan after the Olympics to involve the people of British Columbia in sports. There is no real plan after the Olympics to involve particularly our young people in sports. For example, the question they asked me was: "What do they plan to train more coaches and organizers?" What do they plan to retain the large pool of volunteers who came forward during the Olympics? What do they plan to provide transition from school sports to elite sports? We need to have a comprehensive plan so that we can actually give the right transition plan from schools to the international and national sports.

Similarly, what do they plan to involve or bring in what they call the emerging sports? We in B.C. have a very diverse community, who come from almost every part of the global community. There are a number of new sports like kabaddi, and we don't have any plan at this point in time to involve those people in our sport system.

I agree with the idea that the member is sharing with us, but at the same time we know that funding for school sports was cut last year. This government continued to refuse to restore that funding.

Similarly, funding for many other organizations providing help in the field of sports, particularly in disability sports, has been cut. The government is refusing to restore that funding as well.

I would like to conclude my comments by saying that I share the idea that the member just raised in the House. But that idea must be followed by real actions, and there must be funding provided for school sports, for example, so they can train young people, who are our future Olympians. The idea to impose HST, for example, on many organizations is going to cost them more and is going to raise fees for our young people to participate in those sports.

I understand the kids sports, but at the same time the imposition of HST on sports is going to make sports very costly for people, low-income people, and it will basically discourage them from participating in sports. Therefore, I urge this government to develop a comprehensive plan after the Olympics to involve our young people in sports so we can build real community through sports and through the encouragement to young people into sports.

H. Bloy: I'd like to thank the member for Surrey-Fleetwood for his remarks and his encouragement for youth to continue in sports today. The results of supporting a healthy lifestyle that encourages sport and physical activity from youth extend far into adulthood.

This province has the highest physical activity rate in Canada for people 12 years or higher, and that's because we do have a plan. That's because we are working with the province, all the sports groups and the schools to provide activities for high achievers in sports. There are a number of school districts across the province that have developed special sports programs — soccer schools, hockey schools, many different schools — where they're able to combine their education and their love for sport.

You know, this province has the lowest adult self-reported obesity rates in the country. For seniors, we are working to increase access to physical activity options in their communities. We're installing ActNow senior community parks to help seniors. I can tell you that I cut the ribbon on one just over a year ago.

I've just moved my new office basically next door to the seniors activity park, Cameron recreational centre, so I expect that you'll see me out there quite a bit starting this summer trying to keep my physical activity level much higher than it is here in Victoria.

Interjection.

H. Bloy: I'll go this weekend — for the member here.

The parks are outfitted with exercise equipment made easy to use and incorporated for walking to help build on fitness. These efforts not only enrich the lives of British Columbians; they are also working to lessen the demands on our health care system.

When people are practising a healthy lifestyle, they can be sure that they will have a much healthier and longer life. I guess I can attest to that. I know that I'm type 2 diabetic, and when I exercise more, my numbers are lower. So it's up to me to keep exercising and to eat healthy.

Through ActNow B.C., the province remains committed to encouraging British Columbians to make healthy lifestyle choices that include healthy eating and getting regular physical activity.

[1045]

Coupled with the province's effort to access healthy foods, we are creating a healthier province. It is the first province in Canada to restrict industrially produced trans fat in all foods prepared in food service establishments. We are leading the way to make healthy food choices the easy choice for all British Columbians.

The accomplishments. British Columbia has the lowest adult self-reported obesity rates. If British Columbia was a country, men would have the longest life in the world, and women would be a close No. 2.

B.C. hosts the highest physical activity rates in Canada for people 12 years of age and older, and B.C.'s ActNow for seniors is helping to move all British Columbians to keep them healthy for the long term.
[ Page 3446 ]

School Playgrounds

J. Kwan: Today I rise to speak about playground schools in our communities. In particular, I want to raise one school, which is Britannia Community Elementary School. It was built in the 1970s, in fact, and it opened with an open area in the school. It was renovated back in 2004 to replace the open area design with more conventional hallways and classrooms.

Britannia is a designated inner-city school, a community school, and currently enrols approximately 180 kindergarten to grade 7 students. The school has a diverse student population, welcoming students from many cultural backgrounds who speak English as a second language, and approximately half of the children at Britannia are aboriginal.

The big toy — the wooden structure, if you will — sitting outside of the school was built originally some 20 years ago. For all intents and purposes, that play structure is condemned. It is unsafe for the children to play on that structure, and it is beyond repair.

The school's parent advisory committee established a playground subcommittee and had planned to replace that playground by May of 2010. As we know, this plan went astray because of cuts to the parent advisory committee's funding combined with the cancellation of the 2010 playground grant program and reductions to the school board facilities grant. In this year's budget it was reaffirmed by the government that the playgrounds would not get any funds from government.

We're in a situation now with Britannia where for this $70,000 project, they have actually raised a substantive portion of it. They're short $12,500 to see that playground replaced.

I have written a letter on behalf of Britannia — in fact, a letter that was co-signed by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano — to the Minister of Education and to the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport, requesting that the government support this initiative.

If the school does not fundraise the $12,500 that is needed for the project to be completed by May of this year, the end of spring of this year, they will lose the substantive portion of funds that they raised through a foundation, which would then mean that the school is back at the drawing board of having to raise the entire $70,000, which is almost an impossible feat.

I have to say that it is ludicrous for the government to cut this funding for playgrounds. There are close to 90 school playgrounds in Vancouver that are in need of replacement. With the funding gone, I'm not quite sure how these structures would be replaced.

I have to say this. As a parent I have to ask: would you ever put your child on a structure that is deemed to be unsafe? I know I wouldn't. I would not put my children at risk. I just wouldn't. You would want to prevent any potential injuries that the children may face. Already, as it were, they are faced with all sorts of potential for injuries. But would you knowingly put your child on a structure that you know is unsafe and needs to be replaced? That structure is unrepairable. Would you do that?

The answer, I think, is a simple no. So why would this government put the Vancouver school board in that situation of having play structures in schools that are deemed to be unsafe, are beyond repair and need to be replaced? That is exactly where they're at.

[1050]

They need — the Vancouver school board — half a million dollars to replace these 90 playground structures. They're not getting that money. In light of the latest budget that they got, they're going to be short another $18 million on top of that.

Where are they going to get those funds from? Where are the parents going to get those funds from to replace those play structures? Why wouldn't the government do the right thing? Instead of increasing the budget for the public affairs bureau by $640,000, why don't they take that money and put it into the playgrounds? It would cover all of the costs of replacing those playgrounds for all the schools that are in need in Vancouver.

Many of the inner-city school playgrounds are old and in need of replacing. As the Vancouver Inner City Education Society states, they "endure much after-school community use/abuse."

"We want to be healthy schools, have much and varied outdoor equipment, but find our local fundraising abilities are lesser in that we must tap into an already poverty-stricken population. Our business and community partners/donors are wonderful but can't keep going to the same sources.

"These issues are even more acute in the annex level, in that annex schools are smaller and yet must compete within a shared community for fundraising. Technology, transportation for extracurricular events, school-wide performances, fine arts and science-based programming also suffer at the inner-city school level for the same reasons."

These are the words from the people who are front-line workers, if you will, who are dealing with the challenges of inner-city schools that they face each and every day. More and more they're in a situation where they find that they have to do more fundraising, that there's no funding coming forward from the government.

As a result, it is the children who suffer at the end of the day. It is the children who would not get the playground equipment. It is the children who would also face the ripple effect of having other events and extracurricular activities minimized because of that lack of funding.

It is time for the government to do the right thing, to fund these playground structures, so that all the children could have access to safe playground equipment, so that they can enjoy the outdoors and play within their school system and enjoy the fresh air that's associated with it.

The Minister of Health actually pointed out that it is very important for children to have access to outdoor
[ Page 3447 ]
playing, and let me just quote the Minister of Health about this.

"We talked about having kids more active in schools, but you know, that's something that we ought not to do just because it's good to have healthier kids. Actually, we know from all the studies that it's better for brain development and better for their learning outcomes. They actually learn more and better if you actually take them out of the classroom and give them that regular exercise."

D. McRae: I love school playgrounds. I have a daughter who's six, whose favourite thing is the monkey bars. My daughter who is four months — I'm not sure whether she really likes school playgrounds. Whenever she sees one she drools, but she drools for lots of things, pretty much. She's teething right now.

It's funny how times have evolved, though. When I went to Tsolum Elementary in the Comox Valley, the playground consisted of two sandboxes. Obviously, the blue one was for the boys and the pink one was for the girls, and we didn't mix. There was a swing set probably from 1961 and a tetherball set up in the corner that was dominated by a grade 7 girl who we were afraid to go near. We had school fields. Times were different back then. We had to walk to school, uphill both ways. It was difficult.

But you know what? In 2007 this government dedicated funding for playgrounds. It wasn't ongoing funding like health care, but we had extra dollars. Times were good, and so we targeted $4 million. And in that time 250 school playgrounds were funded across the province.

Vancouver has, I hear, 90 playgrounds that are in trouble. Well, 90 is a lot, but you know what? There's been action they could take in the past, and there's action they can take in the future, but you've got to remember the context we're in.

This is the worst recession that we've seen in not one generation, not two, but three generations. Sadly, there is no playbook on how governments must react. Some governments did things around North America. Some ran up massive deficits. Others looked to roll back wages, like they're looking at in Hawaii. Some, like New York, look at layoffs in the civil services in the range of 5 or 6 percent.

Some political parties believe in things like the old strategy of "Let's tax and spend, and let's not worry about the consequences." It's easy to write cheques when you know you never have to cash them.

[1055]

Let's look at the context of British Columbia. This year we'll have a $1.7 billion deficit. If we divide that by the population, it works out to approximately $400 for every man, woman and child in this province. That's a lot of dollars, but it's a lot more when you also consider that the federal government has a deficit of $55 billion — or if you want to work out the context, $1,660 per person.

Now, I'm sure people want to spend a lot of their lifetime paying that off, but the one thing I think it is very safe to say is that we borrow today, and our children pay it tomorrow — and pay and pay and pay. When we take tax dollars and put them towards debt, that is taxing our children's future. When this government makes tough decisions, it's not all about lack of political will. It's about lack of revenue and being prudent with what we have. We try to live within our means.

I'm pleased to say that there is funding available for playgrounds and other items. PAC funding has been restored to $20 a student. I taught at a high school in the Comox Valley — 1,200 students. Now, that's not an elementary school by any means, but it was very nice. This gives the school $24,000 a year to use as discretionary funding. My daughter's elementary school has approximately 500 students, or $10,000 of discretionary PAC funding. But you know what? That's discretionary, and it can't all necessarily go to one item.

I'm also pleased to say that school districts have their $110 million annual facility grants restored for the next coming year. This can be used for districts to allocate priorities — including, I might add, playgrounds. On top of this, some districts…. Because they handle their resources when they build capital projects in other ways, they actually have capital reserves. These go into a plan, but they also could be dedicated toward playground improvements.

This government recognizes that even though our province's school-age population is in decline, the system continually needs more dollars. Since 2001 we've put in $1.3 billion more for education.

I might add as well, as a high school teacher who taught in the 1990s and remember a concept in negotiations of zero, zero and 2 percent wage increases where I constantly fell behind…. I must say that since 2001 through 2009 — if we're just talking wages here — I enjoyed an increased standard of living that I've never seen before and in fact you hadn't seen since the 1980s. And my spending dollars went much further in those days.

Let's not worry about the past. Let's worry about where we're going in the future. You know, schools can pay for playgrounds, but there are also other important priorities. Seismic upgrades — $1.5 billion is going to be dedicated towards seismic upgrade projects, ones that either are ongoing now or will be in the future.

J. Kwan: I thank the member for Comox Valley for his response. Well, I guess his child is a lucky one because she has a playground structure to play with that is safe in Comox Valley, unlike the children in Vancouver and most certainly in Britannia.

Let me just say this. The member says that it's about priorities. Yes, it is about priorities, and let's just be clear. The revenues for the playground funds actually came out of gaming. Let us be clear about that, because gaming revenues went up not just by a little bit but significantly. And in the midst of all that, what does this government do? They actually cut funding to community groups that
[ Page 3448 ]
apply for gaming funds. Playground communities, the community groups that need the money for playground replacement, were hit as a result of that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

That's what happened. That's what happened with the gaming funds. The government actually cut the grants while revenues went up. But in addition to that, let us be clear. The government made a choice. The public affairs bureau got their budget increased so that they can actually spin their way out of all the stuff that the government is spouting out these days — including, I may add, maybe what the member was saying.

[1100]

Maybe that's why the public affairs bureau budget had to go up, so that the stories could keep on spinning, so that the public could keep on receiving misleading information about what really is going on with the government's priorities — and, as a result of that, the collateral damage on the children.

The member talked about the PACs and their capacity to fundraise. Oh really? Well, in the inner-city schools, as the community groups, as the Vancouver Inner City Education Society…. These are people who have worked in the education system, who deal with the challenges on a day-by-day basis. They are saying that they are maxed out and that there are no more dollars to be tapped.

In fact, not only that, they are facing difficulties in getting moneys for other extracurricular activities — such as science-based programming, schoolwide performances, fine arts, technology and even transportation — because of the lack of funding.

School boards. The member seems to say that the education system is loaded with money, that the school districts have lots of money to do things. Oh really? That's notwithstanding the government had actually not fully funded the increased pension costs, the carbon footprints, amongst other things.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call private member's Motion 2.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of this House is required to proceed with Motion 2 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 2 — FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

D. Barnett: I am honoured to stand here today to put forward this motion.

[Be it resolved that this House support the Government’s call for a “One Project, One Process” approach to environmental assessments and the creation of a unified federal-provincial review process that does away with the redundancy and unnecessary costs in these assessments.]

"Why," some will ask, "would the province be asking the federal government to create a one-stop process with them?"

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Simple. We are trying to encourage new investment in our resource sectors — mining, resort development — with a single environmental approval. Time is money in rural B.C. Communities want stability. Stability means jobs. Investment means jobs. Investment means revenue to be able to provide programs for health care, education, shelter, child care and many more, and to be able to continue improving our highways, ferries and other transportation systems. One process would eliminate duplication.

We must ensure that all environmental, economic, health and heritage impacts are considered and addressed. One process would make this effective and efficient and would provide certainty in timelines.

B.C. has a very robust environmental assessment process. Every single project that has received provincial approval has been approved by the federal review panel. B.C. at present has approximately $25 billion of potential investment in the provincial environmental assessment system. Of these, 65 percent will require federal assessment review. Delays in receiving federal environmental assessment cost jobs and economic activity.

In rural B.C., where our resources lie, it costs more than job and economic activity. It takes from people the future of a lifestyle and hope for the future. It causes unnecessary conflicts.

Who is going to pay for the future of B.C. without economic activity using our natural resources? We need hope and prosperity for our province, for our people. Those who live in rural B.C. deserve a lifestyle they have come to know. Our private sector investors who believe in this province need to have timelines so that they may get answers and move forward.

[1105]

R. Fleming: I'm pleased to respond to the member who has put this motion on the floor for debate this morning here in the chamber. I want to make a few remarks in response to what she's just said. But perhaps I'll begin by saying I don't think anybody would suggest…. And this would be legislators as well as environmental NGOs and others who have heard, not for the first time but for at least the second or third time, the throne speech promise, which is broadly the same language as the member has put in her motion this morning — to promise a one-process, streamlined, federal-provincial, integrated environmental assessment process.
[ Page 3449 ]

Nobody is saying that is wrong in principle. But the question that we have, the question that British Columbians are asking, is: what is motivating this government to pursue it? In furtherance of that question, a second question. Can you trust this government — given their record, given their aspirations and goals as outlined in this budget — to put any prioritization and respect for the environment in such a process?

That question is one that demands that we go back and look at the record of this government, look at the record of deregulation of almost every single piece of environmental legislation that this province has, and since 2003 look at the changes that have been made that have systematically removed the integrity and environmental oversight of project proposals in British Columbia. That's the record, and that is what this government now proposes to do with the federal government.

You know, the rhetoric from this government is very interesting. We hear it from the Premier. We hear it from others on that side. A professed interest in transitioning British Columbia to a low-carbon economy. But a week after the Premier came back from Copenhagen, the environmental assessment and review that was approved for the EnCana cabin gas plant was championed by this government.

All the talk of a low-carbon economy and a transition, and this project alone will add 3.5 percent to the province's greenhouse gas emissions. It's the equivalent of adding 450,000 cars to British Columbia's roadways. Now, I don't know how they can square that, Madam Speaker, because I haven't heard them talk about it. But what's interesting is that this government specifically exempted that project from a couple of things.

One of them was obliging the company to pursue and implement carbon capture, storage-and-sequestration technology — something that even the Albertan government is doing with tar sands projects today. That didn't happen.

The question that communities are asking in regards to this throne speech commitment and this motion that's on the floor before us is whether they trust this government to make environmental assessment legislation and process better, more thorough and with environmental values and integrity as its core component.

Now, here's another question. Shouldn't British Columbia have accomplished a significant amount of streamlining with the federal government already? After all, there was an agreement in 2004 signed by both levels of government to do just that. It was renewed in 2008. There are six years where this government should have accomplished a great deal in terms of the goals that they outlined in their throne speech. It hasn't been done, apparently, to their satisfaction.

One wonders if this is a backhanded way for this government to be responding to recent Supreme Court rulings around a number of mining projects in British Columbia. Those mining projects are being held up by Department of Fisheries and Oceans findings on the project proposals.

Now, this could be the end run that government is proposing to that, or it could be this government getting used to something that's happened over the last two years in partnership with the federal government. That is to waive environmental reviews completely for any project that is the recipient of federal government stimulus money.

That's not a good reason to be pursuing this. The shovel-ready approach and exemption for environmental reviews is not something that should take precedence for all time over the environmental integrity and the environmental impacts of projects in B.C.

[1110]

My final point has to do with the context of this commitment and the motion that we're debating this morning. This proposal is coming forward at a time when the capacity and the funding level for the environmental assessment office in the province of British Columbia has never been lower — a 37 percent budget cut since 2003, a 16 percent budget cut since the so-called green budget in 2008.

If the members on that side want to look at what's holding up and delaying projects, they should look at how they have gutted the environmental assessment office of British Columbia and talk to the proponents of projects about delays that are exactly related to that.

R. Howard: It is my pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion — one project, one process — for the approach to environmental assessments, to speak to government duplication, to speak to bureaucratic intransigence. There are very few better examples of government gone astray, which can conjure up images of Monty Python or Yes Minister, than duplicative government processes.

I can just envision the look on John Cleese's face when he emerges from a six-month federal government process, clutching his permit in hand, looking tousled and harassed, only to find out he has to repeat the process. "Yes, that's right, Basil, you've just come, exhausted, from one door marked 'provincial,' and now you must enter that other door on the other side of the room marked 'federal.' You can keep your same files with you" — because it's often the same process. "You just need to fill out new sets of forms for the new masters."

Now, imagine that you are a company executive or an international investor, having spent your Sunday evening with your family watching Basil and his mind-numbing dilemma of marching to two sets of different drummers for no apparent reason. You come to Canada, and you find yourself feeling very Basil-like as you're requested to proceed through two environmental processes for your one project.
[ Page 3450 ]

One has to ask: who benefits from one project and two processes? There is no value generated by this duplication. At the provincial level, we can work to keep personal and corporate taxes lower. We can eliminate the dreaded corporate capital tax. We can reduce taxes on machinery and equipment. All of this will tend to attract investment. All of these things we have done, we are doing, and we will continue to do.

This sets the table. This sets the table for others to succeed. However, if the meal that those that attend the table must chew on is fraught with red tape and duplication, it will kill investment. If we've heard one thing clearly, it's that regulation can stifle investment. Regulation causes uncertainty in timelines and results. I've seen it firsthand, in too many situations, where a government process can either scare a company away entirely or will cause them to adjust their price upwards.

They adjust their price upwards for several reasons. First is because of the protracted timeline that the additional regulations can take. They adjust their price upwards because of the uncertainty caused by the extra regulations, and they adjust their price upwards again because of the extra out-of-pocket costs, often in the form of consultants' reports. It has significant impacts on extra time, additional costs and more uncertainty.

I would like to stay on this issue just to drill home the example. Just imagine ourselves as we all might consider building a new home. You embark on a process to collect schedule information and budget information. You talk to appraisers, and you get survey certificates, geotechnical advice, structural advice, architectural advice, building envelope advice, insurance and property tax. I could go on and on. The point is that it's a complicated process just to build the home.

You can imagine if you're developing a mine, a park or a subdivision. Often the environmental part of the report is the first thing that you have to tackle, because it is the first showstopper. If there are environmental impacts that are not acceptable — either existing or to be created — it will stop the project. These environmental assessments are far-reaching. They look at the existing conditions, at conditions that will be imposed by the new project and at conditions that will be emitted by the new project.

[1115]

Extreme costs, heavy impacts, duplicative processes have really no role to play. That is why our government is seeking to cooperate with the federal government on streamlining, on consolidating our existing two processes into one. There are currently over $3 billion worth of projects in B.C. that have their provincial environmental assessment certificates but are awaiting federal approval — $3 billion. These projects total more than 4,300 construction jobs and over 1,000 ongoing operational jobs.

We need a one-process-for-one-project system. We need to eliminate costly and investment-choking duplication and uncertainty and protracted timelines. That would be good government. That would make good sense, and that's what we intend to do.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to speak to the motion today about harmonizing the environmental assessment process federally and provincially. The problem is, as has been already mentioned by one of my colleagues, the trust factor. Who can trust this government around environmental issues? And the previous speakers from the government side are hardly mentioning the environment, by the way. They're talking about development.

Let's look at one thing. Let's look at protection of our wild salmon and how that's not happening and how this government is not doing due diligence at all. I mean, Alexandra Morton has done fantastic work on this. Everybody knows about it.

The issue of drug resistance to SLICE, the drug that is typically applied to salmon…. She has pointed it out — using government data, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands data, and data from the fish farms themselves that shows that this is a problem that affects our wild salmon. What does this government do? Obfuscate, ignore or pretend it's not there.

You know, she sent material to Dr. Mark Sheppard and Trevor Rhodes from the aquaculture operations. At least they've answered, which puts your career at risk these days with this government when you're a civil servant. But they're not giving any biological, scientific refutation of what she's saying. Nothing. In fact, what did they say? "Go to the fish farms to get the information."

That's the status of environmental protection in this province under this government, and they want us, I guess…. They're calling upon us in this motion, I assume, to support the idea. But yet there is no…. How can there be any trust?

It's a travesty that we, the public of British Columbia, have to go to the fish farms to get information on public water. This whole issue is in the waters that belong to the public, but you wouldn't think so. I don't even know if the minister gets the information. I think the minister is a sincere fellow, and he works hard, but this is a travesty, and this is the kind of thing that we're seeing more and more.

It gives me little faith at all that this government is going to in any way enhance protection of the environment through this process. Then we've got the minister of gravel over from Abbotsford-Mission who is, on and on, talking about dredging gravel out of the Fraser River, damaging the white sturgeon.

His own scientist, Ross Neuman, has pointed that out — the damage that this is doing. But no. He goes on promoting these kinds of damaging environmental practices. How can we have any faith, any trust that this government's process is going to lead to a better outcome for the environment? I don't think so.
[ Page 3451 ]

All the time while this is going on, everything that's going on, what have we got? We've got Sergeant Schultz there for a Minister of Environment. "I know nothing. I see nothing." We can't have any trust in him. We can't have any trust in this government. We can't have any trust that the Premier, despite talk about….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would ask you to bring some courtesy to your remarks.

M. Sather: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I certainly will afford some courtesy to the government, but I will say this, fully and completely — that I do not trust this process that this government has embarked upon because of their record, and their record stands to be seen everywhere you look.

[1120]

You look at the Minister of Forests recently saying, "Well, you know what? Our staff" — of which there are very few now in the field, I might add, thanks to them — "are going to be shifted away from checking paperwork prepared by industry foresters," citing that a lot of the work being done is duplication, because "professional foresters have a responsibility to ensure that documents they sign are in full compliance." Well, isn't that great? "Trust us." That's what they're saying. "Trust industry. Trust us."

But we can't trust this government, and I don't trust this government. I'll look at what they have to offer, but I'll tell you that I'll be looking with a very jaundiced eye at it.

S. Cadieux: Well, I was looking at this, and for the opposition leader and others to suggest that we're looking at deregulation for the sake of deregulation, as she did, is beyond worrisome or concerning. It's ridiculous. We're looking at one project, one process for the sake of efficiencies, investment and jobs.

Yet despite the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment that are tied up in the federal environmental assessment process, the NDP is continuing to suggest that although they aren't against the theoretical one-project, one-process approach, we should continue to add more stringency and more review and make the assessment process more thorough. They're continuing to suggest that we add more red tape to a process that is already seen as one of the best in the country.

A suggestion that the environmental protections will be reduced by this process, which they have also continued to suggest, is uninformed and baseless. Right now we know that every single project in B.C. that has received approval from the environmental protection office in B.C. has also received federal environmental assessment approval.

What we're talking about is the need to reduce the overlap and duplicative process that already exists. A one-window environmental process is about improving efficiency and reducing the unnecessary overlap — not about reducing environmental protections, as the NDP likes to insinuate.

We have a very robust environmental assessment process, and we have approximately $25 billion in potential investment in the provincial system right now. Of these, 65 percent will require federal assessment. Delays in the receipt of that federal assessment will cost jobs and economic activity.

I'd like to note that Pierre Gratton, president and CEO of the Mining Association of British Columbia, told CBC Daybreak on February 11 that the provincial environmental assessment process is well-run.

"It's very robust and well-managed. Where the real challenges are, are with the federal system, which is unpredictable and slow with poorly managed, uncoordinated departments. It's a very challenging process.

"The province has been pushing the federal government aggressively to try to get the feds to do a better job of what they're doing and possibly amend their legislation to improve how that act is carried out without in any way compromising the quality of review, and we certainly appreciate and applaud those efforts the province has taken along those lines."

A robust and well-managed system — that's good news. We're talking about delays that are in process because of a federal process that duplicates what has already been approved in British Columbia.

We know we can do better if we can assist the feds to amend their process to work more cooperatively with ours. The B.C. assessment office is committed to working with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to minimize duplication and to harmonize efforts wherever possible. Significant progress has been made on a number of initiatives.

Under the B.C.-Canada environmental assessment cooperation agreement, the EAO and the CEAA have entered into a detailed implementation agreement dealing with a wide range of matters, including joint work planning, joint staff training and piloting the delegation of federal functions to the environmental assessment office here in B.C. They are developing a project work planning tool which can be used simultaneously by staff for projects that undergo joint environmental assessment.

[1125]

We're not suggesting that we should take things out of the environmental assessment process or weaken it in any way. We're suggesting that where there is duplication, it should be eliminated. It is not about reducing environmental protections. It's about keeping B.C. strong. For B.C. to be strong as a province, we need a strong economy, and those two are synonymous.

To be the best we can be as a province and as an economy, we need to be competitive, and we have to have a welcoming business investment climate. Duplication and delay are not conducive to this. They don't support investment, and they cost us jobs for British Columbians. We need to ensure that we can speed up job creation in
[ Page 3452 ]
energy, mining and resource development with a single assessment for each project.

There are currently over $3 billion worth of projects in B.C. that have their provincial assessment certificates and are still awaiting federal approval. These projects total more than 4,300 construction jobs and over a thousand ongoing operational jobs — jobs we need in B.C., especially in rural B.C.

Time is money, people, and I'm sure you've heard that before. Duplication is waste, and tax dollars are limited. We can't afford to hold investment and jobs hostage because of bureaucratic red tape and a siloed mentality — be it within ministries or across levels of government.

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council of B.C., the B.C. Construction Association and the Independent Contractors of British Columbia are among so many who support this one-window approach to EAs.

At the meeting of the western Premiers in June 2009 and the Council of the Federation meeting in August 2009, the Premiers supported the need for an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to permit the federal government to enter into equivalency agreements with the provinces and territories on a case-by-case basis to help avoid duplication and overlap.

This will allow the process to fit the project — the right process for the project — by simply removing duplication and overlap, saving both the proponent and the multiple levels of government and regulators dollars and time. As I stated before, time is money.

Thankfully, our perseverance is paying off. We're starting to see progress from our federal partners. The March 3, 2010, federal throne speech stated that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act must be amended to create a unified federal-provincial review process that does away with redundancy and unnecessary costs. Multiple government reviews replicate work, add cost, increase uncertainty, delay decisions, reduce investment and ultimately cost jobs.

This is not a quick process, but we're working away at it, and I think that we are seeing significant progress. Our essential resource sectors are supporting this action from government, and I think, to quote Gavin Dirom, president of the Association for Mineral Exploration: "There's been a positive push with respect to doing project reviews in a timely way and having the B.C. government work with the federal government. We're appreciative of those efforts, and we can do environmental assessments here in British Columbia effectively but also effectively maintain public trust."

"The Premier is right to push for a one project, one process, and all of the industry groups in B.C. are very supportive of trying to figure out a way to streamline jobs." That was from Jock Finlayson of the B.C. Business Council.

Madam Speaker, I am in support of this motion. Reducing red tape and allowing business to get down to business means jobs and prosperity for British Columbians, and I'm all for that.

L. Popham: Environmental assessment is the formalized process of identifying and assessing the impacts and possible contribution to sustainability of a proposed development, decision, plan or policy, and then planning to avoid or mitigate negative impacts and advance sustainability priorities.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is an extremely important law used to protect the environment. When one considers the one-project, one-process motion, there is not necessarily anything wrong with moving to a streamlined process, but the concern is that because of the philosophy of this current provincial, and of the federal, government, a single environmental assessment process will not prioritize the environment enough.

[1130]

In fact, this government refers to this process as a byzantine bureaucratic practice that holds jobs and investment hostage. In the throne speech this was, I believe, a way of attacking what can be referred to as red tape.

I think we can all agree that in a time when we are facing such a huge deficit, streamlining a process can help eliminate unnecessary costs. I support reducing waste, because waste is not sustainable. But what I can't support is B.C. taking a back seat in environmental responsibility. I can't support an arm's-length concern for part of the sustainability equation that is imperative for it to work. I have trouble trusting a government who freely admits that they do not support a moratorium on oil tankers coming down our coast. I don't see enough commitment to our environment.

The B.C. NDP has unanimously adopted a vision for our province called Sustainable B.C. As British Columbians we should be dedicated to building a sustainable society that nurtures creative and resourceful people and communities; a clean and productive environment; and a modern, vibrant and diversified economy.

We have not always been wise in our stewardship of this incredible endowment, our province. As our province industrialized, we damaged the ecosystems upon which all life depends; stressed local communities; depleted forests and fisheries; paved so much of our best agricultural land; and polluted the air, water and soils. Today B.C. has the highest levels of income inequality and child poverty in Canada. Our forestry sector is in crisis. Wild fish stocks are at the point of collapse. Our agricultural land is being used as a land bank for development. At the same time, policies that support farmers continue to disappear with our food security.

Economically, socially and environmentally our current path is not sustainable. The one-project, one-process motion that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin
[ Page 3453 ]
is suggesting can only work if sustainability is front and centre, the leading value within this legislation.

Moving forward quickly with only the lens of the economy being used as a measurement will not protect our precious resources and allow them to be used in a sustainable fashion. Our Sustainable B.C. document should be used when developing the one-project, one-process legislation, because we only have one B.C.

I believe British Columbians want us, as legislators, to have a formal and enduring commitment to social, environmental and economic sustainability. The following principles should be part of this formal commitment, and the streamlined process for environmental assessment should include all of these principles: ecosystem protection, resource conservation, biodiversity, resilience, protection for the commons, food security, ecosystem protection, resource conservation.

I cannot support this motion until I see proof that the environment is a priority and that sustainability is the motive behind this change. I have a problem trusting this government right now, so I won't be supporting it.

T. Lake: I am pleased to rise today to support this motion for a one-project, one-process approach to environmental assessment. I want to just talk about some of the comments that have been made already.

The Victoria–Swan Lake member said that there's nothing wrong with this in principle, and I thank him for that. He questioned what the motivation is in pursuing it. Well, I think he answered his own question, because it's not wrong in principle. It is, in fact, the right thing to do.

Taxpayers expect that their tax dollars will be used wisely, and duplication of a process just for the sake of duplication is not a useful use of their tax dollars. The member for Saanich South said that sustainability should be front and centre, and I couldn't agree more.

I think that when it comes to the environment, I'm an advocate of sensible and robust regulation. I think that we can accomplish efficiency and sustainability with regulation with a one-process, one-project approach.

I'd just like to talk a little bit about the sort of demonization of industry that seems to happen when we talk about this concept, this need to increase efficiency. Of course it is in favour of industry to use these resources properly, but I don't really understand what is wrong with that if it's done correctly.

Let me read something from an environmental policy that I think makes sense.

[1135]

"Will comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations and voluntary commitments to which the facility subscribes; will reduce to the maximum practical extent releases to the environment through pollution prevention, recycling and finally through treatment and control technologies; communicate effectively with facility employees, suppliers, regulators and customers as well as the surrounding communities regarding our environmental performance; review our activities, results and systems regularly and be able to demonstrate continual improvement in the facilities' environmental management, including areas not subject to regulations."

That is the environmental policy of Highland Valley copper, which operates a copper and molybdenum mine near my home city of Kamloops.

I want to give some examples of the benefits to our region — in fact, the whole province — from Highland Valley copper in Logan Lake and what it does for our economy and our community.

Some 1,100 highly paid unionized workers are employed at Highland Valley copper, making an average wage far in excess of $90,000 a year. Half of those employees live in Kamloops, and I just can't imagine what our community and our economy would be like without them. It's not just a matter of the jobs but the great work that those members of United Steelworkers of America Local 7619 do, along with their employer, Teck Cominco.

Together they support the community in a number of different ways. The United Steelworkers work with the AIDS Society of Kamloops, helping them in their social work in the community. They support Royal Inland Hospital. They support Children's Hospital. Last year the United Way of Thompson-Cariboo raised $1.6 million, a phenomenal amount. Some $565,000 came from the employees and the employer at Highland Valley copper in Logan Lake. That's the kind of contribution that this mine creates in our community.

I just cannot imagine our community without that mine, if Teck Cominco had said: "You know, we're not going through two processes. We just have waited too long to do this. We're going to invest in another area of Canada, because we can't take the red tape that's presented to us. We're in favour of regulating the environment, we're in favour of sustaining the environment, but we simply can't go forward with this mine." I just can't imagine what our community would be like without that mine.

The member for Surrey-Panorama mentioned all of the great work we're doing. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that my work with the Kamloops Airport expansion involved both the B.C. and the federal review, and I can tell you that the B.C. review required more than the federal review, particularly in terms of First Nations accommodation and archaeology.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I just want you to imagine what it would be like if we applied this same system of duplication to the Olympics. Can you imagine in the overtime of the gold-medal hockey game: "Iginla to Sidney Crosby. He shoots. He scores. Canada wins. Oh, hang on. We've got to make sure he can do it again, because we haven't satisfied the second regulation involved."

G. Gentner: Only a member from that side would equate the erosion of our environment relative to
[ Page 3454 ]
winning the gold medal. I just don't get that part. It's unbelievable.

I want to start by asking: what is driving this motion? Is it the need to expedite the environmental assessment on a certain mine in her constituency, the member who is proposing this motion? Or is it the fact the company gave $12,000 as a campaign contribution to the B.C. Liberal Party? We're talking about compromising an environmental assessment based on a mining application whereby — it's interesting — the B.C. environmental assessment authority decided to wave the project through. But it was the DFO, thank heavens, that stood up for fish and is sort of the red herring in the way of doing proper environmental….

When we look closer at the motion from the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin…. Let's look at it more closely: "Be it resolved that this House support the Government’s call for a 'One Project, One Process' approach to environmental assessments and the creation of a unified federal-provincial review process that does away with the redundancy and unnecessary costs in these assessments."

[1140]

There is nothing in this motion that ensures environmental protection. The motion talks about unnecessary costs. What is unnecessary, according to this government, is any environmental assessment. Environmental assessment for this bunch across, Madam Speaker, is a burden. It is an inconvenience.

The motion begins with "One Project." In other words, since this government introduced changes to the environmental assessment office by the government's environmental assessments way back in 2002 and '03, the environmental assessment office is now project-driven. When it comes to protecting the environment, this government is weak-kneed. To expedite the process is not always in the best interests of the environment, but we've come to understand what the real green agenda is over there, and it's about money.

So what's wrong with the new buzzword for this government, harmonization? It's like TILMA. It's like HST. It tears down barriers under the corporatist agenda. It says to heck with families. It says to heck with the environment, communities, First Nations, and it circumvents due process.

Many of the changes some projects bring are irreversible, meaning that some sensitive areas are compromised or gone forever. All evidence must come forward before making substantial, everlasting changes. Unfortunately, with all the changes of the EAO legislation the only sense of environmental integrity now, surprisingly, rests with the federal government.

Thank heavens we do have a two-tier system that creates checks and balances and backstops. Two levels of environmental protection mean there are fewer cracks for things to fall through and result in a more comprehensive and effective environmental protection regime. But the motion means lowering the standards to the lowest common denominator or a race to the bottom when it comes to regulating environmental standards.

In the current climate of deregulation and budget cutbacks there is no question that environmental protection needs to be improved. This motion is a political solution to a political problem, the result of cutting back the environment budgets to the bone, whereby the federal government, like the HST, will now download its responsibilities and jurisdictions onto the paltry excuse of environmental protection called the B.C. Liberal Ministry of Environment.

R. Sultan: I think the member for Delta North has done a sterling service to this Legislature by reminding us of that old NDP battle cry from the previous administration — "Mine-free by '93," and they almost succeeded.

People sometimes complain that the world is turning faster and faster. That hardly applies to Canada's two-track permitting process in the mining industry. Taseko's Prosperity mine project first entered the provincial environmental process 15 years ago — 15 years.

We recall that in earlier times, in only five years, Canada mobilized 10 percent of its population in a war effort, fought on several fronts overseas, built 15,000 aircraft, 1,000 ships and was instrumental in the defeat of several large enemies — in five years. Today, after 15 years, the Taseko mining company finds itself still bogged down in committee meetings and consultation, in part because it has to do everything twice, once for the provincial masters and once again for the feds.

Is this any way to mobilize a weakened Canadian economy? Taseko has so far invested over $100 million in the mineral exploration, engineering and scientific examination required to prepare its environmental assessment report. That includes the most thorough archaeological study in provincial mining history and $1 million given to fund the Tsilhqot'in National Government's own independent review.

Provincial environmental assessment has done its job, examined every aspect of the project, scrutinized all of Taseko's findings in great detail and found no major flaws. It has developed a list of commitments that Taseko must abide by.

Next up to bat is the federal environmental assessment office studying the exact same terms of reference, using the exact same materials contained in the Taseko nine-volume, 2,000-page application. Even though the feds were given every opportunity to participate in the provincial environmental process and every opportunity to address and resolve issues of particular concern, most federal departments rejected the offer or participated minimally. As a result, Taseko must now repeat the process — surely, a deadweight loss.

[1145]

Building the Prosperity mine will engage 700 construction workers for two years. In operation the mine will generate about 500 direct jobs for 20 years and another 1,200 indirectly. Towns such as Williams Lake and 100 Mile have seen their forest industries decimated by the pine beetle. They badly need this mine, which will inject $200 million into the economy every year.

Given our country's 8 percent unemployment rate and the billions of taxpayer dollars committed by the federal government to infrastructure pump-priming on an accelerated, no-exception basis — completion by March 31, 2011, or lose your money — one might expect a similar federal urgency might apply to the permitting of private sector projects. But oh no. At the rate they've been mobilizing, I wonder if the feds' permitting process will finish by that same March 31 deadline.

The federal environmental assessment review panel pegs its costs at $1.3 million, which it expects Taseko to pay. It has already spent $1 million of this and is not even on site. EARP has scheduled 28 days of public hearings, more than half as long as this spring session of the Legislature.

Invoices already received encompass expenses for salaries of federal officials at over $400 a day, air travel, accommodation, gifts for First Nations, helicopters, receptions and entertainment, plus French translation services and translation services for the Chilcotin language — all on Taseko's tab. I might add that according to the Canadian census, the population of Williams Lake which speaks only French is exactly zero.

Hearings will be held in communities of the Esketemc band, Canoe Creek band, Alexis Creek band, Anaham band, Toosey band, the Stone band, the Xeni Gwet'in band as well as Williams Lake, Alexis Creek and 100 Mile House.

As Taseko wends its way down this meandering, two-track road we wish them well, and I believe residents of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, who need the well-paying jobs this project will bring, wish them well as well.

B. Simpson: The fundamental question today is: can you streamline, get rid of redundancy without undermining future possibilities and without compromising sustainability? That's really what the debate today should be, not the way the motion is couched.

With that in mind, I would remind the member for Kamloops–North Thompson that Highland Valley copper, which he waxed so eloquent about, was approved under the existing system, not the system that's proposed. You got all of those jobs, all of those benefits from the system as it exists. That's a question that could be asked: can you make the system as it exists better? Can you streamline the system as it is so that you get those benefits?

The other thing that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson should know quite well is that he has a creosote burner issue in his own community, where if you take the community out of the environmental review process, you streamline that process on the front and you pay for it on the back end with protest after protest and the community coming out. So you cannot streamline in a way that the community says, "We don't like this," because they'll just bottle you up. Then they'll force a political decision, and we try to get the politics out of it.

The fact is that this government doesn't have the credibility to streamline this process, given its own track record, and it's not an assessment that I do willy-nilly. It's a 16 percent cut to the environmental assessment office and a 37 percent cut to MOE. Those are the facts. That's why the people don't trust you. That's why we don't trust you.

Secondly, on duplication and Prosperity, is it duplication, or is it a check and balance, as we've been suggesting? The member for Parksville-Qualicum suggests MOE issued a certificate to Prosperity, to Taseko Mines, that said there were no major flaws. Yet just at the end of last week DFO came out and said they had huge problems with Taseko's proposal. There were significant flaws, significant undermining of the watershed and of fish. That's a check and balance.

The question is: can we move to something that streamlines, manages us in a way that is truly sustainable, including the environment, and also make sure that we don't get a rubber stamp to get investment in jobs?

[1150]

With that — and again, we're restricted in time — on the issue of investment in jobs, if we truly want investment in jobs, we must resolve the First Nations land issue. The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin must know that if you get a streamlined process and you fast-track it and approve it, it's going to get locked up in the court system anyway. The First Nations are going to lock it up. What are we at here? The $3 billion in investment awaiting federal review. We lose $1.5 billion per year in lost-opportunity costs because the First Nations land issue is not dealt with.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Maybe we've got our priorities wrong on where the problem is to get jobs in our communities. Let's get on with it. The government is doing some good work in that area. Let's enhance that.

Finally, if you take a look at what we really need to do…. Again, the member for Parksville-Qualicum is dead wrong on what happened with the offer to the federal government.

There was a joint review panel for Prosperity, but when the Kemess North decision came forward from a joint review panel, which cancelled that project, Taseko withdrew, and then the province withdrew from that process. So a joint review process may actually work. In the case of Kemess North, it worked to say that it was not worth it in the long term and to say no, and then everybody got
[ Page 3456 ]
cold feet and got scared. You have to be willing to take a no if you're going to do it for sustainable purposes.

Finally, my recommendation is to let's have a motion come forward to support convening a joint committee of this Legislature. As parliamentarians and legislators, let's go out and figure this out. Let's go figure out how you can have a process that respects future generations, that respects First Nations' rights and title and that realizes investment in jobs for today. Let's do it together.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the member for the Cariboo-Chilcotin for bringing forward this motion. It's been a very interesting debate.

There's one thing that's very clear, when you listen to what the opposition has said. They have absolutely no confidence in the environmental assessment. As a matter of fact, they think it's worth…. They think it should simply be thrown out. That's what they have said.

They have no confidence that the work that the professionals in this province are doing in the environmental assessment process, that the hundreds and hundreds of hours and sweat that was put in here is useless. They feel that we need a separate process and a secondary process from the federal government, because they have no confidence that we're actually doing the job.

I find that quite, quite disturbing. They should at least have the courage to stand up and say that they have no confidence in the professionals that we have in our province. The whole concept of what they're suggesting….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

J. Rustad: The whole concept of what they're suggesting here is really quite simple. Let me put this in very simple terms.

If you were to go out shopping for a pair of shoes, here's what the process is like. You would go into the store, the department store. You would go there. There'd be somebody who would come up and help, and they would say: "Okay, let's take measurements of your foot. Let's look it through. Let's find a shoe for you."

Then you'd have a host of critics on the side, fashion critics, who would suggest this or that or the next thing. They would all go through this very detailed process. You'd come out, and you'd say: "Well, okay. This took a while, but I have the shoe that I want."

Then you go to the checkout line. You're going to pay, but just before you get to the checkout line, they say, "Wait a second. You actually have to go to this line over here," which is the federal side. Then you go in there, and they bring all these same experts back in. They would give you all the opinions and views and stuff, come to the conclusion that it was still the right shoe. Then instead of getting the checkout line, you'd have to wait months and months for a decision to allow you to actually buy those shoes and leave the store.

Mr. Speaker, the exact same process has been done in the environmental process. We have, it's recognized, one of the best environmental processes in the world here in this province. We're not talking about changing that; we're talking about simply eliminating duplication. We're talking about doing an equivalency process.

I'm very disturbed that the member for Cariboo North came out and refused to support something like this. He's got a project that would very much help the constituents in his riding, and he refuses to support it. As a matter of fact, they even suggest that they add more delay and more bureaucracy to a process that is already extremely comprehensive.

This motion really gets to the core of what is fundamental in rural B.C. Very clearly, the NDP do not understand what is needed in rural B.C.

[1155]

The people in rural B.C. understand the process. They understand that we need to be comprehensive. They understand that we need to protect the environment. But they also want jobs. They don't want the process to be the end result. They want the end result to reflect the opportunity for employment, to reflect the opportunity for building futures for their families, to have that ability to be able to provide for their children and to be able to see their community prosper. That's what rural B.C. is looking for.

They're not looking to cut environmental process. They want it to be thorough because they live in that area. They live in there. They want to make sure their environment is protected. But they're not interested in duplication and red tape and other bureaucratic processes, quite frankly, that simply delay.

We need these jobs. We need these benefits. We need to be streamlined. This is the right thing for us to be doing.

You know, I'm very glad to see so much opposition from the other side of the House, because it clearly shows that you do not understand rural B.C. You do not understand what we need to do to further this province, and you do not understand how to build an economy and how to support this province and build those families.

J. Rustad moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175