BILL 75 (2003) - Significant Project Streamlining Act

J. MacPhail: Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. It's interesting to watch this minister assert things that he simply hopes people will believe, saying: "Oh, this bill doesn't affect environmental standards. It doesn't affect first nations." We know the value of the word of this government on its commitment to environmental standards and first nations. Because this minister asserts that this legislation doesn't affect any of those rights, one can pretty much predict that the bill does affect those rights. In fact, Bill 75 is yet another example of this government sidestepping its obligation to provide fair and responsible governance in favour of honouring commitments to its corporate donors.

I almost don't know where to begin on this legislation. This legislation is extremely far-reaching. However, it lacks any fundamental definitions and information that would inform the public about how the new legislation is going to be used. It is extremely vague. As a result, I will have many questions at committee debate. However, I also don't anticipate getting any answers, which is typical of this government.

In the short time I have had to examine the bill, I have come across some very troubling aspects. I want to go over those today so the minister will be fully prepared - 100 percent prepared - to answer every single question during committee stage. First off, let me quote from the explanatory text for Bill 75. I'm sure the explanatory text is written by the public affairs bureau, the Pravda of this government, because it really is all about spin. But this one let some information slip through.

"This Bill provides for projects that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers are provincially significant projects to be expedited by requiring that any decisions that must be made in relation to the project are to be made expeditiously, and, if the project is to proceed, by allowing for any enactments or processes that might impede the prompt completion of the project to be overcome through negotiation or minister's order and replaced with alternative measures that are more in keeping with the expeditious completion of the project."

Nothing about other pieces of legislation prevailing. No. It says "minister's order." Some kind of banana republic we're in here. The key piece to this bill is that the ministers will have the power to remove a project from any and all approval processes that the minister and the proponent feel "may be a constraint." On top of that, it only has to be a perceived or anticipated constraint. It doesn't even have to be a reality.

What could this possibly be referring to? We don't know. We don't know for sure, because the legislation doesn't say. However, I'm pretty sure I know where this government wants to go on this: the Olympics for sure and the RAV line for sure. What else?

I do understand the need to ensure that projects associated with the Olympics are kept on schedule, but this act is not in any way limited to the Olympics. The intent of this legislation is not defined anywhere. This minister can stand up and assert whatever he likes, but his legislation doesn't back him up. The power in this legislation is not limited in any way. This legislation gives free range to cabinet, to the Premier, on any project. The Minister of State for Deregulation has gone on the radio and said.... He said it again today, and he shook his finger at the opposition, saying that this bill is not about compromising environmental standards. Well, I say to the minister: prove it. There is nothing in this legislation that dictates what processes cabinet can override and what processes it cannot. There is nothing in this legislation that limits those extraordinary powers.

Well, let's see whether I'm just fearmongering. No. This interpretation of Bill 75 is shared by pretty much everyone who's commented on it to date. In his column on Tuesday, Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun wrote: "Once the cabinet makes the designation, it can, by the stroke of a pen, eliminate any and all constraints to the approval process - regulations, procedures and timetables included." The British Columbia and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council press release from November 4 says: "This new legislation that proposes to fast-track major construction projects will be a disaster for taxpayers." The executive director, Wayne Peppard, whose members will be responsible for building these projects, went on to say that this legislation is an insult to local authorities. Paul Willcocks, a columnist here, in yesterday's Kelowna Daily Courier argued that Bill 75 could "easily be called the 'making the Premier king act.'"

Isn't it curious? The day Bill 75 was introduced also happened to be the day a new deputy minister of special projects was appointed to the Premier's office. Now, how many deputy ministers does that Premier need? He's set a record for deputy ministers. We know that this new deputy minister for special projects will be working full time in using the new powers granted the Premier under Bill 75. Full time she'll be working on it. We know for sure that all of this streamlining will be by direct order from the Premier to his new - what? - tenth, eleventh or twelfth deputy minister, the deputy minister of special projects.

Well, it will be interesting to see what these Liberal government caucus members say about saying be damned to proper public oversight of special projects. I have admitted in the most recent Public Accounts that there were lessons to be learned from the fast ferries project and the fact that it was directed out of the Premier's office. I went on the record and said that. I called for the auditor general to apply the same recommendations we learned out of that lesson to the RAV line.

You should have seen the government caucus members fight that one. They said: "Oh my God. How dare you demand that we apply the recommendations the auditor general learned from the fast ferries project to the RAV line?" One government caucus member stood up and said: "We don't even know the provincial involvement in the RAV line. We don't even know if there is any provincial involvement in the RAV line." I guess they were just waiting for this legislation. I guess these government caucus members were just waiting for this legislation to be rammed through, where no one can examine a special project.

Well, they got their wish today. Hurrah. Not only have they not learned one lesson from the fast ferries project; they're willing to repeat it ad nauseam by legislation. That is exactly what this legislation is about. I should have known the government caucus members had something up their sleeve when they were making themselves look silly by not wanting the auditor general to examine the RAV line according to what we learned from other megaprojects. Well, now I know. They did have something up their sleeve. It's called Bill 75.

Let's return to the minister of state's claim that he just made about the bill not weakening environmental standards. In order to grant their new-era promise for "certainty of access," this government has gone to great lengths to reduce all kinds of processes designed to protect the public interest. They gutted the Environmental Assessment Act. They gave the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management the unilateral authority to determine what constitutes a reviewable project. They also gutted the Agricultural Land Commission, and they gave the Minister of Agriculture unilateral authority over defining what is a non-farm use and what can be removed from the agricultural land reserve. Then the government gave themselves unilateral control over the siting of fish farms, even if local government doesn't want them.

Bill 75 is just an extension of that. They can now unilaterally do whatever they want. Of course this is about environmental standards, and it's about controlling local governments. This is an unbelievably arrogant approach on behalf of a desperate government who will now do anything to make up for their failed economic policies to attract back that disappearing, escaping private sector investment that is falling every year under their regime.

On top of all this, the Liberal government has removed the right of the public to be involved at every step of the way. They got rid of the project committees in the environmental assessment process, and they've refused to legislate any public consultation in their forestry changes. Every time this Liberal government reworks processes around natural resource use, the public loses - every time. Bill 75 is no different. It allows development-driven ministers to decide when a major project can skip through the approval processes and brush over public consultation requirements. These decisions will be made behind closed doors, and the public will be shut out.

Here's an interesting one. I wonder whether any government caucus members know this. Freedom-of-information laws do not apply to this legislation. Freedom-of-information laws do not apply to the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. Oh, isn't this an open and accountable government? Fast ferries are beyond the imagination now, with this legislation. Every megaproject is going to be rammed through by a deputy minister of special projects working right beside the Premier, and no one's going to know what they're doing because the freedom-of-information laws don't apply. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money will now be exempt from freedom of information.

Open and accountable? You tell me what's open and accountable about this government. Of course the government didn't announce, when they introduced this legislation, that this law would be exempt from freedom of information. I wonder why they didn't do that. I wonder why they kept that little secret from the public. As a result, the public will have no way to get information about the government's actions on fast-tracking megaprojects. It's another step in this government's quest to become the least open and accountable government in British Columbia's history. Despite backbench blustering to the contrary, open cabinet does not count, and any of the Liberal members who actually believe it is not a scripted attempt at reality television are fooling themselves.

I want to move to one of the biggest dangers of this bill, and that's blundering cabinet ministers. Under Bill 75, project proponents who "may be impeded by a constraint" can now ask a minister to allow the project to skip over that perceived constraint. The bill mysteriously fails to identify the types of constraints, but one can imagine that anything done by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is high on that list of a perceived constraint.

Some poor Liberal donor who wants their project rammed through can now go to the minister and say: "Oh, that Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is concerned about the environment. Can you just ram my project through?" And he'll now have - the Premier - the secret ability to say: "Aye, aye, sir. Done." The public won't have a clue as to what went on. They won't be able to turn to the legislation and have what a constraint is defined.

Let's just look at one example where a project proponent might see a constraint. It's a real example. I know the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries will be very familiar with the tale I'm about to tell. During the last spring session the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries was forced to step down when it was revealed that he tipped off Stolt Sea Farm about an investigation into their aquaculture practices. It was at this point that the public learned just how cozy the Liberals and the aquaculture industry were and still are.

When the story broke, many details, letters and e-mails rose to the surface under freedom of information, outlining just how messy the whole situation was. One of these documents was a letter to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. The letter was from Dale Blackburn, vice-president of Stolt Sea Farm, who was concerned about the government's actions. Here's an example of what he wrote in his letter: "In addition, the recent meeting our industry had with yourself" - meaning the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection - "and your colleagues" - the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and the Minister of Fisheries - "buoyed myself and other salmon farmers, as the tone of the meeting indicated a strong willingness on everyone's part to repair and rebuild troubled relationships."

The letter continued: "Instead of working with us, I see these recommendations to lay charges as just one more effort to discredit B.C.'s salmon farming industry and our operations here in Campbell River." Furthermore, the letter said: "I am requesting that the recommendation to lay charges against Stolt Sea Farm be dropped. At the same time, I would like to suggest that your staff be asked to work with us rather than against us."

What happened? The investigation was compromised by a bungling cabinet minister. The fish farm company got their way. The public lost, and Stolt Sea Farm is now able to do what it likes.

Now it's going to be even easier for ministers to sidestep the public interest. They don't need secret meetings. They don't need phone conversations to disrupt proceedings. They can just fall back on Bill 75. Next time Mr. Blackburn feels like the government is working against Stolt Sea Farm because of those silly environmental reviews and assessments, he can just ask the minister to declare his actions significant, and all the approval processes and regulations can be swept away and replaced by a process of the minister's choosing. Despite what the Minister of State for Deregulation says, there is nothing in this legislation to prevent that from happening.

Who needs to do an investigation? Stolt is our friend. They can do no wrong. Besides, they gave us big money. Who cares about escapes, disease and waste? This bill gives cabinet the ability to override the regulations that protect our natural environment, despite the minister trying to say it doesn't. Whether they would ever use it in fish farms, we don't know, because Bill 48, which was passed just a couple of weeks ago - the right to locate fish farms in spite of local government - sure indicates that this government is willing to override any regulations. It sure indicates that the location of fish farms is a high priority, despite environmental regulations, despite local government regulations. If Bill 48, the right-to-farm amendments to allow aquaculture sitings to override local governments, doesn't work, then the fish farms can turn to Bill 75 and complain about those constraints of local government.

This is absolutely astonishing. To give these ministers such power is irresponsible and reckless. We've already seen the damage a minister can do to due process with the fish-farm fiasco, and now Bill 75 only legitimizes such interference. That should be rejected outright by this Legislature. At the very least, regulations should be developed clearly, spelling out when and how ministers can use this power. If it is for the Olympics, say so. If it's not going to be used to skip over environmental regulations, prove it. Bring in some regulations.

Unfortunately, there will be no regulations coming with this legislation. This legislation is all there's going to be. On Tuesday my staff had a chance to sit down with some of the folks from the ministry responsible for Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. My staff asked when and if there were regulations forthcoming, and the reason why he asked that is because this bill is as vague as you could possibly imagine.

My staff said: "The minister is making some very strong assertions about what this bill doesn't do, and yet there's nothing in the bill that backs up his claims. When can we expect regulations to back up the minister's claim?" The answer was this: "There will be no regulations on this legislation at all." That's from the bureaucracy that's the expert on this. Oops, no regulations. The bill stands as it is.

The Premier will have unrivalled, near-absolute power. Now, that is something that every British Columbian and every government caucus member should be concerned about. I can't imagine how much more curious it will get with the Minister of State for Deregulation trying to explain how this bill doesn't override environmental regulations. There's nothing in the bill that says that, and there's no regulation coming.

For the members' information and for the folks at home, this is not by any means fearmongering. Here's what section 11 of Bill 75 states: "If there is a conflict between this Act and any other enactment, this Act prevails." And no regulations are going to be coming to modify that. That legislation stands on its own. So there you have it, Mr. Speaker. If Stolt Sea Farm complains about an approval process to the minister, this bill allows the minister to do whatever he wants to speed the process up, and such power should not be in the hands of such incompetence and bias.

Speaking of incompetence, let's talk about the Community Charter. This is the part all the Liberal government caucus members should listen to closely, because they're going to have mayors and councillors breathing down their necks demanding answers. Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, gives cabinet the power to sidestep processes that local governments have in place to ensure due process.

Let's just look back a few days ago. The Liberal member for Victoria-Beacon Hill was applauding all the consultation that went into the city of Victoria's recent decision on development in Cook Street Village. He rose up and made a statement about the good work done by his local government.

Well, this bill would allow cabinet to do away with such consultations that the member was applauding. All a developer would have to do is complain that there are "perceived constraints," and they would be able to describe to these ministers behind closed doors how they felt they were being constrained. There would be no public consultation, and there would be no freedom-of-information laws applying to how that developer defined his perceived constraint.

But what about that Community Charter, a bill that was passed just a couple of weeks ago? What about all the empowerment the Liberals promised? Go back to the original press releases about the draft charter, and you'll see quotes from the Minister of State for Community Charter like this one: "We have committed to establish a Community Charter that would give local governments greater independence and outlaw provincial off-loading of costs on to municipal governments." Or how about this one from that same minister of state: "The draft Community Charter legislation we are tabling today will be the most empowering legislation of its kind in Canada. In addition to providing greater autonomy, the charter will also provide local governments with the planning and revenue tools they need to provide services to the public in a modern and more efficient way."

Greater independence? Empowering? Greater autonomy? Planning and revenue tools? The Minister of State for Community Charter must be wondering what the heck he's been doing for the last two years. Bill 75 overrides the Community Charter. It's paramount. I heard some government caucus member shouting: "Oh, what about section 2?" Let's be clear: this bill is paramount over every other enactment. Otherwise the section I just read into the record has no meaning - none. I guess the government caucus members didn't get that in their briefing.

Bill 75 is paramount legislation. That means it prevails. It says so in this legislation. If that's not what it means, then I can hardly wait for the Minister of State for Deregulation to explain that. Nothing in the Community Charter has any weight anymore. It can be swept away by a controlling Premier's office.

This legislation, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, shows just how sincere this government is about empowering local governments. It's the same story as Bill 48, the one that lets the government override local government decisions on fish farms. "We'll sweet-talk you all we want, but when it comes to big business or you, local governments, we're on the side of big business." That's what Bill 75 says. It strips communities of their ability to plan.

I can hardly wait for the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill to explain how the Cook Street Village planning process would happen if some developer wanted to invoke this legislation. It strips communities of their ability to plan, and that's something the Minister of State for Community Charter, the Premier and all the Liberal backbenchers have been bragging they would do for years. Now who cares about official community plans or public hearings? The Premier has spoken.

What about land use planning? Will this government consider land use planning a constraint? I've heard government caucus members stand up. I heard the member from Chilliwack just describe how, thank God, the provincial government was getting out of land use planning or floodplain planning so that local developers could work directly with city councils to get their wish on planning. Well, if a local developer doesn't like some local council that is actually concerned about flood planning, they can just go to the Premier and say," Oh, I'm feeling constrained. Please invoke Bill 75," and Bill 75 will be paramount.

I guess that's good news for the developers, and I guess that's who this government cares about. I guess that's who this government is or who they represent - developers. But maybe this government will finally have to admit that that's all they represent, and they're now going to have a nice, little, cosy relationship with developers behind closed doors. You and I won't have a clue what's going on.

During debate on Bill 46, the Land Amendment Act, 2003, the member for Cariboo South stood up and praised all the work he had done on the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. Fair enough. He should have. He worked extremely hard on it. I didn't agree with the direction he took at the local level, but he worked darned hard on it. On October 23 here's what he said: "Our plan, the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, sets out many of the guidelines that were needed and that are needed as we move forward in plans around the province. We call it a living plan. I believe we need a living plan - a working plan and a living plan - to ensure that future generations have the flexibility and the ability to adapt and service and address their needs."

I think it's appropriate that the member for Cariboo South be so passionate about the land use planning process, and it is appropriate for him to take credit in that planning process. Too bad it can now all be washed aside by this bill, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, if a minister wants a mine in that area badly enough.

My staff also asked, during our briefing, if Bill 75 could be used to bypass or overturn a land use plan. In fact, the staff couldn't answer that question. Isn't that interesting? The minister's staff couldn't even answer whether a land use plan was paramount. In fact, we probably know why the person couldn't answer - because the answer would have been: "Yes, this bill overrides the land use plan." The minister's political staff jumped in and said that was a question better suited for the minister himself, so I'm putting the minister on notice right now. During committee stage of this bill I will expect the minister to be able to point out where in Bill 75 land use plans are protected. I can hardly wait. I couldn't find it, and there are no regulations coming. I'm really looking forward to this debate.

As far as I can tell, there's no guarantee that any of the land use plans or the ongoing processes will be respected at all. Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, is that sweeping. Just how far it goes, we don't know. The bill - and remember, the bill's going to stand on its own - does not define how government or the Premier will use these new-found powers. The bill doesn't even try and specify what a constraint is.

Under section 1, here's the definition of a constraint they've put in place. It means "in relation to a project, a measure that, unless replaced under section 4 or 5, may impede or otherwise interfere with the completion or operations of the project...." Furthermore, a measure is defined as "an enactment, directive, requirement, guideline, plan, program, policy, practice or procedure...."

Those are the constraints. That's how they define a constraint. Stolt Sea Farm could have come forward and said: "That policy of requiring us not to violate environmental laws is a constraint." The developers that were having so much trouble with Cook Street Village could come forward and say: "That city council that wants us to make improvements - that's a constraint." That's how this is defined. Nothing more, and we're not going to get anything more. It doesn't say anywhere: "Oh, by the way, policy, practices, directives, procedures on the environment are excluded." No, it doesn't say that. So it could be anything. It doesn't say: "Oh, by the way, first nations right to a duty to accommodate is excluded." No, it doesn't say that. So it could be anything. Who knows what the intention is?

Environmental regulations, Labour Code, collective agreements.... Oh those piddly little collective agreements. What if they get in the way, like they are at Mission Hill winery in Westbank? What if they get in the way? Land use plans, employment standards, community plans - are those little things constraints? According to this legislation, they are.

No one knows what the intent is. However, what we do know is that this legislation gives the Premier the ability to override any of the processes. He's got another new bureaucracy growing; another new deputy minister of special projects in charge. She'll be working full time behind closed doors, in secret, to make sure this government's business friends get their way.

It's unbelievably heavy-handed and it's absolutely controlling. It is the equivalent of a banana republic. The Premier can now micromanage the entire province if he wants to. Section 11 is clear: this act prevails. The Premier has absolute power. If any previous administration brought in this legislation, I can just imagine what the current Minister of Finance would rail about. I can just imagine what the current Premier would say. It is appalling that not one government caucus member has the guts to stand up and say: "The emperor has no clothes." And they won't.

Now, here's an interesting section. Section 11 highlights two exceptions. It says Bill 75 does not apply to the Environmental Assessment Act or to the Agricultural Land Commission Act. I bet you every backbencher will stand up and say: "That Leader of the Opposition doesn't know what she's talking about. Look, it says right here. The Environmental Assessment Act and the Agricultural Land Commission Act prevail."

Well, let me just inform the Liberal government caucus members that before they try to say environmental regulations are protected - let me just get this on the record - and before they say my concerns about environmental protection are unfounded, the environmental assessment process has just been gutted by this government. Here's how it now works. The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management already gave himself sweeping powers that almost completely eliminated the independence of environmental assessments. Everyone agrees, including the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, that he greatly reduced the independence of those assessments. There are now several instances in this new legislation where the minister has total control over the process.

Section 14 of the Environmental Assessment Act gives the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management unilateral ability to define the scope of assessment. In fact, he could say: "The scope of this project, I have determined, is not subject to the Environmental Assessment Act." He admitted to that in the debate. So before all these Liberal backbenchers get up and say: "All the power of that legislation applies...." There's a very specific reason why this government decided to include that as an exemption. It looks good - the words "environmental assessment." However, they forgot to say in their news conference that they completely gutted the Environmental Assessment Act.

If Bill 75 is paramount, it remains paramount even though the Environmental Assessment Act is mentioned. Exempting the Environmental Assessment Act from Bill 75 means absolutely nothing because similar if not identical powers have already been granted to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. If Bill 75 is not about bypassing environmental regulations, I challenge each and every Liberal MLA to rise up in this House and point to the section where the Fisheries Act or the Wildlife Act is exempted. If this legislation is not about controlling local governments, I challenge every backbencher to stand up and point to the section where the Community Charter is exempted.

If Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, is not about concentrating power in the Premier's office, I challenge the minister to point to the section where there are any limits on the Premier's power. Bill 75 will allow the Premier and his cabinet to override the will of local governments and this Legislature. It is about cabinet supremacy and the will of the Premier. It will allow Liberal insiders and donors to access government like never before, and nobody will know how they accessed the government and when they accessed the government, because freedom-of-information laws don't apply. The explanatory note is clear. The Significant Projects Streamlining Act will allow the Liberals to do away with any perceived constraint by minister's order - environmental regulations, employment standards, community plans, land use planning.... The list goes on and on. They are all at risk.

Bill 75, in this current form, is an absolute arrogant attack on taxpayers and democracy, and it shows that this government has learned nothing about mistakes from the past. It is arrogant, and it must be rejected.