Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:43:47 -0700
From: leond@stellartech.bc.ca
Subject: [KCUTS] Norm Macdonald on Jumbo
> N. Macdonald: I rise today to speak about Bill 11.
>
> There are elements, as the speaker that preceded me said, that
> are accurate around the Hotel Room Tax Act. That's something that's been
> done properly, in the sense that there was communication between the local
> government.. It was a local government initiative that was worked through
> the ministry and will benefit local government. The communities that I
> represent will benefit a great deal from those changes. In the list of the
> 13, Kimberley, Invermere, Radium, Golden, Revelstoke are all taking
> advantage of that.
>
> I'm not going to speak very much about that because within it
> you
> have another action that I think has strong implications for two key
> principles. Buried amongst the amendments to existing legislation are
> sections 14 and 15. Sections 14 and 15 are not particularly clear in what
> they say, but in the comments that have come out from the minister and
> from
> the member for East Kootenay since this legislation was put forward, they
> raise a number of concerns.
>
> They amend the Local Government Act, essentially, as I
> understand
> it - and we will use the committee stage to clarify exactly what this
> section means - to give cabinet the ability to unilaterally create resort
> regions. What a resort region is, is not really given any explanation in
> the
> bill itself, other than to say in section 14 that a resort region is what
> is
> created by section 15.
>
> I have two very strong objections to both section 14 and section
> 15. In giving cabinet the ability to unilaterally create resort regions,
> it
> will impact a resort that has been contentious in my area for over 15
> years.
> It will create the ability for cabinet to do two things, and two things
> that
> it should not do.
>
> Firstly, it will break a very clear promise to the people of the
> Kootenays. Secondly, it is going to remove locals from the decision-making
> process. Neither of those is in any way going to be acceptable for people
> in
> the Columbia Valley, nor in the Kootenays.
>
> While I will be focusing on Jumbo Glacier Resort and how this
> impacts that particular resort, there are implications for the whole
> province. The implications are these. We should insist on a high standard
> from our government.
>
> This is going to be another case from a long list where the
> government was very specific. The Premier, his ministers were very
> specific
> in giving a commitment to citizens, and they are going to break that
>
> [ Page 6391 ]
>
> commitment. They are going to break it, and in a way it looks like they at
> no time intended to keep that commitment, because as soon as the election
> was finished, the effort was made to undercut this commitment.
>
> We need to insist that local decision-making has to be
> strengthened, and this does not do this. Instead, it removes the local
> community from a decision that impacts it. So the Local Government Act is
> going to be amended, and it will give cabinet the ability to unilaterally
> create resort regions.
>
> [1515]
>
> I'll just read back from the press release, and we'll go one at
> a
> time. In terms of breaking a promise, let's just be clear on the promise
> that was made. It was made by the current Minister of Health, and it was
> made on October 14 of 2004. This was just prior to the election. The
> government knew that it was going to be an unpopular decision, so they
> clarified for the people of the Columbia Valley exactly what was going to
> take place.
>
> [S. Hawkins in the chair.]
>
> There was a press conference here in the Legislature, and a
> press
> release that said this, amongst other things: "The government recognizes
> that there are strongly held views surrounding this project. The final
> decision will be in the hands of those closest to the project. Those who
> will benefit most directly and who most directly understand the costs will
> have the final say here. The project would not be able to proceed without
> the approval of the East Kootenay regional district." A very clear
> commitment from government and a commitment that, with this section, the
> government moves away from.
>
> The Jumbo Valley and Jumbo Pass sit 55 kilometres to the west of
> Invermere. It is a spectacular wilderness area. It is not pristine. It has
> seen logging and mining, and there have been commercial interests active
> there to this day. I came from Winnipeg in 1982 to work at Panorama, which
> is on the way to the Jumbo Valley. I was first up there with my wife and
> friends to camp back in the early 1980s, and the last time I was in that
> area was this summer, camping.
>
> Since moving to Golden, I've spent most of my camping time in
> the
> area around Golden, but what I do know is that to the people of Invermere
> and the people of the Columbia Valley that area is important. It is an
> area
> that they go up to, to hunt. It's an area that they camp and hike in. It
> is
> an area that they snowmobile in. For them, they feel it is important that
> it
> stay in the state that it is.
>
> There is no question that this is a longstanding issue. The
> reason the government in 2004 clarified that the regional district was
> going
> to make the decision is because they knew it was contentious. It has been
> for 15 years. From the moment it was proposed to put a town up in the
> wilderness that is Jumbo Valley and to build ski lifts around it and to
> create a resort, it has been contentious. Many people - in fact, by every
> indication a majority of people - do not support that resort. They don't
> support it, even though others from the outside have thought that it might
> be a good idea.
>
> You're going to hear the minister say that Premier Harcourt was
> in favour of the idea, and Premier Clark. They were far removed. They did
> at
> times indicate support, but they did not push it through because they knew
> that there was strong, strong local opposition to any sort of a project
> that
> would change that area.
>
> When the Premier had his chance, he indicated to the public that
> he would not impose a decision that ran contrary to the wishes of the
> people
> in the area, that he would allow their locally elected representatives and
> the regional district to make that decision. I've read into the record
> exactly what the news release was. I can remember the member from the
> Shuswap, the present Minister of Health, making a speech here at the
> Legislature indicating exactly what was going to take place. But what you
> have now is a change and a change that fundamentally breaks that promise.
>
> I've known about the controversy at Jumbo for a long time. When
> I
> was mayor of Golden in the 1990s, the proponent of Jumbo Glacier Resort,
> Mr.
> Oberto Oberti, came to Golden to do another project. He came there to do
> Kicking Horse Resort, which was a $200 million project that I worked for
> as
> a mayor. I worked with local residents; Area Director Crandall; and the
> MLA
> at the time, who was Jimmy Doyle. We worked for it because our community
> wanted it. We held a referendum.
>
> At the time Mr. Oberti was concerned about that, but I told him
> that on the Kicking Horse project there is support and that it is a
> referendum that he would find is successful. But we felt obliged to make
> sure that the community had an opportunity to have a say and that they
> would
> decide whether it was a project that would go ahead or not. And 96 percent
> of the people at that time for that resort voted in favour of it.
>
> [1520]
>
> What I can tell you is that even though you had a variety of
> people from a variety of political backgrounds.. Area Director Crandall,
> who
> was very involved and who was one who insisted that we have a referendum,
> was a former Social Credit MLA. Jimmy Doyle, of course, was an NDP MLA.
> What
> all of those people, including me, would agree on, if we agreed on one
> thing, is the right of rural residents to have a say in land use decisions
> that are going to impact them.
>
> I can tell you that if we had lost that referendum, as mayor I
> would not have supported the project. You would not have had the area
> director supporting the project. You would not have had the MLA at the
> time
> supporting it. We fundamentally believe in the right of local people to
> make
> decisions about their area. When you read the literature that is put out
> by
> the Ministry of Community Services, they say that they believe in that
> too.
> But what is consistently happening with this government is that the things
> that are said are different from the actions.
>
> When I was running to be the MLA for Columbia River-Revelstoke,
> in the lead-up period I was asked, especially when I came into the
> Columbia
> Valley,
>
> [ Page 6392 ]
>
> about my position on Jumbo. What I said at the time was that I did not
> believe there was community support.
>
> I still do not believe, from any indication that I have been
> given, that there is community support. I came to that conclusion from the
> number of people that took the time to speak to me. I came to that
> conclusion from the fact that the mayor and council of Invermere, the
> closest community, did not support the project. The locally elected area
> director at that time did not support the project. My view was that if it
> was to go ahead, it needed to have the support of the people in the area.
>
> It was subsequent to that that the minister who is currently the
> Minister of Health came forward and said that this is the way it was going
> to be handled. It was a difficult political problem for Wendy McMahon, who
> was the MLA at the time. She was from Invermere. She knew it was
> unpopular,
> and she said that she would not take a position on it.
>
> That's something I don't agree with. I think she should have
> taken a position, but she said she would not take a position. She knew
> that
> while perhaps she wanted it to go ahead, to do so would be politically
> damaging in the lead-up to the election. So she said clearly that she
> would
> not make up her mind on it, and what you had instead was the government
> saying that the regional district would get the final say. To back away
> from
> that now is deeply, deeply problematic.
>
> You have a situation where rules are made about how a decision's
> going to be made. Those rules are now, with this act, going to be changed.
> It is something that is going to cause problems in a number of areas.
> First
> off, this is an issue that longtime residents have been putting money
> towards, putting activity into.
>
> They have done everything that they democratically can to
> express
> an opinion, and there have been limited opportunities. I can tell you that
> there has been one opportunity where they were given a chance - during the
> environmental assessment process, I think - to indicate their support one
> way or another. In that short period of time you had 15 percent of the
> population of Invermere participating.
>
> They were invited at some point in the process to give their
> opinion, and about 15 percent of the people participated. What 90 percent
> of
> those people said is that they didn't want this resort to go ahead, so
> they
> indicated it in that way when that opportunity was given to them. Since
> then
> they've written letters, thinking that that makes a difference.
>
> In fact, the Minister of Community Services will have received,
> as I did, copies of over 150 e-mails that have gone through to the
> minister
> and that have been cc'd to me. They have gone to the Premier as well. Some
> of them are form e-mails, but about half are individuals just hearing on
> CBC
> what's being talked about here or reading in the local newspaper and
> taking
> the time to indicate that they did not agree with the government breaking
> their word on this decision-making and removing them from the
> decision-making process. About five or six said this was the right way to
> go.
>
> [1525]
>
> Every way that I have to indicate where the public sits on this
> in the Columbia Valley indicates to me that they do not support the
> project.
> Even those that do support the project.. I have an e-mail here from
> someone
> who says: "Well, I haven't really made up my mind on it, but I sure know
> this: when the government tells me something, then I expect them to do
> it."
>
> They're not naive. They know that politicians don't always have
> the greatest reputation for that, but the standard they set is that if you
> tell me something, I want it to be followed through on. Yet here what we
> see
> is the intention to break a clear promise.
>
> Resorts can go ahead. They went ahead in Golden. They went ahead
> quickly in Golden. It started in 1996 because the public wanted it. We
> were
> able to convince the government to do what they needed to do to make sure
> the project went ahead quickly.
>
> Look at the example of Revelstoke Mountain Resort. It is a
> front-country resort. It is a resort that the local government wants and
> is
> working for. It is widely supported by the public, and it moves forward
> quickly.
>
> I think that what people need to understand in this chamber is
> that they do not understand the situation fully, and you will not have a
> cabinet that fully understands all of the things that need to be
> considered.
>
> If you cannot convince the regional district of East Kootenay to
> approve this project, then it must in some way be flawed. If it is not
> flawed, then the facts will speak for themselves and the project will move
> ahead. In every way, that is the proper way to approach it.
>
> For the minister to come in and put before us legislation that
> will change it achieves two things. First, it makes a population already
> cynical about politics more cynical. And there is much about this to be
> cynical about.
>
> As soon as the election was finished, the mayor of Radium was
> down here meeting with government and looking at how to move this project
> ahead. It's his right to do so, but it's the obligation of government to
> say: "No. We have agreed on a way that we are going to move forward." It
> was
> the government's word; it was the government's plan.
>
> It's fine for people to come in and lobby to do it differently,
> but the government has the obligation to say: "No. This is our plan." But
> they did not do that. Instead, coming back from that, you had the mayor of
> Radium, who is the chair of the regional district of East Kootenay,
> calling
> a meeting that was difficult for everyone to attend. That was contentious.
> That's the first point that the public sees, and they wonder: well, what's
> going on here?
>
> Since that time there have been a number of things that make it
> certainly appear to the public that there are conversations - and in fact
> there have been conversations - behind closed doors that do not involve
> the
> public about how to move this project forward. I would say to you that the
> culmination of that is this legislation.
>
> The people in the valley know that there have been discussions -
> that the mayor of Radium and the mayor of Invermere have had discussions
> about how this is going to be moved forward. The idea - and it's
>
> [ Page 6393 ]
>
> quite openly discussed in the local newspapers - that you would set up a
> situation where the village of Radium would annex part of an area 60
> kilometres away and create this new resort region is, quite frankly.. It
> boggles the mind how that would work.
>
> I certainly look forward to the committee stage, where we can
> actually ask some specific questions about what a resort region is. How is
> this going to work? And how are you ever going to apply this to the rest
> of
> the province?
>
> Every indication that I have here is that this is a poor way to
> proceed. It is poor to break promises to people, and the e-mails that the
> minister received will reinforce that. You have people talking about
> cynicism and, "All politicians are liars," and "I knew he wouldn't keep
> his
> word" - all of that. She has it, and she sees it. There are over 150 of
> them, and they have that same theme. That is never a healthy thing.
>
> [1530]
>
> Secondly, you cannot have a rural MLA who is going to support
> the
> idea of taking local government out of the decision-making process on land
> use decisions such as this. The argument that it is done with mines or
> something else is not an argument that I would accept. You have
> communities
> that are going to be impacted by settlement up in an area that is remote.
> There are considerations. There are impacts for the communities that
> border
> it.
>
> How is the road through Invermere going to be handled? Who's
> going to pay for that? How is the road up to the resort going to be
> handled?
> Who is going to pay for that? If money is spent there on roads, where is
> it
> not being spent? Now, all of those may have answers, but the due
> diligence,
> the questioning and, ultimately, the decision-making on that zoning needs
> to
> sit with the regional district.
>
> I'll just read you a few of the e-mails the Premier and the
> minister have received. This is from a resident in Invermere.
>
> "We're shocked that a government which is supposedly
> advocating
> democracy has included section 15 in proposed Bill 11. The section, which
> allows so-called resort regions to be established by cabinet, strips local
> voters and residents of the right to protect wilderness areas. No wonder
> people are cynical and despise politicians. It seems that when the
> rhetoric
> about democracy and green government is over, it is money that talks and
> democracy that is subverted. Your government made promises that the Jumbo
> decision would remain local. Not surprisingly, it's broken."
>
> All politicians are included in that cynicism, and I think that leads to
> that bigger issue. What is the standard? Where is the line for politicians
> and for government? If the line that we set is so low that anything goes,
> then you are taking this province on a dangerous path.
>
> This is a clear commitment that was made in the most public,
> most
> unequivocal way about what would happen, and from the moment it was made,
> as
> soon as the election was finished, the government worked to do something
> different. This resort and resorts like it seem more important to the
> government than what the people of the East Kootenays think, more
> important
> to this government than risking the cynicism of the people involved in
> this
> political process, more important to this government than keeping its own
> word.
>
> It is a huge backwards step. It is one that people in the
> Kootenays will not accept. It is something that I can tell you will not be
> the end of it if this legislation passes.
>
> You have before you Bill 11 - with many, many aspects and many
> examples of how to do things properly - which you denigrate by inserting
> sections 14 and 15.
>
> Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair. Give your comments
> through the Chair.
>
> N. Macdonald: By "you," I meant the government as a whole. When
> the government chooses to do these things, you need to understand the
> consequences that will follow.
>
> I look forward to the committee stage. I look forward to delving
> into how much thought is being put into this. The scenarios that I have
> heard put forward are scenarios that I cannot imagine working. The bad
> taste
> that this will leave in my area is profound. The fact that you will then
> take that scenario and apply it to the rest of the rural areas of British
> Columbia is, I think, going to be profoundly troubling.
>
> I do say that there will be a number of things put forward as
> arguments that try to legitimize what's going on here today, but in each
> and
> every one of them there is an answer. For each and every argument that is
> made, there is an answer.
>
> [1535]
>
> For people who say that these projects had to move along, this
> one has gone slowly because from the beginning it was contentious. Many of
> the timing issues are issues that the proponent had control over. To this
> day the regional district has not made a decision because it has not been
> put in front of the regional district. So these are things that they
> control.
>
> I give you example after example in other parts of the province,
> under both governments, where if there is public support and it's the
> right
> project, it moves quickly.
>
> The standard of breaking promises is not acceptable to people in
> my area. I don't think they're acceptable to anyone in British Columbia.
> The
> standard that we would not be included in decision-making as residents of
> rural British Columbia is so deeply offensive that I cannot understand how
> a
> rural MLA would possibly allow this to take place. That we are somehow
> second-class citizens in this and that people far removed with no
> understanding of the issue would make a decision - it is beyond
> comprehension that that would be acceptable.
>
> I intend to use the committee stage to question carefully
> exactly
> what is planned. I intend to make it clear that I find this approach to an
> issue incredibly disrespectful to the people of the Columbia Valley and to
> many families and individuals and many young people who have worked on
> this
> for a long, long time, believing that there was some democratic process
> that
> actually worked and who will instead walk away from this
>
> [ Page 6394 ]
>
> thinking that all politicians are liars and that somebody can stand up and
> say something and then do something completely different.
>
> That's something that I think all of us should be concerned
> about, because if writing letters doesn't work, if going and voting
> doesn't
> work, if sending e-mails to the Premier and the minister doesn't work,
> then
> what are people left with? What does work? How do people participate in
> the
> political process? I think that's a bigger question, because many, many
> will
> leave this thinking: well, there really is no way.
>
> My intention is to reinforce the positives about how this
> minister has handled the hotel taxation issue. There you had local
> government coming up with an idea, pushing it and having it properly
> thought
> through, and it is one that local government supports. In stark contrast,
> you have sections 14 and 15 stuffed in here to make it as politically
> difficult as possible, firstly, to spot and as politically difficult as
> possible to oppose, but I will oppose it. I will oppose this sort of
> standard for the honesty in government. I do not accept that this is
> acceptable to Columbia River-Revelstoke. I don't accept that it is
> acceptable to the people of British Columbia or Canada.
>
> Secondly, I will not accept that we are removed from important
> decision-making. We have to watch the pattern that we allow a government
> to
> set - where it moves into a state of mind, where there's an arrogance.
> There
> is a sense that whatever is the easiest thing to do, if they can get away
> with it, they will move in that direction.
>
> It is a slippery slope for the government to do that, and it's
> our responsibility as opposition to hold them accountable and make sure
> that
> they are constantly pushed to move to a higher standard. There are a
> number
> of issues that I've been dealing with that have raised questions about
> that
> higher standard, because as the minister is aware, there's another issue
> that I have in front of her related to bylaws that need to be passed. They
> instead are sitting on her desk, and the issue there is around expediency.
> They wish to move around a process and to do something that is expedient
> rather than the proper thing to do.
>
> In this case I see the same thing. There was a result, there's a
> willingness to be expedient, there's a willingness to break their word
> because they think they can get away with it politically, and there's a
> willingness to remove the say of locals. And that can never be acceptable.
>
> I thank you for the opportunity to speak here. I do look forward
> to the committee stage, and I would be very happy if the minister stood up
> and just said that I had it wrong and that the regional district is going
> to
> have final say. I invited her to do that on the CBC, and I would be
> pleased
> if she would stand up and do that and say: "Hey look, you misunderstood
> all
> of this, and the regional district is going to have the final say." That's
> the appropriate thing to have happen here, but I don't think it will.
>
> [1540]
>
> Instead I think a trade-off has been made. The feelings are that
> what the people of Columbia River-Revelstoke, and the Columbia Valley in
> particular, think just doesn't fit into the big picture for this
> government.
> I find that deeply offensive, and we'll do everything in our powers to
> make
> sure that that changes.
--