Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Councillors concerned about Bill 75

Resort in a tough position as Olympic partner with the province "How far do you go to let a partner stick a knife between your ribs before you complain?" asked Councillor Nick Davies at Monday's council meeting.

Resort in a tough position as Olympic partner with the province

"How far do you go to let a partner stick a knife between your ribs before you complain?" asked Councillor Nick Davies at Monday's council meeting.

The knife Davies is referring to is known as Bill 75, or the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. The partner who Davies said is sticking it to municipalities across B.C. is the provincial Liberal party.

Bill 75, which was introduced in November and proclaimed the following month, allows the provincial government to overrule any local government laws if they are seen as being "constraints" on development of "provincially significant" projects.

Though Whistler councillors are all alarmed at the legislation, there was debate at the council table on how Whistler should position itself against the new Act.

"I think that we are at specific risks," said Councillor Kristi Wells.

"We've got to protect certain areas of our own jurisdiction right now."

As such she proposed that Whistler should ask the government to exempt any Olympic decisions from Bill 75.

Mayor Hugh O'Reilly said this would go against the good faith of the Multi-Party Agreement that was signed by Whistler, Vancouver, the federal and provincial governments, the Canadian Olympic Committee and the Canadian Paralympic Committee.

"We negotiated to work with the framework and we expect them to do the same," he said.

"We have a good relationship (with the provincial government). We've worked very hard on that. If we do our job, we should never see Bill 75, as far as Olympics go."

Though he was hesitant to speculate about specific projects, the Minister of State for Deregulation, Kevin Falcon, who introduced Bill 75, said most likely the Act could not be evoked for something like the location of the Olympic athletes village in Whistler.

"A little thing like where you locate a building is very - almost impossibly - unlikely to meet the task of being provincially significant," he said.

"We work co-operatively with local governments. We intend to continue working co-operatively with local governments. It is only when the provincial government is being egregiously unreasonable or a local government is being egregiously unreasonable and we are unable to solve that problem together as common sense folks would, that we would even consider having to use Bill 75," he said.

Falcon echoed O'Reilly's sentiments about the good working relationship between the province and Whistler.

"We would be absolutely loath to do anything to cause a problem in our relationship," said Falcon.

He also pointed out that Bill 75 works both ways and in fact Whistler itself may choose to use it to speed up Olympic decisions.

"It could very well be likely that Whistler council could say 'gee, you know what, we want this Olympic project to proceed. We're very concerned that the processes that the province is going to put it through is going to slow it down... therefore we're going to go to the province and ask them to designate this project (under Bill 75),'" said Falcon.

But Olympic decisions aren't the only ones to be concerned about said Councillor Ken Melamed, and getting reassurances that the province will not use the Act for Olympic issues does not serve the municipality's end goal.

"This is undemocratic legislation," said Melamed.

His suggestion was Whistler remove itself from the provincial government's Resort Task Force. The task force, chaired by Falcon, was created to find ways that the province, communities, businesses, First Nations and other stakeholders can increase resort development, and maximize tourism potential. Whistler, as the premiere resort in the province, plays an integral role. Whistler administrator Jim Godfrey is a member of the task force.

Melamed said Whistler's withdrawal would be a slap in the face to Falcon.

"We're most effective when we can be inside the walls lobbying," said O'Reilly, in disagreeing with Melamed's suggestion.

Previously Davies had cautioned council to tread lightly against the provincial government, lest a strong backlash from the resort upset the Olympic partnership.

Now he calls his former position "weak kneed."

"It doesn't matter that they are Olympic partners," he said.

Ultimately council decided to ask the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to monitor the situation to see if there are any challenges to the Act from concerned municipalities across the province.

In the meantime council is extending an invitation to Whistler MLA Ted Nebbeling and Falcon to come before Whistler council and explain the official position.

"We all regard this as an abhorrent piece of legislation," said Councillor Gordon McKeever.

"Let's just be cautious."

Falcon reiterated this week that the legislation was primarily focused on B.C.'s heartland communities who have watched projects disappear as proponents get frustrated by the governmental process.

"That's really the priority for our government is those projects in the Heartlands of British Columbia, areas that have been hit disproportionately hard by the downturn in the resource economy, that are looking for opportunities to improve their economic well-being."

He also said the provincial government has always had powers like those provided in Bill 75, under Section 874 in the Local Government Act, which allowed the province to overrule local governments in their zoning bylaws and land decisions.

It was "very, very rarely" used, Falcon said.