1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th 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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 9

[ Page 13757 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

V. Anderson: Today I welcome, on behalf of the House, members from the Voice of Children, accompanied by representatives from the Canadian grandparents' and parents' association, particularly Amandah Sinclaire and Bob Young, and all of those who are with them here today. House, make them welcome.

Hon. D. Marzari: Lucie and Claude Bernier are celebrating their thirtieth wedding anniversary, and it is their first visit to B.C. from Montreal. They are accompanied by their daughter Anne-Marie Bernier, who works for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I ask the House to give them a wonderful, rousing welcome.

If I could make a second general announcement here today.... Nine years ago, on April 26, I was astounded to see one of the most magnificent baseball players I have ever witnessed in my life. That was Lois Boone, playing with the caucus baseball team against the press gallery. That happened to be her birthday. And here we are, nine years plus a day from that very date. I guess it's close enough to her birthday again today that I would like the House to wish Lois a happy birthday.

The Speaker: Before I recognize the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano, I just remind all the members that we allowed a little latitude on that acknowledgment. Normally we would have recognized the member by her constituency.

J. Dalton: I'm pleased to welcome a friend to the House today -- in fact, Anne Friend of West Vancouver, a very good friend of mine -- and her godson, Mike Kim. Would the House please make both of them welcome.

L. Stephens: In the gallery today are 37 elementary school children from Langley Central Fundamental Elementary in Langley, with their teacher, Mr. Hillson, and a significant number of parents. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Janssen: In the gallery today from Vancouver is Robert Fenton, a member of the bar and also a member of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists. I remind all members of the motorcycle ride on May 4, when Mr. Fenton will be back to join us again.

T. Perry: With the support of the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, the Premier and some other members who may wish to speak, in a moment I'm going to ask members to join people in Israel and all over the world in a moment of silence to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the full discovery of the Holocaust in Europe.

The fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II is approaching. At this time of year the concentration camps were being liberated in Germany and surrounding countries, unveiling for the first time the complete horror and atrocity of what happened to six million Jewish people and many, many other people who were seen by the Nazis to be inferior. Nothing like that had ever been experienced in human history, and nothing had ever been witnessed in the same way or condemned so universally by the world. Sadly, some of the same crimes have continued.

Right now in The Hague the first postwar war crimes trial is proceeding in respect of similar horrible atrocities committed in Bosnia, and we have seen similar crimes in Rwanda, Cambodia and elsewhere.

So I would ask all members, after members opposite have also had a chance to express their concern, to join with people around the world in remembering those events with a moment of silence.

V. Anderson: It's a privilege to join with the member opposite and others in the House to remember events that we must not forget. It will be a privilege to share with members of the Jewish community in a memorial service this evening. That we do it here in the House reminds us that this inhumanity that we as humans have brought upon each other can happen not only once but again and again.

Perhaps some here have lived through and can remember those actual events; but others who come after must have the opportunity to understand -- and, in a sense, relive -- the horror in order that we learn from it and that we, as a community of people around the world, learn to respect each other and never let these things happen again. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, they are happening again, so we must work harder. We cannot simply blame another generation; we must also accept our own responsibility. Also, I remember those who, on behalf of the Jewish community, gave up their lives trying to protect them in those dreadful circumstances.

Introduction of Bills

WATER PROTECTION ACT

Hon. M. Sihota presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Water Protection Act.

Hon. M. Sihota: The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks -- under the auspices of the former minister, who is currently the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and to whom I must extend my gratitude -- commenced in July 1994 the release of a discussion paper on stewardship of water in British Columbia. Today I am pleased to introduce legislation, a promise in the first phase of this review. I know that this legislation has been long awaited by British Columbians who have demanded that responsible action be taken to preserve and protect our water resources in this province.

The Water Protection Act, first and foremost, is consistent with this government's desire to protect the integrity of our salmon resource in British Columbia. Second, it prohibits removal of British Columbia's water in bulk supplies to locations outside this province. Third, the legislation prohibits large-scale diversions or transfers of water between major watersheds in the province of British Columbia. The legislation also confirms ownership of surface water and groundwater in the province, and grandparents existing bulk-water removal rights within clearly defined limits.

I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its passage.

[2:15]

Bill 9 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 13758 ]

Oral Questions

CLOSURE OF VERNON DIALYSIS CLINIC

V. Anderson: Believe it or not, elderly dialysis patients from Vernon, who used to receive dialysis treatment close to their own homes, are now being bused three times a week to Kelowna to receive care. The minister was alerted over a month ago to staffing problems at the Vernon clinic. His response was to wait and to neglect the problem until it became this crisis. As a result, a much-needed facility has been closed.

An Hon. Member: What is your question?

V. Anderson: I'm delighted you want to know the question.

Will the minister admit his incompetence in not making plans to deal with this situation, and will he commit to reopening the Vernon clinic immediately?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The temporary need to ask dialysis patients in Vernon to travel to Kelowna for treatment is indeed unfortunate. It is caused by the decision of virtually all the nurses who were serving at the dialysis clinic in Vernon to seek other lines of work at the same time. We are training new people right now, and as soon as that process is completed, services in Vernon will be restored.

I might say also that it is a lot easier to do the retraining and the restoring of a service in Vernon than it will be to restore medicare after the savage cuts that the Liberals in Ottawa and this Liberal opposition foster.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

V. Anderson: There is a concern about in the public that each time we ask the minister a question, he gives a hypothetical response about something that might happen in the future. We're talking about something in the past that has already happened. Can he commit to when the Vernon clinic will be open? Tomorrow? The next day? How long will these elderly patients have to be bused out of their own community to Kelowna?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I guess the member opposite was too busy preparing his supplemental to listen to the first response. As soon as trained staff are available, the Vernon clinic will be reopened. There will be no unnecessary delay, and we will make sure that people in Vernon receive treatment close to their home.

There is nothing hypothetical about the cuts to medicare that the federal Liberals are imposing on this province and every other province -- nothing hypothetical. Within two years, health care transfer payments to this province will be down by $340 million under the federal Liberal scheme, and this Liberal opposition says they should have cut more. I say shame and explain that to the elders in Vernon.

A. Warnke: As a matter of fact, if the minister had actually paid attention to the federal Health minister, he would realize that the federal government has made it very clear that they're in favour of universality -- they have said that, and they deny it on that side.

ISSUING OF CARECARDS

My question for the other side is to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health claims that he has suddenly discovered health fraud, and he's really downplaying it by saying that there are fewer registrants in the Medical Services Plan than there is a population in B.C. Yet what that minister has failed to mention is that his ministry has issued one million more CareCards than there are British Columbians. Not only that, it has given more than 45,000 British Columbians four more CareCards. What we want to know from this minister is: why won't this minister take fast action to finally tighten up on the issuing of CareCards?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is accurate in one aspect of his questions. There are, indeed, additional CareCards issued when somebody comes to the Medical Services Commission and says: "I've lost a card. I need a card." Or when they change their name, a new card is issued. The result of that is that more cards have been issued than the number of actual registrants in the program, but there are fewer registrants in the Medical Services Plan than the population of British Columbia. We do not have a massive fraud issue; we do have concerns that we are continuing to address.

In concert with my colleague the Minister of Social Services, I will be working on the introduction of picture ID to make sure that when people show up with a CareCard they are entitled to the benefits of universal health.

I might say, though, that one of the sources of this fraud....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, order. Would the hon. minister please take his seat.

Supplemental, hon member.

A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, I see that the flocci-nauci disease that was over there has finally travelled to over there, and I think that bunch over there better be careful -- it might catch up to them.

The fact is that the minister doesn't recognize that the fraudulent use of CareCards costs this province $150 million a year, and that is a very serious issue. He should know that, because if anything, that kind of squandering of wealth could cover a cardiac wait-list 20 times over. The auditor general has pointed out the abuse. Why is this minister shifting the blame for fraud onto patients and physicians? Why is that minister still continuing to ignore the root of the problem: his lack of control over CareCards?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's good to see where the Liberal research staff gets their facts on health care from: the Province. There is no evidence that fraud is anywhere near that figure of $150 million; it is quite a lot smaller than that. The real issue of fraud on medicare in this House....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There is a real issue of fraud on medicare, hon. Speaker: the fraudulent position of this Liberal

[ Page 13759 ]

caucus. It's the fraudulent position that on the one hand we can support universal, accessible, comprehensive health care, and that on the other hand we can slash funding for it. That is fraudulent, and I call upon that caucus to come clean with the people of British Columbia and to reveal their fraud.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

R. Neufeld: My question is to the minister responsible for gaming. All across the province municipalities are telling the government that they don't want any video lottery terminals legalized anywhere in their jurisdiction. Will the government now pull the plug on its plan to legalize VLTs and to put 5,000 of these machines in bars and pubs throughout the province, or is it going to accept the equally objectionable proposal by the casino and bingo industry to only allow them to corner the market on the monopoly of VLTs?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The real question is that the opposition parties -- combined -- need to tell us where they stand on these issues. Just the other day, Jacee Schaefer, campaign manager in the Liberal campaign in Abbotsford, said that the interests of the casino owners coincide with those of the Liberal Party. We want to know -- and the people of British Columbia want to know -- whether what's good for casinos is good for the Liberal Party, and they think that's good for the people of British Columbia.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: Well, I guess the minister's going to be really lucky if he gets any kind My understanding is that the reason vested gaming interests like Great Canadian Casino are arguing against the current VLT proposal is that they want all the machines for themselves. Why doesn't the minister simply acknowledge that British Columbians don't want VLTs anywhere in the province? And why doesn't he tell these people in the gaming industry that all bets are off, and that he has listened to the public and decided to reverse the plan to legalize VLTs?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I want the people of British Columbia to know that these are very important issues. I am new to this ministry, and I am considering these important issues. However, the most important gambling issue facing the people of British Columbia is that when that opposition ever gets into government, they would gamble away medicare in British Columbia. VLTs are a minor problem, and I will be dealing with that issue in the very near future.

IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON INTERPROVINCIAL CONTRACTS

M. de Jong: On April 11 of this year, the Premier responded to a question of mine concerning Conair Aviation and interjurisdictional trade barriers by providing his undertaking to contact the Northwest Territories government to ensure that Conair would have the opportunity to bid on aerial firefighting contracts. Can the Premier now confirm and report to the House what discussions he's had with the territorial officials, and confirm that he has secured an agreement from the territorial government that will allow Conair to bid on those contracts?

Hon. G. Clark: Recently, at the internal trade ministers' meeting just a couple of weeks ago in Calgary, at the Premier's instructions, I discussed with the Northwest Territories representative the unacceptable behaviour of that government in discriminating against a British Columbia firm who wished to do business and had done business with respect to firefighting in the Northwest Territories. They've taken the position, unfortunately, that the tenders had been let and granted to a Northwest Territories firm.

I've discussed with them, for the future, that while I appreciate and respect their demand for economic development and jobs in their region, what Conair had suggested was a joint venture with a local company in the Northwest Territories that may well have achieved not only jobs in that region but also jobs in Canada, to our mutual advantage. They have given me at least a verbal undertaking that in any future consideration they would look to the joint-venture approach involving British Columbia companies, and not take a precipitate approach, as they did in this particular case.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The Premier offered his commitment to this House to secure a subsequent commitment from the territorial government. I don't know if that was a Sihotaism or a Harcourtism, or just a little white fib.

The Speaker: The question?

M. de Jong: In any event, that was the commitment. The Premier doesn't have to worry about hurting my feelings.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The question, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The issue here is the fact that as long as this government is incorporating interprovincial trade barriers...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

M. de Jong: ...into agreements like the Island Highway project, British Columbia companies will be subjected to the same discriminatory practices.

The Speaker: Would the hon. member please state the question.

M. de Jong: Will the Premier please confirm and acknowledge to this House that the policies of his government are resulting in discriminatory practices being levied against B.C. companies and B.C. workers, and will he commit to putting an end to those discriminatory policies?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I don't think the member is going to gain anything for a very good B.C. company like Conair -- which I have a great deal of respect for -- by showing disrespect for another member by accusing them of telling white lies.

An Hon. Member: Fibs.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Same thing. Look in the dictionary -- if you ever do.

[ Page 13760 ]

What I am saying very clearly is that my minister who deals with interprovincial trade barriers met face to face with the minister of the Northwest Territories, whom we have offered to work with in a variety of ways because of the small population resources they have. We have done it in a cooperative way, and we hope that they will now see the benefits of allowing Conair -- which is the best in the business in the world that we have been working with through B.C. Trade -- to get contracts in many other countries.

So, hon. member, we would both be doing Conair a favour by showing respect for them, by showing respect for each other and working on this together, rather than trying to create cheap politics.

[2:30]

PRIVATIZATION OF HOUSING CO-OPS

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services. The government's recent budget didn't say very much about privatization, but I wonder if the minister could answer a question about the possible privatization of housing co-ops. The minister knows that there are hundreds of housing cooperatives in the province providing affordable accommodation to thousands of British Columbians.

But a proposal has come forward recently from a housing co-op in the district of Squamish called the Bracken Heights Housing Cooperative, and it raises an important question about the subdivision and privatization of housing cooperatives. Could the minister tell us whether or not she supports the privatization of housing co-ops, or is she willing to provide municipalities with the tools to deal with this problem so affordable housing can be maintained, and we can prevent this kind of abuse?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to thank the member for his question on behalf of his constituents. Not only that, but to recognize the importance for the whole province and, indeed, the significance for the country.... We have a loophole in existing legislation that this government has acted swiftly to close. In the next number of weeks, we will deal with the issue of cooperatives and ensure that there is no future ability to privatize them. We are acting to secure the public interest.

In particular, with the member's individual cooperative, the Bracken Heights cooperative, we have acted to secure that asset on behalf of the public interest -- not only for public housing stock but to secure that for cooperatives and for the tenants themselves.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

Presenting Petitions

R. Neufeld: I congratulate and thank petition proponents Dawn Harder and Yvette Steck of Fort St. John for their diligent work in producing this petition. The petition lists the names of nearly 6,600 Fort St. John residents, who state: "We the people of Fort St. John have the right to be informed of the presence of a convicted child molester or pedophile being in our area so that we can protect our children." They say to the Attorney General: "If we the parents were warned of the presence of such abusers, perhaps we could be even more diligent in our efforts to safeguard our children. Please support us in Parliament to change the laws to start protecting the innocent instead of the guilty."

Almost a year ago we called for the establishment of a national sexual predator registry. This government should wait no longer for the federal Liberals to take action. This week, Prevention of Violence Against Women Week, is a time to take action against violence. Indeed, people are taking action to put an end to violence against women and an end to violence in our communities.

V. Anderson: I seek leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

V. Anderson: I present a petition with 415 signatures: "Re: Government Intervention and Investigations Detrimental to Nurturing and Supporting Family Values." It stresses to the government that:

"All children have the right to be nurtured by their extended family. No child shall be adopted outside the extended family without the knowledge and cooperation of the extended family...No one shall, without justifiable cause, undermine the relationship between any child and his extended family."

M. de Jong: I seek leave to table a petition.

Leave granted.

M. de Jong: I commend the efforts of Evelyn Budzinski and Clarence Bonnet, who have compiled a petition comprising 2,220 constituents, whose petition reads:

"The petition of the undersigned, residents of the electoral district of Abbotsford and Matsqui of the province of British Columbia, states that: We, the undersigned, wish to register our profound opposition to changes in the Adoption Act which now permit homosexuals to adopt infants and children. We believe legally married couples are the natural choice to provide a permanent, secure atmosphere for adoptive infants and children. Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House reinstate the previous regulations governing the adoption of infants and children."

F. Gingell: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: I wish to introduce to the House two longtime residents of Tsawwassen, Mr. and Mrs. Bogress. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to make a very brief response to the comments from the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. I realize that it would have been more appropriate at the time it was raised; however, in anticipation that there would be some response from the Reform Party, I did not rise and we passed that time. If the House would provide an opportunity, I think it is important that the Alliance go on record on this question.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I think it is indeed most important that all British Columbians and Canadians rise today and support the comments that were brought forward by the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. If there ever was a test, I think it is today that the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. We

[ Page 13761 ]

must be vigilant in our responsibilities as elected officials, and for those who are currently wishing to be elected members, not to fall into the trap of rhetoric, especially the rhetoric that may lead us to simplistic solutions that would have us believe that somehow there is a very easy way to deal with questions of great difficulty.

It was in the work of the leader of Germany at the time of the war, Mr. Hitler, that many people took what they believed to be a path that was simplistic in its solutions. It led them into one of the worst crimes against humanity. I would say that in all of my time in politics -- and that has been some short ten years -- I have never been so fearful of the voice of the radical right wing as I am today. I think we all need to reflect on that.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply A for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education. For the House's advisement, should we complete the Ministry of Education estimates, I will be calling the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services estimates after that. In the main House I call continued second reading debate on Bill 11, Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995.

GROWTH STRATEGIES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

(second reading continued)

The Speaker: Hon. members, we will allow a moment or two before we begin debate for members to leave who intend to do so.

I call the House back to order. The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi on second reading of Bill 11.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to add a few words to second reading debate on Bill 11, which is the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995. I think this is a very important bill, and I commend the Minister of Municipal Affairs for introducing this bill to the House. It's not a bill that doesn't raise problems, doesn't raise issues, and it's not a perfect bill by any means. But I think it's a sign of the times when we are dealing finally, in 1995, with the important issue of growth management.

Growth management has become perhaps a bit of a buzzword in our modern times, and there are other buzzwords that we deal with. The reason they're buzzwords -- I refer to terms like sustainable development, for instance, which might appear to be an oxymoron to some, a contradiction in terms.... They've become buzzwords because they are overused, misused and misinterpreted at times. Growth management is a concept that some would like to portray as being anti-growth. Others would like to portray it as being pro-growth and pro-development. In truth, I don't think it's either.

I think it's important to recognize that in 1995 in British Columbia, it's time to come to terms with the need to manage growth -- not to stop growth, for growth is not an evil. Growth is not something that's negative.

But the kind of growth and expansion in our economy that we've experienced in the last generation -- which is very different today than it was, let's say, in the 1950s and 1960s -- has to now be managed, lest British Columbia turn into a California of some kind and lest our major cities become modern versions of Los Angeles, where urban sprawl has really affected the environment, the standard of living, pollution, the cleanliness of our cities and the standard of living our young people can expect in the future. So I think we need to manage growth.

That's not a heretical term, although in a previous generation some would have equated this with state planning and socialism. I don't think that's the case today. I think the truth is that growth can and must be managed, especially in high-growth areas of British Columbia.

A generation ago British Columbia's population exceeded one million for the first time. Just a quarter of a century ago, British Columbia's population exceeded one million citizens. That was considered to be a significant milestone in the development of our province. Here we are, a quarter of a century later, and our population is pushing four million. It's soon to be four million British Columbians. That's phenomenal growth in the course of one generation, phenomenal growth in the course of one quarter of a century -- for the population of our province to have almost quadrupled.

That's tremendous growth, and so far we've been fortunate to be living in a place like British Columbia, where we've been able to accommodate the highest rate of in-migration from other parts of the country and the world. We've been able to manage that and still maintain an envied standard of living and environment. The government can take no credit. No government of the past 25 years can take credit for the natural beauty and the environment here in British Columbia.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: No government, of any political party, including the present government -- the hon. member for Skeena might be interested to know -- can take credit for the standard of living we enjoy and too often take for granted right here in our province.

But we've come to a time in the province when perhaps the word "planning" should not be equated with evil. I, for one, am concerned. I don't want to be governed in my life by planners. I believe in free will. I believe in the virtues of freedom of will and freedom of thought, and yet there is a need today in the province -- I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs recognizes this in this bill -- for us to have some coordination of planning, so that communities are not pitted against each other, so that there is a realistic opportunity on a regional basis to plan and provide for future generations, and so that we can manage our growth.

There are some economists today in our province, in our country, who are predicting that the next generation -- my children's generation -- is going to be experiencing a decline in its standard of living -- the standard of living that I enjoyed as a member of the so-called postwar baby-boom generation. I don't want to believe that. I don't want to subscribe to those theories that say we've reached a point in the development of western history and in the economic development of our society where the next generation is actually going to suffer a decline in its standard of living.

This would be the first generation in our modern history to not have experienced an increased standard of living in the west and to actually see a decline, and yet that is one of the spectres that haunts us. That's one of the fears that strikes all of us as British Columbians and Canadians as we face the

[ Page 13762 ]

prospect of unmanaged, uncontrolled growth. It's not because growth is an evil, by any means. We need growth. Our economy demands that we must have growth to turn over and bring forward new forces of energy and dynamism to help build our society and provide greater opportunities for employment and a livelihood for the next generation of British Columbians.

Like some European societies and some other societies such as Japan, perhaps we've arrived at a time when growth should not be considered a dirty word -- but neither should planning. We've reached the point where we can talk about growth management, a concept that's a bit of a buzzword. But what does it actually mean?

We have a number of examples in our province today. I can tell you that in the constituency I try hard to represent, West Vancouver-Garibaldi, there's a corridor, sometimes referred to as the Sea to Sky corridor, that stretches north from West Vancouver, from Horseshoe Bay past Lions Bay, Britannia Beach, Squamish and Whistler, right up to the Pemberton Valley. It's a high-growth area of the province where growth has been relatively uncontrolled in recent years, and the transportation arteries are having a difficult time accommodating that growth.

Highway 99, called the Sea to Sky Highway, has a difficult time accommodating the tremendous traffic not only of locals who live in the area but of tourists visiting the region. This is one of the highest areas for visitors and motorists of any portion of British Columbia. Whistler alone generates about 10 percent of the tourism revenue of British Columbia.

[2:45]

We've had relatively uncontrolled growth in that corridor, and that has been unfortunate. Too often, we've seen communities like Squamish and Whistler unnecessarily pitted against each other in their interests, because there is no overall regional government that can take into account the sometimes competing needs that I think can be cooperatively planned.

I believe that Bill 11, the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, provides some tools to allow communities, municipalities, individuals and businesses -- all those who are interested in the continued development of an area like the Sea to Sky corridor -- to work together cooperatively. It's my fondest hope and dream that Bill 11 might be a step in the right direction toward that kind of planning. We need to have planning, and planning need not be considered a dirty word. Our children's generation depends upon that.

Growth itself is not the result of a lack of planning, and nor is it evil. We need to continue to have growth, but there are some areas where we might need to put up a bit of a stop sign. We might need to flash a yellow light and put up a bit of a halt before we plan any further growth, so that we can have the proper infrastructure in place to accommodate that growth. That might be transportation arteries, schools, hospitals or other basic services all of us take for granted when we think of the good life here in British Columbia -- the good life we all enjoy but too often take for granted.

How can we maintain it, sustain it and build upon it, unless we start developing the tools for local governments, in particular, to cooperate with each other? That raises questions about the role that senior levels of government -- the province in particular, but the federal government as well -- should play in the process of growth management.

I think we have to be careful. I think we have to be very cautious not to simply say: "We're providing tools to local government to do the job, but we're not going to give them the resources to use those tools." One of the concerns that the minister is undoubtedly aware of that comes forward from local governments is that we're not simply involved in a process of devolution here, where we're devolving authority.

We're pushing down authority, not only from the federal government to the province but also from the province to local governments, and telling them to get their act together, but not giving them the resources that go along with the tools. That's a concern that I think the minister needs to address explicitly. I hope she'll comment on that when she closes debate on Bill 11; certainly in committee stage I know we'll be exploring that in some detail.

We need to be providing to municipal governments the tools to do the job, the tools to cooperate, but we have to finely balance the need to have municipal autonomy against the role of senior governments to direct change and growth management.

The minister said something important in her comments in second reading about the fact that we need mechanisms for regional planning and a framework for cooperative action, but we also need to have dispute resolution mechanisms in place for when we get to the situation -- and, hopefully, these situations are rare -- where local governments within a region cannot agree on a strategy or a plan for growth or development. Those situations inevitably occur. We don't want to see communities pitted against each other, yet those situations do occur.

To the minister's credit, Bill 11 does provide some opportunities for dispute resolution. I suppose what that amounts to is a bit of a hammer over the heads of local governments, because they will know that if they cannot come to terms, come to accommodation or agree to cooperate on an aspect of growth management or development, the provincial government can enforce the dispute resolution mechanisms of this legislation and an agreement will be imposed.

That threat, hopefully, will be enough of an incentive -- it's not a positive incentive; it could be regarded as a negative one -- for municipal governments to cooperate and to realize that they must cooperate. Otherwise they will face binding dispute resolution on that matter.

We are going to have to discuss that and how it's going to work in a little more detail during committee stage of this bill, because municipal governments will need to know how that's going to work and what the mechanisms are for dispute resolution to occur. Hopefully it will need to occur only rarely, because hopefully the goodwill of citizens within any region will look not only at the individual and specific needs of their own neighbourhoods and communities but also at the regional needs. That's what we need to foster in British Columbia: a spirit of the regional needs of the province and of the provincial needs as well.

I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast spoke to this quite eloquently earlier in this debate when he talked about the need for regions to come together. He actually talked about that symbolically in terms of this Legislative Assembly itself and how we're structured. Wouldn't it be refreshing, hon. Speaker, if we saw members in this House working together on a regional basis rather than on a party-line basis?

Wouldn't we be able to provide a refreshing point of view to our constituents if we could see members of all parties working together for the regional needs of the portions of the province that they strive so hard to represent but sometimes are prevented from doing because of the artificial

[ Page 13763 ]

boundaries of party politics. I don't know if Bill 11 is going to solve those kinds of problems that are inherent in our parliamentary system....

H. Giesbrecht: It's not a problem in the northwest.

D. Mitchell: The member for Skeena says that it's not a problem in the northwest. Not yet, but who knows what will happen after the next election? It may be. When everyone thinks alike, the member should know that no one thinks at all.

We need to have people from all parties, all persuasions and all levels of government working together to develop growth strategies for British Columbia that will meet the needs of the province as a whole and the needs of individual neighbourhoods and communities. But we will also be looking at the regions of the province, whether they be the Okanagan, the lower mainland or Vancouver Island. There are regional interests; there are many industries that are affected on a regional basis.

When we say that there is a need for regional planning, I don't want to suggest for a moment that I don't have some concerns about the bill. I do. For one, I don't want to see my life and the life of my constituents governed completely by planners. I have nothing against planners as a class of people. I could say, and I probably should say, that some of my best friends might be planners, but I wouldn't want them to be ruling the day.

I think politicians ultimately bear the responsibility. In her comments on second reading, the minister actually spoke to this when she said that this was a matter of politics in the best sense of the word -- not politics in the sense that is sometimes portrayed through the filter of the media, which makes politics a dirty word, but politics in the sense of democratic representation through individuals who strive to represent constituents. So there are matters of politics that planners should not be able to intrude in.

We're talking here about politics at different levels of government. Yes, municipal governments are given the tools in Bill 11 to manage growth in their areas, but they must also be given the resources. I'll give you just one example of a concern that might be raised on this. It's the concern about rapid transit in the lower mainland of British Columbia, where recently the provincial government, the NDP government, has come forward with a plan to develop rapid transit on the north arm of the Fraser River, going out toward Maple Ridge and Mission.

It may be an innovative plan, and I'm told that it's popular in that region of that province. But where did the plan come from? Did it come from the region? Is that a priority for the region -- the Greater Vancouver Regional District -- which itself has been working on its own plan for a livable region, and which has developed different priorities for rapid transit? This seems to be a plan that came from Victoria.

So how can we develop plans, how can we be encouraging autonomy of municipalities and regions, when we still have planners here in Victoria that sometimes appear -- perhaps with political direction -- to be imposing plans on regions?

These are jurisdictional problems, these are political issues -- sometimes partisan issues -- that need to be resolved. Bill 11 doesn't and cannot solve those kinds of problems. When we have a government, perhaps for partisan reasons, perhaps by trying to prop up constituencies held by MLAs from one particular party, the governing party.... We can't help but believe that Bill 11 won't solve those kinds of problems by imposing solutions politically, rather than paying tribute to and using the principles of a bill like Bill 11, the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995.

I would like to conclude my comments by saying that I for one don't believe that growth is a dirty word. We must continue to have growth in the province of British Columbia. Our economy depends upon continued growth. British Columbia will only be able to continue the standard of living we enjoy today, and that we wish for our children's generation, with more economic growth. How we manage that growth and how we direct it will be the key to whether or not we are able to continue to have one of the most envied standards of living in the world.

Without control, without management, we risk the kind of urban sprawl that we see in some of the worst examples of North American cities that have had no such legislation.

I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that I think she has brought in a bill that provides some important tools. This is an important piece of legislation. We don't want to see planners running amok.

We don't want to see something like we've seen in the city of Vancouver, where under the former mayor of the city of Vancouver, the present leader of the Liberal opposition, we saw a huge bureaucracy built up that did not serve the interests of taxpayers in that region; that cost taxpayers in that region, whether they be homeowners or small business owners, huge amounts of taxes; where those homeowners and small business people were sometimes taxed out of their homes and out of their businesses. To what end?

To build a huge bureaucracy that is a testimony to that former mayor of Vancouver but does little to really serve the needs of the people in the region.

That's not growth management. That is something else far more perverted than that. We don't wish that on people in the Greater Vancouver Regional District; we don't wish that on any British Columbians. What we do hope for is a lean system of planning, where municipalities can work together with one another on a cooperative basis without the buildup of huge bureaucracies, without creating new generations of planners but by creating generations of doers who will work together with their elected representatives at all levels of government to plan for the future of our children's generation.

I look forward to the minister's comments when we conclude the second reading of Bill 11, and I look forward to having much more to say when we get to committee stage.

H. Giesbrecht: We have in the gallery today, from Fernwood school in Washington State, eight students and eight adults, with Miss Taylor, their teacher. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

L. Krog: I think I can say with some confidence that this particular piece of legislation will be welcomed in my riding perhaps more than any other piece of legislation that might be introduced in this session. With perhaps one exception, the Regional District of Nanaimo's members, the mayors of the communities that I represent, and the representatives on the regional board, local planners and local community leaders, all support the need for this particular legislation.

My community, Parksville-Qualicum, is one of the highest growth areas in the province. The member for Okanagan

[ Page 13764 ]

West -- Kelowna -- and other areas of the province have seen rapid growth that has led to, if you will, the destruction of the very things that have brought people to those areas. Rampant growth up the Fraser Valley is another example.

I was fortunate to have been born in this province. I remember Kelowna when it was a nice, small community on the lake -- and Penticton likewise -- and the Fraser Valley was truly a valley of farms, and Parksville and Qualicum were tourist-oriented communities backed up by a very solid backbone of the forest industry. They were communities where people came to go to the beach and where they went to provincial parks.

What we have now on Vancouver Island, up the Fraser Valley and in the communities of Kelowna and Penticton is rampant growth that, if the previous government hadn't abandoned the regional planning function back in the early eighties, would probably have resulted in far more livable and desirable communities today. Then it wouldn't be necessary for this government to bring forward the legislation that I compliment the minister for having the courage and wisdom to bring forward to this House.

I also want to compliment the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, particularly as he had an opportunity this morning to address his remarks when my daughter's class was here, and I think they heard a great deal of wisdom in his remarks. I also want to compliment the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. I don't agree with everything he said, but I think he brought a broader view to this topic.

Before people occupied this land, the animals and the birds that occupied this land didn't talk about artificial boundaries. They ranged where it was necessary for them to survive. The institution of boundaries, as we understand them, that designate the Cowichan Valley Regional District, the Nanaimo Regional District, the city of Nanaimo, the city of Parksville, the town of Qualicum Beach or the rural area of area F -- Coombs, Hilliers and Errington -- is artificial.

But having created them, we tended in the past to treat them as if they were real boundaries, as if they had some real meaning in terms of where people lived, what they did and how they occupied and used the land. The truth is they don't.

What this act does is recognize the reality of how humanity occupies land and how it lives on it. That's the crucial thing to understand. When something happens in the area in which you live, just because it's inside Parksville, it does have an impact on the people in area F; it does have an impact on the people in Parksville.

The quality of life, particularly in my constituency -- and I want to speak about my constituency today, obviously -- will only be diminished, unless legislation like this is passed -- this particular bill and further legislation that gives the tools to local people, to regional governments, to work in cooperation and coordination with others living in a substantially larger area than we tend to think of. Give them the opportunity to address the issues of transportation, green space and health care -- all of those things which play a role in what happens with growth in an area.

[3:00]

I was delighted to participate early on when the discussion paper came out -- I believe it was in November or December -- and a conference was held in Nanaimo of upper Island regional and municipal politicians. This was a wonderful process, an opportunity for people involved with the day-to-day nitty-gritty of growth in their areas to come together and look at the discussion paper, to consider the proposals and the opportunities being presented to them by the government in order for them to come to conclusions about what they wanted to see in a growth strategies act. I must say that I think this act represents the fruit of a very fine stretch of consultation among a number of people.

This act will perhaps preserve those very qualities in areas like my own -- like Kelowna and the Fraser Valley -- that have brought people to live there. It's not simply booming economies that bring people to an area; it's natural beauty, environment, the level of crime -- a whole series of things.

But if politicians, representing people as they do -- and it is an honour and a privilege to do so -- don't have the tools of law to deal with that growth, what you end up with are communities that are not sustainable, that people do not wish to reside in, that are not pretty, that are not attractive and that will not fuel the kind of growth that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi talked about. They are communities that in the long haul will cease to be desirable for investment or for people to live in.

What this act will do is give an opportunity to regional districts and to municipal governments to address those concerns -- to ensure that there are

definitions between the communities, that there is sufficient green space, and that the desire of one community to emphasize industrial development will in fact be done in a coordinated way that takes into account the needs and concerns of the neighbouring communities and areas.

In my constituency, area F has no zoning or land use control, and what has happened is absolutely inevitable. You now have incredible strip development on the Alberni highway -- industrial development -- because there is no zoning. Business people, doing what comes naturally and trying to make the best dollar they can, are building out there. But it is destroying the rural lifestyle of that community. Meanwhile, the city of Parksville, which spent a great deal of money developing an industrial park, can't get business people to buy in there because they can move out to Coombs ridge and there's less regulation and less zoning -- or no zoning.

It is this legislation that will address that very problem. It will enable the citizens of my home community -- Coombs, B.C. -- to maintain that rural lifestyle. It will ensure that communities like Parksville will tend to grow up instead of go out, and that a city like Nanaimo will go up instead of going out.

I had the privilege to grow up in a small community, to commune with nature perhaps more than some of my urban colleagues. If there's anything I think my generation has brought to the world, it is the understanding that the ability to get into the wild area and touch the wilderness is crucial.

We in this Legislature have an opportunity -- the last opportunity, probably, in this province -- to sustain any kind of significant green space in those areas of the province which are clearly destined for further growth because of their climate or their position: Vancouver Island, the Fraser Valley, Powell River-Sunshine Coast, Kelowna, Penticton, Osoyoos. Those areas will continue to draw people, to some extent.

But the kinds of communities that will be created over time will be that much better and more desirable communities in which to live, because this legislation will give an opportunity to regional districts to plan and coordinate carefully the growth and development in those areas, so they will remain places of high economic growth and development where people will want to live and raise their families.

[ Page 13765 ]

Without this legislation, I personally could look forward in my constituency to the further continuation of what has been known affectionately -- or unaffectionately -- on the Island as "Campbell Sooke," which is simply that long stretch of land from Campbell River down to Sooke being one massive urban sprawl. I won't make reference to any of the members in this chamber who represent areas in the province which I think exemplify that kind of urban sprawl, lest I receive their criticism later, but I think the hon. members know which areas I'm talking about.

Vancouver Island doesn't want that. Vancouver Island and Parksville-Qualicum support this legislation. They want to see something preserved; they don't want to see what's happened in the lower mainland. They want to ensure that communities remain viable and with some distinction, and that people live in areas where their growth is going up and not out, so their children will have the same kind of opportunity that I did to get out into the wild space and maybe to appreciate the planet and the environment a little more than others.

We can look south to the great state of California, and we know what uncontrolled growth does. We know that eventually it leads to economic stagnation and to communities that are not livable. That is not the vision this bill brings to British Columbia. This bill brings to British Columbia a vision of sustainable communities, of cooperation and coordination.

The member for West Vancouver-Capilano talked about planning. We don't want to give it all over to the planners, but the politicians obviously are going to be involved in this one. The planning and cooperation aspects of it are crucial. We have to start thinking not just of our own interests, either as citizens or as members of a larger community, but about the communities that surround us. In an idealistic way, in that sense I think this bill is one of the most forward-looking that this Legislature has seen.

At the heart of this bill is the concept of cooperation, of thinking about your neighbours and expecting them to think about you. For that reason I am delighted to stand and offer my support for this bill, and to thank and compliment the Minister of Municipal Affairs for bringing it forward to the Legislature this session.

L. Hanson: I certainly see the motivation for Bill 11. The minister was obviously trying to cure some problems that we see happening in the various communities. One of the former speakers -- I don't remember which one -- mentioned the number of municipalities in some areas which are not huge geographically but where there certainly is a competition. I guess the famous not-in-my-back-yard syndrome that we talk about in zoning hearings and so on partially describes some of the things that happen in areas where those municipalities live very close together. There's no doubt that that is a concern.

I have some support for the fact the from time to time we have to remind our politicians, including the politicians in this room, that the responsibilities we have are more than just to represent the constituents who elected us. We also have a responsibility to do justice to British Columbia, if you will, in the various concerns that we raise. Something that we need to remind ourselves of, as well as some of the locally elected people, is that they are elected to look after their municipality and the responsibilities they have been given by that; but they are also responsible for being concerned about what happens in the area that they live in, even if it may not be within their boundaries.

Regional districts were formed because there was a need to recognize the need and let the input happen from those people who didn't necessarily live in an organized area. I personally live in an electoral area, and I have very good representation. But before regional districts, that was a difficulty.

I think I understand the minister's motivation for bringing forward this legislation, but I honestly don't think this legislation is going to work as well as I know the minister is enthusiastically thinking it will. The concern that I have is that there's absolutely no doubt that it takes away some of the autonomy of the municipal councils in their planning process. I don't think any of us in this room would argue against the fact that we do need some planning above and beyond the municipal boundaries.

When it comes to things like transportation, you can't build a railroad track from one end and also from another end if the two ends don't meet. You have to have some kind of planning that makes for that cooperation, if you will, so that the tracks do meet when they're completed. Nobody would even argue with that.

We also recognize, in my own community.... We have long negotiated for a greater North Okanagan water system. That has finally become a reality, but it has become a reality because the municipal and regional district politicians who took

part in that had an honest and sincere desire to rectify what they saw as a problem and handle the administration of water resources in a better manner than was done the past. They went ahead on their own, in a cooperative manner, and did that without the soft carrot, as the minister expressed it.

I have to say that when I look at the bill and analyze the soft carrot...

Interjection.

L. Hanson: ...or the heavy carrot -- I'm corrected by the minister -- it could be pretty effective if it were to be used. I suspect -- and I'm sure the minister knows this -- that the use of that heavy carrot could become a more contentious issue than the actual issue of the regional planning that we're talking about. That would be a real shame. Again, there's no question that every one of us -- and probably every regional district and municipality -- would support the need, in principle, for people to cooperate when they're planning a growth strategy for a given area of the province. I suspect that the heavy carrots may deter the success of this legislation.

I really see that there is a need for some kind of encouragement for municipalities -- such as we see in the greater Victoria area, which is such a confined area -- to cooperate in planning what happens within the greater area as opposed to the limited and narrow planning of their municipalities. The question I have -- I guess we will address that further when we come to the committee stage of the bill and look at all of the individual clauses -- is: will it actually work?

As the minister knows, there are all sorts of wonderful things that can be done if a group of people gather together with goodwill and good intentions to accomplish something. We all strive for that. I suspect that this bill will see some pretty bumpy roads before it finally becomes a workable process, and growth planning for a region becomes a reality, and all of the issues that are attached to that planning are resolved in a consultative and cooperative manner. I'm hopeful that that will be accomplished. I suspect that this bill may not work just exactly as is expected.

[3:15]

[ Page 13766 ]

In some of the areas, and I know we'll get into that when we get into the committee stage of the bill, the issue of the weighted vote that happens within regional districts.... Because this is not a money matter, I suspect that it will be an equal vote. We then have a situation where in some of our regional districts the dominant representation of population may not have an equal vote in the determination of what happens in the area. I think that's something that will cause a lot of concern; it may cause the odd bit of lack of cooperation as well.

While the carrots the minister mentioned earlier in the legislation will certainly give the minister the authority to impose certain things on that process, I suspect that.... If you were ever in the cattle business and tried to drive cattle, they do what's called "arching your back." If they arch their back, they've decided that they're not going to go in one particular direction, and no matter what kind of persuasion you use, it's very difficult to get that to happen.

But, like my colleague from Prince George-Omineca, I have no difficulty with the principles and what the minister is trying to accomplish. I suspect that it may not work as well as we would like, and there will certainly be some questions on the various sections of the bill when we get to committee stage. Hopefully, the minister will listen to some of what we would suggest are constructive suggestions that might improve the situation.

T. Perry: I'm going to have to wing it a little now, extemporaneously. I had sought the assistance of the library to help me to make a more erudite presentation, but time came upon me faster than I realized. I'll have to rely on memory.

An Hon. Member: Plain talk.

T. Perry: Plain talk.

This is really an historic occasion. I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs has accomplished something quite unprecedented in the time I've been interested in planning and environmental issues, which goes back to about the time I graduated from high school in 1968. I'm glad that you're in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, because you've been involved in B.C. public issues for pretty much all of that time. I remember that I first met you in 1969, I think.

We've seen waxing and waning enthusiasm for planning and environmental concerns in all of that time; most recently we've seen it in the last five years. On Monday I met some very, very bright high school students from Eric Hamber Secondary, which is in the district I represent. I introduced them from the gallery, and then met with them outside in the sun. I found that they were very upset about plans to limit their freedom to have a driver's licence without any restrictions at age 16. They wanted to immediately be able to drive everywhere and anywhere at night without parental supervision.

They didn't seem concerned about the impact of all that driving on the environment, and I challenged them. I said: "You know, I'm shocked. Five years ago the students from your school would have been alarmed about the hole in the ozone, or global warming, or traffic and smog in the lower mainland, or cutting down trees, and they would have been demanding to know what I was doing about it." These students were worried about how fast they can get into their car and how much they can drive it.

That's a reflection of the cycles of public concern over environmental matters. During your political lifetime in B.C., Mr. Speaker, you've seen a lot of that. There was a reawakening of environmental consciousness in the late sixties. It peaked perhaps in 1970, when Earth Day was established just 25 years ago last weekend, and yet Earth Day passed this year with almost nobody noticing it. It faded and then peaked again in about 1980, perhaps, and then it faded away again. Then in about 1989-90 people like Dr. David Suzuki and others again stimulated a revolution of consciousness in Canada, and in B.C. in particular, and now it seems, sadly, to be largely fading away.

I thought back about that and asked the library to dig out something I had discovered. In that first big wave of environmental consciousness that I was involved in, in about 1968-69 when I was a student at UBC, somebody pointed out this document to me -- the Official Regional Plan of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board.

I'm sure the minister.... If I remember accurately, she may not yet have come to B.C. at that time; she'll correct me if I'm wrong. She must in her municipal days have heard faint echoes of this document. Those like you, Mr. Speaker, who have been around here for a long time will remember that an eminence grise of the opposition benches -- the former member for Vancouver East and minister for everything in the Barrett government, Bob Williams -- was associated with this board, and his mentor Victor Parker was a great planner involved with the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. If you look back to this document, the official plan, it says right in the preface:

"The Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board was established in 1949 by the lower mainland municipalities, on the conviction that each community and each individual through his council have a stake in the growth and development of the region as a whole.

While there are many development problems that are best solved locally by each municipality, there are others, involving the process of urban development, major highways and transportation linkages, regional recreation facilities, pollution, broad land development policies, future industrial and agricultural land needs, and major utilities, that demand a coordinated regional approach if they are to be resolved effectively. It is within this framework that the official regional plan for the lower mainland has been prepared."

It cites a declaration of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, R.C. MacDonald, on June 21, 1949, which gave birth to the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. Darned if I can find, Mr. Speaker, the exact date of this document. I guess August 29, 1966, was the date of this document, and Social Credit were then in power, amazingly enough.

Those words are almost identical in spirit to what we see in this act. The

section we'll come to in committee,

section 942.11 under

section 7 -- "Purpose of regional growth strategy" -- suggests that the regional growth strategy deal with some of the following matters:

"(

a) avoiding urban sprawl...(

b) settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and the efficient use of public transit; (

c) the efficient movement of goods and people while making effective use of transportation and utility corridors; (

d) protecting environmentally sensitive areas... (

g) reducing and preventing air, land and water pollution...(

j) protecting the quality and quantity of ground water and surface water...."

Well, they sound like motherhood ideas. They were apparently the vision of the Minister of Municipal Affairs in 1949. When I immigrated to Canada from Los Angeles in 1962,

[ Page 13767 ]

In between those good periods of enlightenment we had the dark ages of retrenchment, recidivism back towards the unmitigated, completely unregulated, uncalculated, unthinking growth for growth's sake and boosterism for its own sake that Sinclair Lewis described in his novels like Babbitt, and that afflicted virtually every other urbanized community in North America.

That led to the dissolution of regional planning powers when Bill Vander Zalm was Minister of Municipal Affairs back in 1986, or even earlier in the 1980s, and to some of the catastrophes we've seen in the outskirts of Vancouver -- the eastern suburbs; the Fraser Valley, where whole hillsides have been denuded, with large monster houses.

The private automobile has been seen as not only the basis for communication between people but the god, actually. I think it's a false god that we've worshipped, but let's admit that society has worshipped the automobile as if it were a god -- a burnished idol. Some people actually burnish them -- polish them as if they were idols in a church or in a pagan ritual.

We've lost our way to the point that we now have still-worsening air pollution problems, despite the best efforts of government, through AirCare, to mitigate them. There's only so much that a senior government like a federal or provincial government, or even a municipal government, can do. There's an important lesson that what is called for is a cultural shift -- what Dame Lady Barbara Ward called for back in the 1970s at the first United Nations conference on the environment in Stockholm: "Think globally and act locally; think globally, act regionally."

In planning the major expansions of our social and capital infrastructure such as the new university in the Fraser Valley, new health care facilities and new housing subdivisions, we must have that consciousness. We must respect the goals in division (1),

section 942.11, under

section 7 of this act. If we don't, our quality of life will be worse.

I'm convinced that although there have been improvements in the quality of life since I was first interested in these issues, in many respects the real quality of life in the lower mainland has deteriorated -- no ifs, ands or buts. In public security, in sense of safety, in air pollution, in the length of time it takes to get around from one place to another and in the respect for nature, I think it's been seriously downhill. There's more material wealth, yet there is often less spiritual wealth and less sustainability.

Although this act relies more on public intelligence, goodwill, vision and foresight than it does on the force of law -- although it can't compel people to do what is good for the earth and good for a sustainable society -- it can only encourage that. I hope that the process by which the Minister of Municipal Affairs has brought this bill to fruition -- a consensual process, working with the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Union of B.C.

Municipalities and municipal leaders around the province -- will provide that faint glimmer of hope that people will finally take it seriously, and that should there be a change of the prevailing political philosophy in B.C. -- which I hope there won't be, but sooner or later, one day there will be -- this good, commonsense planning for our future won't go the way of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board.

[3:30]

For that reason, I hope that members of all parties will rethink their positions and support this bill. That might be Social Credit, who developed this wise plan in the days of W.A.C. Bennett, then tore it to shreds and literally destroyed it with their sharp claws. It might be the Libcreds, those modified Socreds who represent the same development/industry interests the Social Credit monolith used to represent.

Despite their natural instincts to want to destroy the land, worship the false god of the car, pollute and ravage the land regardless of ecological sustainability, I hope that they too will rethink their position and support this bill. I hope the Reformcreds will also realize that this is common sense and that it relates to the direction the province must really go.

Finally, I hope that all the backbenchers from the government side, who are now talking among themselves, will also bestir themselves to vote for this bill and to support it as enthusiastically as I know they have during its development. I therefore really look forward to voting for it at second reading and to further debate in the committee stage.

A. Hagen: The name of this bill, the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, is one that perhaps strikes some concerns in a lot of citizens. Growth is something we have a hard time dealing with, so the very first thing I want to say in my comments on second reading of this bill is how important it is that the minister and our government have tackled this issue, and that it has been tackled in a way that involved such a wide representation of people in developing processes to deal with growth.

I recently had to go back to visit my mother, who lives in the little town of Sackville, New Brunswick. For the first time in about 30 years, I happened to travel by train across the northern reaches of New Brunswick and the Tantramar marshes, where there is space everywhere, and at that time of the year, snow was still everywhere as well.

Then I flew back to British Columbia, over the Fraser Valley, the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Greater Vancouver area, over the small seven square miles that are my city, where even from 30,000 or whatever number of feet I was at as the plane was descending, you could see the brownness of the air and where the mountains stood clear and the rivers ran -- but not as clean as we would want them to run. It really is a contrast in our country in terms of what is happening in B.C. Many of the people who come here, including the minister, have come from other parts of the country.

We are now faced with a province where exponential growth is taking place.

When I was first elected, we had a population of about 39,000 people in my city. It was actually a smaller population than had been there previously. In the eight and a half years that I have been a member, the population has grown to 46,000, and the projection is that the population will grow to 70,000 or 75,000 -- almost double what it was when I was elected -- somewhere in the 2015-to-2020 period. Citizens are quite honestly concerned about that growth, because they know it means changes for them.

This bill is important because it says this is our world, our reality, our environment, and we have to tackle the issues.

[ Page 13768 ]

And the only way we're going to tackle them is to recognize that it's in our best interests as communities, as cities, as municipalities and as regions to tackle this task. As I look around the House and see people from other parts of the province here, I know that similar situations are occurring, whether it's in the Okanagan or in the greater Victoria region or on the eastern coast of Vancouver Island.

This bill is really about what the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi called -- rightly, I think-- the best of our political processes. It is a bill about the political will to tackle things in ways that are consistent with our values. First of all, in this bill we're not bringing in some new supergovernment or new superinstitutions. We're saying that we're going to work with what exists. We're going to work with the democratically elected bodies that have the tools, in their municipal councils and in our regional governments, to deal with these issues.

We're going to provide as many tools as we can for collaboration and cooperation. But there are some strictures there. There is a need for regional planning. It needs to grow out of the plans of each individual community, and we need to look at the way in which what we do in individual communities affects our neighbours. We need to look also at the way in which what the province plans and can support serves our communities and regions.

So the bill provides for, if you like, a voluntary process for cross-community planning, but it says that once you've gone into that process, you've got to stick with it. You've got to put into it your visions and your ideas, and you've got to listen to the other folks who are on the other side of your boundary or in another region. You've got to work with those people to come up with plans and long-term visions that everybody can work with.

The bill also provides for the inevitable challenges that will occur when perhaps agreement can't be reached. Again, there are processes to encourage people to come to that agreement and to help them when they may be in difficulty.

For me in my community, and I think this is true for all of us -- what I have to say I think could be said for each member -- it's important that we start from the community itself. But even as we're looking at our own city and community planning processes, we know that we don't live in a vacuum, that we don't live on an island. In New Westminster, for example, the issue that is probably most important to us as far as the region is concerned is what our share of that growth should be. Given that we're such a physically very small community, is it reasonable for us to accommodate that amount of growth? Is that a reasonable request of us?

That debate is going on in our community right now with a revision of our official community plan, and it's a tough debate. It's one where people often resist even looking at ways in which we might have greater density and as good or better livability, perhaps having more people able to use public transit and able to get around to both to their jobs and their recreation, and not having to use a car. We have a job even looking at those issues.

But if we look to the region, I think for us the biggest issue is how we interconnect. People travel from community to community for their jobs; they don't just go from New Westminster or Coquitlam or North Vancouver to downtown Vancouver anymore. It's like a spider's web in terms of the movement of people. The regional planning that will allow for that kind of movement of people in an efficient way -- hopefully using public transit more than before -- is a challenge. There are real difficulties with this. As my colleague the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain said, in some way, perhaps we're going backwards.

I have just a few sobering thoughts to take to heart. The amount of developed land in the Georgia Basin area is two to three times the increase in population. In other words, we have a person coming in, but that person and that person's family is actually using an increasing amount of land rather than a more reasonable amount of land when it comes to where they put their house or apartment. The population in the greater Vancouver area has grown 21 percent in the last seven or eight years, but the cars travelling on our roads have grown by twice that number: 42 percent.

We're losing the battle of public transit; transit use has declined in relation to our population. I cite these statistics because they force us to really look at the planning and growth strategy issues that face us at this time.

Along with my colleague to my left, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, I was very much involved in some regional planning processes in the mid-seventies. I look back on those processes as a source of optimism for this legislation. People did get engaged in what they wanted their communities to be and how they wanted them to develop, and their ideas were reflected in the community plans of the day. In fact, 20 years later we see a lot of the good results of that planning process.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

I remember very clearly that the city of New Westminster wanted to reorient itself to its river, because the river was its historic heartland. It had been the heartland of the city from the days of the Royal Engineers and the sappers and Colonel Moody, who had laid out the city. They wanted the river to be a place for people; they wanted it to be a place where a planned community could emerge.

I haven't talked to anybody who now lives close to the river and who walks its wonderful strip of park, which is part of the city's contribution to the environment, or who shops at the market and looks at the redevelopment of Columbia Street and doesn't like where they are. It's a dense community -- almost as dense as the West End of Vancouver -- but it's a livable community because it was planned. And that planning goes back 20 years.

When we think about planning for growth, we should look at where planning has taken place and how it has worked. We should use some of that visioning to assist us in our support for this legislation and our recognition that the collaborative and cooperative and opting-in approach that it demands is, in fact, something that works. It's hard work, and it takes a good bit of time before the effort is made manifest, but the nature of the work is productive. It does help us to manage growth, and it does help us to build livable communities.

[3:45]

Sometimes I get quite fearful about the kinds of cities and communities that are growing up in our region. Most of us have grown up in smaller and gentler communities. All of

[ Page 13769 ]

those pressures are part of our living in a modern society. If we look at the goals of the legislation -- in my mind, a very significant visioning part of the bill.... If we look at those goals, they are about:

1. Avoiding urban sprawl so that we're not using two or three times the amount of land that we should be using for the additional people who are there.

2. Maximizing the use of foot, bicycle and transit so we can get around in our communities without having to use our cars. I happen to be on a SkyTrain route, and I know the advantages that that has for me personally and for the environment.

3. Protecting environmentally sensitive areas. The lower mainland nature heritage announcements are a part of what's happening now. The Indian Arm announcement and other announcements are a part of protecting those sensitive environments, which are, again, regional heritages that all of us who live in the area and others can enjoy.

4. Reducing and preventing land, air and water pollution. I live on the banks of the Fraser River, one of the world's mightiest and most productive rivers. It's a river which we must continue to enhance so that the fish are always there, and so that it is a river that is as pristine as is possible for us to make it.

5. Fundamentally creating communities where families, whatever their nature and age range may be, can live.

This bill has been produced, developed, presented and now debated coming out of a very extensive consultation process. That process has provided us with a bill that is strong but that still raises questions, as members have noted, about how we're going to make it work. No legislation is, in and of itself, other than a tool and a vehicle for citizens in a democratic society to exercise their will. This bill acknowledges the right and the responsibility of citizens, first in their own communities and then across their regional and community boundaries, to develop the kinds of communities they want and desire.

Finally, I think it's important to note that the province is a key player at this table. I think the province needs to improve the way it works at these tables. I believe we've come a long way in that direction in some of the planning that's gone on for things like our parks, in some of the announcements that have been made around urban transit and transportation, and in issues to improve the quality of our air. But we need to be as committed, responsible and participatory a player in this process as all of the communities and regions that are encompassed by this planning act.

It is a bill that calls out the best in us. For that reason I think it stands as a very special document, and I join with others in commending the minister for the tremendous amount of work that she and her officials have done in very extensively going out and talking about principles, ideas, tools and structures that form the framework for this legislation. She's called it a process bill, and indeed it is something that all democratic societies need to have: good process legislation that is respectful of the rights and responsibilities of each of the municipalities and regions. It demands a lot of the province as well.

With that, I add my voice in support of the legislation, in anticipation that we will have vigorous debate. In my community we're going to be engaged in a process very soon that involves a historic piece of land and that is going to look to new uses: the Woodlands land where the Woodlands School is being closed. There are two pieces of advice that I've tried to convey to citizens as we talk about how we get into that discussion. Each of us has a responsibility to envision what we would like to see for that land. What are our ideas? We should be as broad-ranging and as creative as possible.

The other part of that is that we have an obligation to listen to others and to their ideas. This is not a stakeholder game or a stakeholder table. This is a community table where all of us have a stake. All of us have a role and responsibility to try to come together to arrive at what we collectively can envision as the best decision for an individual piece of land, a community or a region. That's the best of our democratic traditions. It is non-partisan. It is community- and grass-roots-based. It does respect those who are elected and those who contribute to the ideas of elected people who must make decisions.

All of us at all levels -- including, I might add, because of the river in my riding, the federal government -- must be participants in that.

I look forward to the ways in which this legislation helps us to be good citizens and good planners, and to deal with one of the toughest issues that faces us these days: growth.

Hon. D. Marzari: It's been one of the delights of bringing this bill to the House, hon. Speaker, to be able to see friends of the bill in the gallery from time to time.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, minister. We need to get permission before we can do that.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Marzari: I'd like to introduce to the House Councillor Laura Acton from the council of Victoria, who is here today.

C. Serwa: It's certainly a pleasure to rise and speak with respect to the philosophy and principles of Bill 11, Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act. I'm not going to be quite as kind as a number of members here have been to the minister with this particular legislation. I hope you'll bear with me and see that my belief is that the stick is not as appropriate as the carrot. I think that the minister has taken the party line and that it is a partisan type of bill.

Now, that doesn't minimize the concern we all have with respect to growth. I've heard a great many words spoken here. Some of them have been wise, some have been well thought out, and some have been sincere. Others have not been anywhere near that quality of input into this particular legislation.

The legislation that we're looking at is primarily focused on high-density urban areas. Again, British Columbia collectively is being looked at as the southern part of Vancouver Island, with a high density population, or perhaps the lower Fraser Valley, or the Greater Vancouver Regional District, with its concerns. This particular piece of legislation is focusing, and most of the conversation here has been with respect to that. I have to advise you that the province doesn't end at the Greater Vancouver Regional District; there's a great deal of the province that goes beyond that.

Like the member from Okanagan-Penticton, I also come from a very rapidly growing area which has unique environmental challenges because of a fairly main and deep valley running virtually at right angles to

[ Page 13770 ]

the westerly flow of air, so that air quality is a particular concern.

I guess the number of concerns I have with this bill start with the statement: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." I don't believe the provincial government has a monopoly on devising growth strategies, and I'm concerned with the type of stick that is brought forward with respect to this bill. We've listened to a lot of the words of the minister talking about positive aspects, and there are positive aspects of addressing the concerns.

One of the strange statements I heard was from the member from Saanich who stood up and said: "Rapid growth indicates lack of planning." What latitude or what scope of logical thinking that can produce a statement like that evades me completely. Rapid growth is a result of a particular attractiveness either of a jurisdiction -- the province of British Columbia, for example -- or of the quality of a regional district like the Okanagan, within the province of British Columbia. It has nothing to do with poor planning.

In my particular situation in the central Okanagan, a number of projects that were strongly promoted, with the idea of providing the type of growth capacity for population, have not been approved simply because the infrastructure was not there, would not be there for quite a number of years and perhaps, financially, could not be there. So the growth strategy was contained.

When I listen to a number of the speakers, it is as if we have no planners anywhere in the province who are doing an effective job. If I were a planner, whether in the Regional District of Central Okanagan or in Kelowna, I would be very concerned with what I'm hearing at the present time on this particular piece of legislation. There has been a great deal of planning. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi went on to talk about uncontrolled development on the Sea to Sky corridor to Whistler. I would suggest that every bit of development is in fact controlled: zoning is required; building permits are required.

The development has been controlled. It may not fit with the member's version of what should transpire, but I would suggest that everyone has a different objective for what should or should not happen. Nevertheless, the planning and the zoning authorities, the municipal authorities or the regional district authorities, have input and control into that particular planning process.

If the Minister of Municipal Affairs disagrees with that process, so be it; but nevertheless, this is a local issue and the planners and the local politicians have seized their responsibility and acted on their responsibility within the best of their ability.

The contradiction here too comes out.... Hon. Speaker, I listened to your words when you spoke as the member for Nanaimo with respect to planners, saying that we can utilize the planners more widely, that it's not going to constitute a different form of bureaucracy, and that we're not going to have more planners involved in the whole process -- more red tape. I suggest that if you sincerely believe that, then you're under a misapprehension of what will actually transpire.

The member from Saanich said that what we need, really, is less in the way of bureaucrats; yes, they should be doing this, but we need less bureaucrats, fewer planners, etc. -- again with the implication that the present planners are sitting at their desks, twiddling their thumbs, doing nothing with respect to their mandate of responsibility. I assure you, hon. Speaker, I believe that they are undertaking their planning responsibilities genuinely and sincerely, with respect to the regional districts, with respect to the municipalities and with respect to the regions. You have to be mindful of that.

The thought of this particular legislation, that within a region.... You could look at the Thompson-Okanagan region, where we share different watersheds. We share the Columbia watershed and we share the Fraser watershed. We don't share the same airflow situation. We're not a lower mainland type of situation. So when you look at the type of coordination that you're going to try to accomplish there, the shoe simply doesn't fit, and that's why the bill will not succeed.

[4:00]

I've heard a lot of sincerely concerned debate with respect to population growth. I think that if we're looking at something we're going to have to look at population growth, because that is the foundation of all of the problems. The minister has spoken about air quality concerns and water quality concerns; we're all concerned about that apolitical type of issue. But we do have the Ministry of Environment, whose mandate is to look after those particular concerns.

But what are we doing? We have the increasing growth of our own population. The other population growth, because of the attractiveness of the evergreen province -- the nicest province in Canada.... We have Canadian-wide migration, especially from jurisdictions such as Ontario, under the current NDP government there. They are moving in droves to British Columbia to evade that, only to be caught with a similar NDP government here in British Columbia. Nevertheless, the qualities of this particular province will attract Canadians.

The federal government is a partner in attracting more people to Canada, and in promoting immigration. We're certainly attracting people from Asia-Pacific and from other parts of the world, again because of the quality of this province and the opportunities in this province. We recognize that we're an aging population. Unless we encourage more new people to come in, after the baby-boomers are on the pension there are going to be fewer and fewer people working in order to keep them in the manner in which they would like to become accustomed to. So we need this growth.

We're at a bit of a crossroads and a contradiction: we're going to develop a strategy to control growth, yet we recognize that we need growth and that from growth many good things happen. There's an inherent contradiction in this particular piece of legislation -- a contradiction between the effort and responsibility of the provincial government to encourage and attract business and industry and new people so we can have a dynamic, viable economy and provide all of the good things that government is supposed to provide to the citizens of this province, while at the same time we're going to a strategy to control growth.

I suggest that unless we look again at that fundamental, basic component of population increase, we're not going to succeed in this or any other strategy. As long as we keep producing more people and attracting more people, we're

[ Page 13771 ]

going to have greater and greater problems. It's not solely the population increase but the population increase coupled with the needs, wants and expectations of that population that is the problem.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain indicated his particular concerns. He was talking about large industry and exploiting the province, I believe. He didn't use quite those words, but the intention was the same: we're taking advantage and creating environmental negatives. Whether it's a multinational corporation or a corporation within our boundaries, they're providing goods and services and jobs for people.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Okay, housing. The whole point of the effort is that it's the needs, wants and expectations of that growing population. It's not simply the drain of energy or material goods or water resources or pollution of the air; it's such things as wage increases without an increase in productivity that are putting more and more pressure on our environment. Controlling growth doesn't change that. There are many, many concerns that are being represented in this particular room.

Just a moment. I have a notice with a request, so I'll sit down temporarily and honour the request.

Deputy Speaker: You have us all wondering. I recognize the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

T. Perry: I thank the hon. member effusively for yielding.

Deputy Speaker: What are you asking, member?

T. Perry: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

T. Perry: There are in the gallery a number of students enjoying -- almost participating in -- this scintillating debate. They come from Templeton Secondary School in the riding of the hon. Minister of Social Services, I believe. I would invite all of the other members to make them feel as welcome as I feel they are welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member, and I thank the member for Okanagan West for allowing that.

C. Serwa: There was some mention of the Gro Harlem Brundtland report in this philosophical debate that we're having at the present time. It was words with respect to sustainable development. We obviously have a finite environment, and we obviously have finite resources, and it doesn't matter whether we're talking about our jurisdiction or Canada or the global environment as a whole. I think Will Rogers said it best, in a folksy sort of way, a long time ago, when he was suggesting good investments. His advice was: "Buy land. The good Lord has stopped making land, but he's still making a lot of people." That's one of the realities that prevails.

When we talk about sustainable development, we're going to have to understand that we will -- not probably will, but will -- reduce the quantity of living. It is a false pretence to say that each succeeding generation will have greater incomes and live a better lifestyle than the present one. We're probably living at one of the peak times in Western societies right now, certainly in this country. But as we increase the world population and our domestic population, we're going to increase pressure on those finite resources.

It really means that we will lose the quantity of living that we're enjoying at the present time. But it does not mean that we will lose or reduce the quality of life, and there is a significant difference. One depends on cash flow and the other depends on the quality of the environment and a different attitude with respect to a population. I'd suggest that there is as much or perhaps more frustration, even though we are a very affluent society at the present time. But we have lost in that affluence a great deal of the quality of life.

So we have to focus on the two issues and start understanding some of the basic benefits of perhaps reducing our consumption and reducing the types of pressures that we're putting on society. Whether you're looking at the effects of rapid growth or steady growth, the fact is that we will simply split and divide the resources so that we will reduce the quantity of living. And if we're not careful, we could reduce the quality of life for British Columbians. That's why this debate on this bill is so meaningful and important.

I have spoken about the concerns that we all share with population, and that's something that no legislature, no jurisdiction such as Canada or, it seems, any international body at the present time can get their act together and understand. Some have said in this debate that the problem is the food supply. It appears to be not the quantity of food but the consumption and distribution of food at the present time. I think that increasing technology will assure us that we have an abundant food supply to support more and more people.

What we do not have is the capacity, for example, for air resources to support freeing up more carbon that is being locked up in natural oil reserves, in coal or in our forest supply. If we free more and more of it into the atmosphere we're going to create greater and greater problems with the greenhouse effect. Again, that's part and parcel of the needs, wants and expectations of that growing population.

It seems to me that we're looking at something elemental. It's playing with the symptoms but not attacking the fundamental problem. Perhaps our jurisdiction can't, but we should certainly be a partner in exploring the big picture and addressing it. Otherwise, whether it's in health care or in growth management and strategies, it's an exercise in frustration and futility. The effort is a noble one; from the debate there obviously has been a great deal of concern put in with respect.

At their convention, the New Democrats came up with a slogan: "Main Street, not Howe Street." Either they didn't know, they didn't realize or they didn't care that both refer to Vancouver. That's what I think this primary bill refers to: those densely populated urban areas of Vancouver. In effect, it's involving the provincial government: big government planning into the everyday aspect of everyone's lives in British Columbia.

You can't have it both ways. We listened to the debate on the Columbia River Basin, and here the government is very proud because they've listened to the people in the areas affected by this historical injustice. When we finish on that bill I'm going to enjoy debating that a little further. On the other hand we have government, which has the ability, with a big stick, to force compliance and to control people's lives within

[ Page 13772 ]

British Columbia: control where they live, how they live, where they move to and what happens. I think that's very, very wrong. The individual independent jurisdictions have that responsibility and that right, and we as free people in a free society in Canada can maintain that right. This is not Russia, where that right obviously did not exist, where the government there moved people at their will, and where huge populations were moved for the convenience or for the will of the government.

Wherever the people want to live, whether it's in Abbotsford, Kelowna or Terrace.... In that aspect it's dreadful legislation. I think it's an attack on the integrity of communities in British Columbia. It's an attack on regional districts and the planning and the independent decisions of what they will do.

I read in the legislation, for example, that some of the highlights of the act provide legislative authority for regional districts to voluntarily develop and adopt a regional growth strategy. That sounds innocuous enough, except that when you go through the legislation you find that if there is any difference of opinion, the government has the ability to step in. I would suggest that this current government will probably mandate the direction of what happens in a most skilful manner.

Another highlight is the point with respect to urban sprawl. We all have concern with urban sprawl, but I'm going to tell you that the agricultural land act is greatly responsible for a significant amount of the urban sprawl. Within our city of Kelowna there are large tracts of agricultural land. So what happens is that you get sort of a jump-type of development. You get nodes of development here, nodes of development there, and there's a very, very high cost of servicing that type of development with infrastructure. That is caused by the inability of the communities to be masters of their own destiny with the agricultural land within a municipality. So that is causing urban sprawl.

Urban sprawl is also caused by the belief -- perhaps by the Canadian dream -- that we can own our own home on our own lot. Are we going to do now what had to be done in places like Japan or in many areas in Europe where they have high-density populations: relegate people to living in condominiums, apartments or high-density areas? If you're going to prevent urban sprawl, it sounds like you're going to do that. Is that something the public will accept? I don't think they'll accept it at the present time. Perhaps over a period of time, when we are faced with a massive problem, we will see increasingly high density.

I don't think the provincial government has any right to dictate the social or housing structure facing people in British Columbia. That decision should be made, rightfully so, by society. Big government doesn't have any ability to make the right decisions. But the people will make the right decisions, and it's not our similarity that is our strength; it is our diversity. That is the important thing, and I don't think the legislation takes that into consideration.

The minister has indicated that there is a great deal of support from the UBCM, from planners, from ministry staff and even from local politicians. I can perhaps understand that from ministry staff in Municipal Affairs; I can certainly understand that from staff within municipalities and regional districts. It's an opportunity to expand into a new area, and it will become another bureaucracy. If the potential is there -- if you create the situation -- that void will be filled very strongly, and they will be a very effective organization. So I think that there's certainly an opportunity for planners as a growth industry, in spite of the growth limitation strategy.

[4:15]

As for local politicians, I often wonder why they're supportive and, in fact, if they are supportive, regardless of the UBCM. Most of the local politicians that I've met are sincerely concerned individuals who have accepted the mandate of their responsibility genuinely and to the best of their ability, and have entered into all sorts of discussions with respect to the types of growth challenges facing their community. They jealously guard that right to make those decisions.

That does not mean that they focus simply on their jurisdiction; it may be the municipality, it may be the regional district, or it may be a larger region. In the Okanagan we're concerned because we share a large watershed, we share the same air mass, for example, and we're captured. If something happens in Vernon or Penticton it affects Kelowna, and vice versa. So we are already talking to each other with our respective concerns.

In the normal development of hierarchies since very primitive societies -- and certainly today in modern society and government or in business -- we have a series of hierarchies. So at some levels, if there is a difference we go to the next stage up to strive to resolve that particular difference. That is where the Ministry of Municipal Affairs comes into play with regional districts or municipalities that have differences but have things in common. The organization in this structure is all there.

I'm not quite certain what this bill does to encourage or enforce it, other than giving the minister a much larger stick than was ever present in the legislation with respect to the Municipal Act. If that's the reason we have a big stick in this, and the rest of it is simply to hide the big stick with centralist planning, then I would be even more concerned with the legislation. There may be faults with the present structure, but I can assure you there will be faults in the system that is proposed. I think the mandatory aspect of it will be one of those faults.

I can't speak for the lower mainland, but I certainly can speak for the interior, as a fairly long-term, almost old-timer in the central Okanagan. We're very, very competitive in the interior. We are competitive in sports. We're competitive in our communities. And we will remain that way, regardless of the type of concerns you have and have brought in, unless there is a will to work together. Unless there is a good will to work together, no type of duress will create that goodwill. It's something that has to be seen and acknowledged.

The encouragement is noble and necessary, and I agree with that. I disagree with the big-stick principle, that if you don't, because it's always out there.... And at the end of my talk, I'm going to make some suggestions on things that the government in fact can do that would encourage the type of growth and development and spreading out.

Regardless of what we plan or say or do -- let's say that in the Greater Vancouver Regional District we're confronted with a massive problem in all areas: air quality, water and transportation as well -- no amount of infrastructure that we can put in there will tend to mitigate or even control the type of pressures that we're looking at from the population expansion proposed for the Greater Vancouver Regional District over the next few years.

I, for one, don't believe that legislation will provide an instant cure for anything. I think that as the problem increases

[ Page 13773 ]

there's a natural control, and the pendulum swings. The recognition hits more people, and then the timing is right to take the right steps.

I will never minimize proactive planning, but I suggest that many things change in the course of plans. I've gone through the frustration of long-term plans, certainly with the development of Big White Mountain. You look at a long-term plan, and you revise it annually. Most of our communities have plans and growth strategies in place, but they are revised almost annually in any event. In the city of Kelowna, for example, there must be tens -- if not more -- of long-term strategies and plans that are put away. As the community shape or regional shape changes, then different plans come into effect.

I don't think rigid strategies for growth planning are the be-all and the end-all or even desirable.

I could go on a long time in those particular areas, but I'd like to talk about some positive things that I believe the government really should get involved in and should be doing: providing opportunities and incentives for the alleviation of the horrendous pressures that are in certain areas.

It's really my belief that in communities like Vancouver that have everything going for them.... If you're a manufacturer there, or whatever your enterprise is, you've got a large population base and a large supply of labour available, whether it's for agriculture, business purposes, government services or whatever. So they have everything going for them. The transportation costs are cheap. The salt water is right there; the shipping and the container ships come right into the port. So whether you're importing or you're exporting, it's a desirable place to be and to have business.

But what I don't understand is this: if you're concerned with the type of problems that exist there, then why don't you encourage that type of growth to take place in other communities throughout British Columbia? If you go to places in Europe, for example -- let's look at Austria -- almost every village and city has a particular industry which is the central hub of that village. And there are cottage industries -- it might be a hat industry -- which spin off of that. A solid economy is built up in that particular community, and transportation appears to be adjusted, because it is not a major problem.

The government has encouraged, maybe, a steel industry or whatever so that it is widespread throughout the country.

It provides stability to those small communities that have the infrastructure in place, have the capacity and are looking desperately -- and we know many of our communities are resource-based -- for opportunities in other fields. It doesn't matter whether it's a native community in a remote area of the province or other communities in remote areas, there is a need. There is a need for significant growth and development in the way of manufacturing industry to lessen the dependence on our resource-extraction industries. Obviously, those concerned about forestry, CORE and the environment are all saying loudly and clearly that this is what we must do.

I would suggest taking a positive step by encouraging that. There are a variety of ways. It may be through taxation; it may be through loan guarantees; it may be through some sort of a transportation equalization opportunity. There are things that government could do to provide the right environment to encourage what I would like to see in the province.

When I recognized that a significant amount of the budget spent by the government of B.C. is spent on wages -- let's say 80 to 85 percent -- and a significant amount of that wage package is spent right here in Victoria, and when I look at the enormous potential of an item called fibre optics, I see no reason why all of the ministries of government have to be segregated or cloistered here in Victoria. Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is an example. We could move the hard-rock

section of the ministry to a place like Nelson. Perhaps we could look at moving the coal

section to one of the smaller communities where northeast coal is.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I regret to advise you your time is up.

C. Serwa: I'm sorry. I was.... But thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we could have had a referendum.

I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

J. Beattie: It is a pleasure for me to rise today and speak to Bill 11 and to follow the member for Okanagan West, who is in the adjoining constituency to mine.

Before I get into my specific comments, there were many points the member made, and I have to say that he certainly covered a lot of territory. In fact, he was all over the map in some ways, ending up on fibre optics. I suppose if you were to extrapolate his speech and put it on a map, you'd realize why we do need some planning, some regional planning and specific planning to focus the growth of our ideas.

He did speak a bit about local government, and he talked about the Okanagan -- although he seemed to feel that the Okanagan somehow escaped definition within this act, that this act was specifically designed for Vancouver Island, lower Vancouver Island and the lower mainland. But I have to say to the member that two very, very key politicians in his area -- the mayor of the largest community in his constituency, as well as the chair of the regional district -- have embraced this initiative of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

They endorse it 100 percent, and, in fact, are already embarking upon a planning process under the guidelines of this act to get ahead of the field and take advantage of some of the stronger aspects of this initiative.

I think that this bill is one which works in very close partnership with much of the legislative agenda of this government over the past four years. I've missed much of the debate today, but I personally believe that there is a need to be cohesive and to have a vision of the province which takes care of its people, takes care of its economy and, at the end of the day, takes care of how the people plan their communities and go about living in those communities. So when you consider the fact that this government has initiated some significant moves to regionalize health care, for example....

The hon. member for Okanagan West talked about the decentralization of ministries, something which this government is doing with health care. When you consider the restructuring of the forest economy to try to maintain forest sector jobs through remanufacturing and silviculture in the regions, and when you consider the fact that this government is trying to give all citizens the opportunity for post-secondary education

[ Page 13774 ]

throughout the province, this bill is a great partner to those initiatives, because it says: "You will have the infrastructure in education, in health care and in forestry, and we want you to have a sustainable economy and a sustainable education system in your regions. Now let's talk about how you're going to plan your communities, and let's get down to seriously developing a vision throughout the province."

I think that's what this bill attempts to do. It says that there are specific needs -- this government, in fact, has said this throughout its mandate -- which have to be met within the communities and should be addressed by local citizens and politicians. But at the end of the day, there has to be a global approach in which local governments can feel that they are part of a larger, provincewide undertaking.

When I personally think about the question of planning and what planning means, I think that in a real sense we do attribute some of the more unfortunate aspects of our society; i.e., heavy crime in the centre of our large communities, sprawl in some areas around the lower mainland, where there is a real loss of the sense of community.... As a result, people are not familiar with one another and the type of activities that go on. The crime and the kind of detached nature of these suburban areas, which give us a great deal of fear, come out of a sense that there is something not good going on there, that there's something unhealthy happening.

Traffic is another issue where we feel that somehow, if only somebody had taken the time ten or 15 years ago to consider what the ramifications of some kinds of development would be, we wouldn't be stuck in this traffic jam right now, and we wouldn't be burning all these fossil fuels. In a great sense, I think people attribute many of the problems they see in their daily lives -- the distance that they have to travel to school -- to a lack of planning, a lack of vision. As a result, they feel they're out of control. It's a terrible feeling, I think, to feel that your community is growing in a kind of cancerous way, without a sense of having control over that development.

[4:30]

So there is the philosophy and, I think, the reality: the philosophy being that we do need growth to have a healthy economy, but the reality being that there will be growth and it's not something we can stop. It's not something that is really within our hands to control, as the member for Okanagan East has stated. But the need to have growth and the uncontrollable part of the growth is the contradiction that, as a society, we have to deal with. Growth will happen, and in a sense we need that growth to have an economy which is growing and which hence provides the things we want.

There are no simple solutions to these problems, unfortunately. I do know that the people I speak to want to feel that there's some plan, that their local areas are growing in a way which has a sense of direction and vision; but we know that there's no easy solution. I'm quite impressed by the fact that the minister has gone through so many steps to draft this legislation and bring it to the stage that it is at right now.

In fact, in speaking just this morning with the chair of the regional district, he made reference to one specific part of the act,

part 4, which is in reference to the consultation that the regional growth strategy team will have with the provincial government. He said this came about as a result of the minister's consultation, and he commended her for having taken the time to make sure that she got it right. Indeed, I think she has got it right, because this bill is a balanced piece of legislation that walks the line between saying to communities and regional districts: "Take the initiative. Put into your strategy whatever you feel is required and try to follow some guidelines.

But if there are specific regional issues, by all means incorporate them...." That's the one side of that freedom to initiate this procedure yourself; on the other side is the recognition that as a responsible central government in this province, we cannot allow high-growth regions -- and I categorize the Okanagan as being one of those regions.... We cannot stand by and see a lack of a cohesive plan or initiative that addresses problems which are really getting out of hand. I want to commend the minister once again, before I begin talking about the Okanagan.

In the Okanagan, we have a pretty unique situation, I think, in that it's a long valley which is trapped by some quite significant mountain ranges; hence the growth is quite specifically directed along the valley bottoms. It has three regional districts, which create a specific political mood in each of the regions -- north, central and south -- and it is also the third fastest-growing area in the province. The Okanagan is, I think, an area which is going to benefit quite significantly from this legislation. As I've said, the Regional District of Central Okanagan, which includes Kelowna and much of that high-population area, is already moving with 100 percent support of this bill.

In the last number of years the government has been wrestling with the method by which we can be most effective in helping the Okanagan come to grips with its geographical situation and its rapid growth. Early on in our mandate, we cooperated -- we are still cooperating, in fact -- with funding and manpower, or people power, to help the regional districts in the Okanagan establish a planning process which would meet the needs of that area.

We know that in an Okanagan area or the lower mainland, there is always a sense of what it means to have your own political autonomy. It means different things to different people. To a regional district or municipality, the authority to issue building permits and to have local zoning means that they can stimulate their economy as they see fit, and that they can have control over their growth in a way that they may think is the most proper way. The problem, of course, as the member from Okanagan West said, lies in the fact that it's a competitive environment when it comes to growth.

Indeed, it would be nice if we were to share the growing economy that is happening in Kelowna with the rest of the Okanagan. But people giving up their dollars that come with the building of residential homes doesn't come easily. Despite the best intentions of many politicians -- and, in fact, of many people who worked on a community level with citizens' coalitions and so on -- to try to coordinate growth in the Okanagan, there just hasn't been the political will to structure an organization that has the authority to act on behalf of all the people of the Okanagan, and it's unfortunate.

At this point the local regional districts have divided up their responsibilities; they've said, "Go about it as you will," and are proceeding at different paces. I think their attempts to plan will succeed, in the sense that there still is the initiative to want to continue, and indeed they will. But if at the end of the day there isn't the cooperation of the three regional districts to work together and deal with the problems that transcend their borders -- we're talking about the flow of water, the flow of air and the prot