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)

TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 20

[ Page 14085 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

E. Conroy: I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome to the House my great-aunt and -uncle, Fred and Phyllis Goldsbury from Victoria, who are constituents of our Forests minister, Andrew Petter. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

CALL FOR BALANCED-BUDGET LEGISLATION

G. Campbell: I have in my hand a report by Viewpoints Research Ltd. regarding a poll prepared February 16, 1995, for the Minister of Finance on debt and deficit. Unfortunately, the pattern of deception for this government continues. The purpose of this report is clearly to find ways to sell the NDP's massive debt to the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Campbell: The minister doesn't understand....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! I would call the hon. Minister of Skills, Training and Labour to order.

G. Campbell: British Columbians don't need a sell job; they need the truth. The NDP is now borrowing $6.5 million a day and has increased public debt by more than 50 percent. British Columbians demand the truth; taxpayers deserve the truth. Can the Premier tell this House when he will bring forward truth-in-budgeting legislation so British Columbians get the truth from this government?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Opposition just doesn't get it. British Columbia has the highest credit rating, the highest environment rating and the greatest job creation record of any province in this country, and all he can do is moan and groan about the success we're having here in British Columbia in job creation. I would like to ask which schools the Leader of the Opposition would chop? Which health care proposals? Which roads? Which ferries would he chop in this hypocritical position the Liberals take on spending on people in British Columbia?

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: Unfortunately, the minister obviously kept the report from the Premier, because the only person who doesn't get it in this House is the government and the Premier himself.

As I'm sure you know, hon. Speaker, British Columbians have the lowest consumer confidence rating in the country and the highest welfare rates and welfare rolls. The fact of the matter is that this report is quite clear. British Columbians did not demand more borrowing, and they did not demand more public debt. What they wanted was less borrowing, less public debt and less taxes. When will the government bring in balanced-budget legislation, Mr. Premier, so taxpayers can be assured that this government will pay only what they can afford and live within the means of the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Right-wing parties in North America -- like the Reform Party and the party that the Leader of the Opposition leads -- have had balanced-budget legislation that they've broken for 40 years. Republicans and Democrats have broken their own balanced-budget legislation. What British Columbians want to see is what this government has done, which is eliminate the deficit, balance the budget and bring in a surplus, and have a debt management plan that's even tougher than the business community brought to us -- and still invest in people, still invest in infrastructure and still invest in our natural resources, so B.C. can stay number one in Canada.

F. Gingell: The Premier would know, if he took a basic accounting course -- which he probably had to take when he was a young law student -- that we don't have a balanced budget. It's not an adequate statement, and in the....

Interjections.

F. Gingell: You can all say what you like, but that is the truth.

VIEWPOINTS RESEARCH OPINION POLL

Viewpoints Research asked the people of British Columbia if they could be Finance minister for one day, what they would do to reduce waste. The answers were particularly revealing: (1) eliminate outrageous benefits to executives like Connie Munro, who got $88,000 for which she had to do nothing; (2) end massive pensions to B.C. Hydro executives like Marc Eliesen; (3) eliminate gold-plated MLA pensions. The people have spoken. When will the minister abolish outlandish executive benefits and MLA pensions in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. E. Cull: This year's budget has the lowest increase in spending in 25 years. If the member read that survey carefully, and if he did what I did, which was to go around the province and talk to people about what they wanted to see in the budget.... They told us to cut waste in government. They didn't tell us to cut teachers, police officers, nurses or schools; they told us to do what we did in this budget, which was to take $100 million out of government operating expenses, and cut it there.

If the member wants to refer to the budget speech, he knows that the MLA pension legislation is coming in soon.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

F. Gingell: I can assure you that I did manage, with difficulty, to stay awake during the budget speech -- but I did.

[ Page 14086 ]

This research, done by Viewpoints Research Ltd., formed the basis for the NDP's ill-fated town hall meeting. Given this fact, can the minister tell the people of British Columbia how much they paid for this research, and if she thinks they got their money's worth?

Hon. E. Cull: I'll get that information for the member.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

R. Neufeld: My question is to the minister responsible for gaming. Yesterday, the minister did an about-face and declared himself a supporter of VLTs, despite opposition from local communities. Today, Fort St. John became the latest municipality to formally oppose the legalization of video lottery terminals. Will the minister now commit that, at the very least, no VLTs will be introduced in any community without a prior local referendum? If communities have the right to be part of the approval process for neighbourhood pubs, they should obviously have the same approval for VLTs in their community.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm actually shocked that, in this day and age, the hon. member would read the Vancouver Sun and believe every word of it. Don't make that mistake again, hon. member.

[2:15]

Let me set the record straight. Ever since I have been the minister responsible for gaming, I have very clearly articulated the need of the day, and that is that it is time for the charities that provide vital services to British Columbians to stand up and talk about the benefits of charitable gaming and the appropriate enhancements that need to be made in charitable gaming.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: Contrary to the Vancouver Sun, your articulation has not been very good lately, Mr. Minister.

GAMBLING INDUSTRY LOBBY

Casino companies have started a campaign among charities that benefit from gaming revenues to pressure for higher betting limits and longer gambling hours. The argument they've used is that we have to liberalize our gaming policies to compete with tribal casinos in Washington State. Does the minister have any evidence that B.C. charities have been the least bit adversely affected by on-reserve gambling in Washington?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have heard from many charities in British Columbia. There are 4,700 charities in British Columbia that benefit from charitable gaming, and I've heard from many of them. They have indicated that about $25 million a year from British Columbians would go into the pockets of the investors and owners of casinos in Washington State. We would be losing the money, and we would be stuck with problem gamblers in British Columbia. We have to find a solution to those very serious issues. Rather than taking potshots at the charities, I ask the opposition to address the issue of the vital services that are needed for British Columbians.

KIMBER CABS DECISION

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad to see the Minister of Transportation here today. I hope she will be able to answer these questions on behalf of the Minister of Energy.

On July 5, 1991, Kimber Cabs Ltd. applied to the Motor Carrier Commission for 18 licences to operate -- and I quote from the licence application -- "wheelchair-accessible taxis for disabled persons." However, on appeal to cabinet, the Minister of Energy gave them licences to operate wheelchair-accessible taxis for all passengers. On what grounds did the minister's colleague overrule the Motor Carrier Commission and grant licences to Kimber Cabs Ltd. that are even more valuable than the ones they originally applied for?

Hon. J. Pement: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue of Kimber Cabs Ltd., it is important that the opposition notice that the application itself was the issue the minister was dealing with. Under that application the minister recommended that the licence be granted because such a service would prove invaluable for disabled people. Allowing non-disabled people to use the service makes it more economically viable and ensures continued service for disabled passengers. That's how it was set up. I think it's fairly clear now that this issue was dealt with accordingly.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's not clear to people in Richmond that it was dealt with accordingly. They're the ones who are being pulled by one arm in one direction and one arm in the other direction to get in two different cab companies.

The day after Kimber Cabs got their 18 newly enriched taxi licences, courtesy of the Minister of Energy, several of the shareholders flipped their licences for an estimated profit of $700,000. Can the minister explain why she condones this type of blatant profiteering by a special friend of the NDP after receiving special approval from her NDP cabinet colleague?

Hon. J. Pement: With regard to this issue, I think it's really important the member recognize that the approval of the application was done specifically for the reasons that I just outlined. With regard to the issue of shares in a company, those shares are quite legitimate, no matter who is part of the company; through MCC regulations you cannot sell or transfer licences, but there is nothing wrong with having a share in a company. And I think that's the issue.

GAMBLING INDUSTRY LOBBY

D. Mitchell: A question to the Minister of Government Services, who claims that he was misquoted by the media yesterday about his meetings in Vancouver with proponents of the gambling industry. Apparently the minister told proponents of gambling that he wants to hear them speak up on behalf of the government's proposed expansion-of-gaming policy in the province of British Columbia. Apparently the minister is concerned because he and the government are hearing only from those who are opposed to the expansion of gaming, and who don't want to see video lottery terminals on every corner in their neighbourhood.

Does the minister actually see his role as serving as a kind of coach for the gambling industry, encouraging them to speak out on behalf of the

[ Page 14087 ]

government's proposed gaming policy, and showing them how to lobby the government more effectively? Is that his role as minister responsible for gaming?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Far be it from me to coach the member as to what gaming regulators are all about. Gaming regulators are government agencies that regulate gaming across North America; they're not the promoters of gaming. That's the distinction that you need to understand, hon. member. I am, in a sense, the advocate of fair and open debate on this very important issue. So far we've heard from the casino owners. We've heard from citizens who are opposed to gaming. We have not heard fair, open and engaging debate from charities who provide vital services to British Columbia. And the opposition sits here.... The B.C.

Lottery Corporation poured over $100 million last year into health services in British Columbia. That Liberal opposition wants to dismantle health care; they also want to dismantle charitable gaming in British Columbia.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

D. Mitchell: The minister likes to speak about the benefits of gaming, but he doesn't like to speak about the costs of gaming. He refused to answer a question earlier in question period today, but I'd like to put it to him slightly differently: will the minister of high-tech gambling, who believes in the virtues of video lottery terminals, commit to the House today that the provincial government will not allow the installation of VLTs in any municipality in the province that is opposed to them?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The government announced its policy on these issues in October of 1994. I am dealing with that policy, and in the implementation of that policy it may or may not be refined. That's all you're going to hear from me today.

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

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply A, for the purposes of debating the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services estimates; and in the main House, I call continued debate in committee on Bill 11.

G. Janssen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Janssen: I ask the House to welcome a group of grade 11 students from Alberni District Secondary School, accompanied by a number of adults and their teacher, a frequent visitor to the chamber, Mr. Frank Holm.

GROWTH STRATEGIES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 11; D. Lovick in the chair.

section 4 (continued).

L. Fox: To follow up a little from what we were discussing prior to lunch, as I interpret the minister's answers to a number of questions,

section 4 allows for a planning area to be designed which is smaller than a regional area as we know it today. It may in fact be part of two regional areas if that planning area was so designed by the two regional districts.

Yet if any expenditures or costs would be associated with any particular planning, it's my understanding from interpreting the answers before, that those expenditures would have to be approved by the whole regional district, even though it was only going to be levied on a portion of the two regional districts. Is that a correct analysis of what the minister said earlier?

Hon. D. Marzari: The overall budget of the regional district is a board prerogative, and it would have to be voted on by the board. But in areas where there is a subarea of the region that has designated itself as a planning entity for growth management purposes, that area would be able to develop its own budget for its planning process after being authorized by the board to do so. It would therefore be able to expend its planning dollars. Other areas inside that regional district would not be expected to share, because they would not be beneficiaries of the planning process.

Although the overall budget is voted on once a year by the board in budgetary items, the expenses incurred for the growth management strategies can be decided among the participants themselves, whether they be inside one regional district or, as the member suggested, inside two or more regional districts.

L. Fox: That leads me to the question. In 4(

a) and (b), it essentially limits the weighted vote opportunity with respect to this section. You have a situation in a regional district where the majority of people were to live, and normally the weighted vote gives them some autonomy over the expenditures they're responsible for, because they're also the major contributors in that regional district. It would seem to me that in a more rural regional district, this

section would allow the rest of the regional district literally to stop that planning process from being approved at the funding stage, because the weighted vote would no longer apply. Is that not a correct assumption?

[2:30]

Hon. D. Marzari: The boundaries of the area that would be undergoing a regional growth strategy would be determined by the entire board, as in subsection (

b) of the

section we're dealing with here. That would be an unweighted vote, because it's not budgetary in nature. The entire board would engage in a dialogue about the growth management strategy service that a part of it was interested in engaging in. The budget for the planning purposes for the

section of the region that was interested in engaging would be a weighted vote, obviously, by the participants who were engaged in the planning process. So what we're saying here is that the boundaries

[ Page 14088 ]

determined by the entire region would be done by an unweighted vote, and the budget for the planning purpose would be a weighted vote of the participants engaged around the table.

C. Serwa: Seeing that these specific areas of a regional district -- let's say G and H in the Central Okanagan Regional District -- decide to undergo a growth strategy management plan, why should the entire regional district, not being confronted with the financial responsibility, have to approve or disapprove? Why can't the approval be made by the specific areas? For example, if we have a specified area for improvements -- whether it's street lighting or sidewalks or something -- within a regional district, the entire regional district doesn't have to vote on that, only the areas affected.

Hon. D. Marzari: The essence here is to approach the region in question with its legal mandate and with its authority to make certain decisions rather than hiving off specified areas for specific purposes, as one might do with other services. The essence of the managed growth phenomenon, which this act represents.... The context here is to have as many people at the table as possible with as much information as possible, using the mandate legally granted to the entire region to engage in managed growth. But as we've said before, there are obviously some regions that have one component part of them which is undergoing heavy growth pressure. That one component

part is the part that would be interested most in paying for and engaging in managed growth planning, but the whole region should be there at the table. Even though you and I may agree that some of the boundaries of regions aren't realistic anymore and perhaps should be reviewed, it's my intention with this bill to bring the entire region to the table for discussion of the nature of the program and the definition of boundaries for the planning area.

C. Serwa: I don't like to belabour this, but other than as a protocol type of exercise, it doesn't appear to me that the other areas within the regional district, for example, would have a significant amount of interest with what happens in one specific area. Obviously the minister is correct. If we're looking at a high-density type of situation with more impact, not only in areas of regional districts but in other regional districts, then obviously those affected have to be part and parcel of it.

I just don't know what the benefit is or even what the interest to other area representatives would be, voting on a growth strategy in, for example, G and H in the Central Okanagan Regional District, when they're entirely separate and distant from it; they're separated by Okanagan Lake, for example. Other than a protocol benefit, I see no logical rationale for this type of requirement -- not that I think for an instant that they would stop the planning process, because they're not confronted with any financial liability here.

Hon. D. Marzari: I should repeat that basically what we have in front of us in Bill 11 is a bill which has been carefully considered by electoral area directors throughout the province as well as regional directors from incorporated areas. This is the format with which they can live comfortably.

This is the format through which they can see a managed growth strategy unfolding in their regions, and it's therefore the format that I bring forward to you, without restructuring boundaries, without going into legal mandates of regional districts and -- perhaps I should put it this way -- without interfering with the ongoing nature and context of how they operate now. Basically we're giving them good choices, good information and the options of defining subareas, if that is in fact what they wish to do. Therefore they have that power to define how the plan ultimately looks down the road.

If the member's concerned about electoral areas which may not be at all involved or care to be involved, having one vote at the table which ultimately approves or disapproves of the final plan, I can only suggest to the member that that's a chance we should take together. This is the format that all the regional districts that will be engaging in regional growth planning have agreed upon and have decided that they can live with.

C. Serwa: The minister talks about restructuring or redefining boundaries. It's not clear to me which boundaries: whether they're area boundaries within a regional district or regional district boundaries. What boundaries was the minister talking about there in the restructuring process?

Hon. D. Marzari: This is not a restructuring of regional boundaries; I just want to make that perfectly clear. I don't want to send a message out there that we're even thinking about restructuring boundaries of regional districts. This involves a regional district, where half of the regional district is in status quo and half is in high growth around a heavily incorporated area such as the east side of Vancouver Island. It may be necessary for the regional district to decide where a boundary should go for a subarea for planning purposes only -- not legally defined but simply decided upon by mutual agreement of the entire regional district.

C. Tanner: I didn't catch the very first answer that the minister gave to the first question. Did she say that under this

section we could have a circumstance where two different areas of two different regions could be adjoined, and we could have a strategy plan for those two?

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, that is basically what I said. It's confirmed not only in this

section but also in

section 942.13.

L. Fox: In asking this question I'm probably stretching this

section a bit, but it's an appropriate time to ask it, given the discussion we've had over the course of the last few minutes. An assumption that I'm making -- and I'm hoping that the minister will confirm it, because assumptions are always dangerous when we're looking at legislation -- is that any expenditures that would be approved through the process that we've discussed would be subject to the same public process which is presently governing regional districts in how they might levy taxes -- for instance, in terms of referendums required after a certain stage to approve expenditures in a specified planning area. That would still, I hope, be something that this process was subject to.

Hon. D. Marzari: The process of budgeting is a normal process for the regional district and therefore it's a normal process for the participating area of the regional district. We're talking about how regular, normal processes of formulating budgets and budgeting, and public process insofar as it's involved with regional budgeting now, would be involved with a subarea of the regional planning process.

[ Page 14089 ]

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

C. Tanner: I'd like an explanation on why we need

section 6. It appears to me that it's already taken care of in

section 808, and I don't see what this amendment does.

Hon. D. Marzari: The current

section basically doesn't deal with regional planning in any way, shape or form. The proposed subsection (3.1) under

section 6 provides that where a regional growth strategy is being prepared for an area that's less than the entire regional district, only those areas to which the regional growth strategy is to apply will be apportioned the costs of providing the service. Currently,

section 808 provides for the costs of providing general services to be proportioned among all municipalities and electoral areas. So this basically ratifies the financing of planning purposes for the preceding section, which we've just debated.

L. Fox: I'm not sure this is the appropriate

section to raise this or not, but I'm always hesitant not to because I may find, once the

section has gone, that I've passed the opportunity by. But as we see throughout this bill, there appear to be opportunities for municipalities and regional areas to opt into a

section of the strategy. They may, indeed, not want to opt into the whole planning process; they may want to opt into a

section of it. Does the minister...? Unless I've misunderstood, that's what I read into later sections of the bill. Does this particular section, then, allow municipalities to contribute only to the limits which they opt into? Or if they opt into portions of it, would they have to contribute the same as the rest, who may have opted into more of the strategies?

Hon. D. Marzari: The opting-out provisions are for later on in the process, when municipalities may agree to disagree. That is a legitimate stance inside the context of this bill. If there's disagreement that cannot be dealt with later on in the bill, there are ways in which we can deal with that -- in fact, respect that. But here, once you're in, you're in. There's not an opting-out provision once you're in, once it's signed and once it's agreed. A high-growth region has to sit down and take a close look at the issues having an impact on its quality of life. Hence they wouldn't be at the table in the first place.

So there's no piecemealing here of the intent. When municipalities or unincorporated areas come to the table, they're in. They're not in for just one

section or one tiny issue, they're there for the duration; and they're there for the whole planning process that brings everyone to the table.

Section 6 approved.

The Chair: Let me say before I recognize anybody on

section 7 that we will deal with this one on the basis of sections 942.1, 942.11, 942.12, etc. Is that agreeable?

section 7,

section 942.1.

C. Tanner: Just to make sure that I understand it, maybe we can get an explanation from the minister as to why we go from sections 942.1 and 942.11, and then seven pages later we come back to

section 942.2. I'm not sure why we have that sort of numbering.

Hon. D. Marzari: Well, this is the way legal drafting apparently gets done. It clarifies itself if you add a zero after the units here, so

section 942.10 is the appropriate way to read it, if you so desire. If I....

The Chair: I'm sure we're all happily edified.

C. Tanner: I'm afraid the minister can't get away with that. That isn't what it reads here. It says

section 942.1 and then

section 942.11, and then on page ten it says

section 942.2.

Hon. D. Marzari: Well, it starts with .10, then it goes to .11 -- right? -- then to .12 and then to .13. Am I right? When it reaches .19, it goes to .20.

[2:45]

The Chair: Perhaps the clarification is that it is not

section 942.1 but

section 942.10. Is that the clarification we're looking for? West Vancouver-Garibaldi, in case I didn't do that well, perhaps the member....

D. Mitchell: In order to get through this section, we're going to have to accept your recommendation. I'm not sure if a small amendment might be in order or not, or whether or not this is accepted drafting for a bill. It is a little bit confusing, but I think we can follow it, given the minister's explanation. Whether or not this bill should be translated into an actual statute of our province with this numbering is really the question I think the member for Saanich North and the Islands is raising. Plain language and plain numbers, I think, is what we aspire to in terms of legislation -- clean drafting.

While we're on

section 942.1.... This

section deals with the

definitions for the key portion of the act, the regional growth strategies. There are a number of

definitions here. I'd just like to ask for some clarification on a couple of them. Could I ask the minister why there is no definition for a region? We're talking about regional growth strategies; we talk in here about regional matters, regional contexts, regional strategies, but nowhere is there a definition of what a region constitutes. Is that contemplated in another portion of the statute?

Hon. D. Marzari: Region doesn't really have a.... Regional district is defined in the bill, obviously, and defined for the purposes of the bill, but region is not defined out of a sense that it is self-defined either by the boundaries of the region or by the boundaries of the subregions or supraregions that decide that they are going to become planning units. For that purpose, there's no real sense in defining a region; it's just the common vernacular or the dictionary definition.

D. Mitchell: The first definition in this

section refers to "affected local government," and it talks about a local government whose acceptance of a regional growth strategy is required under this act. Could the minister explain how a local government becomes an affected local government? It's not necessarily through their own volition, I would understand, but it would be through the process of this legislation. I'm wondering if a local government can become an affected local government under this act without desiring to be affected.

[ Page 14090 ]

Hon. D. Marzari: Once a regional district or a combination of regional districts is inside the rubric of the managed growth planning, which this bill encourages them to voluntarily engage in, they are affected. They are all the municipalities and, I suppose, the electoral areas that will be paying for, or engaging in, the planning process. Where a regional district is engaged in a managed growth planning process, and its adjacent regional districts aren't particularly engaged, there will still be some conferring to do with adjacent regional districts.

Those regional districts, although they might not be affected financially, will still be consulted by the regional district that is, in fact, doing regional growth management. An affected local government means the local governments that will be signing off on the regional districts' regional growth strategy. That means each municipality covered by the regional growth strategy. It also means the adjoining regional districts that will be looking at and conferring with the plan.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's response to this. Just so I understand it before we move on.... An affected local government, according to what the minister has said, is any local government -- any regional district, let's say -- that is potentially affected by the development of a regional growth strategy. It might not be primarily the regional district involved in the growth strategy, but it might even be a regional district adjacent.

Will a regional district that is not directly involved, then, with a regional growth strategy but is simply geographically adjacent to the region involved be designated an affected local government on its own, by its own application? Simply because it's contiguous to a regional district, will it automatically be declared an affected local government?

Hon. D. Marzari: It's interesting to have this debate, because it really clarifies thinking.

The important thing here is that an affected local government can be either inside the regional planning framework or adjacent to it. If it's adjacent and not paying for or engaging in regional planning or growth management, it is still entitled to be conferred with and to be consulted, and to receive the plan of the neighbour, read it over and make comments on that plan. It is affected whether or not that region is engaged in paying for that plan or in day-to-day discussions around the table.

Roads do run through regional districts in sequence, air pollution does seem to tumble over boundaries, and water quality does degrade along the whole shoreline -- in the Okanagan, for example. Consequently, even if the regional district isn't engaged in or paying the price of regional growth management, it still is an affected government. It is entitled to receive information, to receive copies of the final growth strategy and to comment on it.

L. Fox: Under

definitions in this legislation, the minister has: " 'first nation' means an aboriginal governing body, however organized...." I would like the minister to give me some breakdown as to her understanding of "however organized."

Hon. D. Marzari: That seems to be standard phraseology in legislation. Basically, first nation is very broadly defined here to cover any aboriginal governing body. We're dealing with first nations in this legislation as they are dealt with in other legislation of government.

L. Fox: I just have to follow up on that. I understand that this government may have a pretty fair understanding of what it considers to be "however organized," but we're talking about drafting legislation which is going to be used by municipalities. What does this suggest to the minister? For instance, is it organized Metis and local bands? Indeed, if we have breakaway groups within those organizations that are quasi-organized.... Are municipalities compelled to recognize any sector because they break away over a disagreement on some values or something? I really believe that we have to understand "however organized" and what that means to municipalities.

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe it means just what we have here: governing bodies that are recognized both by the federal government, which has its definition, and by other provincial legislation. Bands and councils certainly come into that framework. The important thing here is that the definition be as broad as possible, because where there is land use planning going on, whether it be in the municipality or inside the first nation, those are the people we must bring together and who must be consulted.

Wherever there is authority over or control of land, or wherever there is an interest in a service, there has to be a table for people to sit at where agreements can be reached, consensus can be developed and disagreements can be voiced. This goes on on a day-to-day basis between most municipalities and any bands and councils that are within or just outside their perimeter.

This act basically builds on the strengths of what is happening now on a day-to-day basis, and encourages and invites and consults with first nations without imposing or constitutionally involving the province in something where it should not be. The important thing here is facilitation and invitation with first nations across this province who happen to be in high-growth areas.

L. Fox: As a mayor for eight years and as an individual who has been very involved in municipal politics, I recognize that indeed there is consultation happening all across the province between municipalities, regional districts, bands and organized Metis, but this leaves it open for more than that. The point I want to make is that many of these individuals also have due process available to them because they are eligible voters or constituents of that municipality or region. They already have that available to them. If you're recognizing the organized Metis and the organized bands, I don't have a problem.

But the open end, "however organized," gives me some concern, because you could then have special interests among them that break away, and we would immediately have almost double representation -- one as a constituent and another as an independent group. I think that tips the scale, in terms of the democratic process. If the minister could give me some comfort in that concern, I'd really appreciate it.

Hon. D. Marzari: I am concerned that we are, in fact, dealing with governing bodies -- bodies that have some jurisdiction over land or services -- and groups that have something to come to the table for, in terms of proper land use or whatever planning is being done, that will engage the region. The definition in this legislation is in keeping with provincial legislation and certainly is, I am sure, perfectly in keeping with any federal legislation. As we develop regulations around this act, I would guarantee the member that the provisions relating to first nations would have to do with those bands, councils and groups of governing first nations bodies that have to do with services and land.

[ Page 14091 ]

The Chair: The member for Okanagan East...or West -- I'm sorry.

C. Serwa: I told you it's like boxing a compass, hon. Chair: west is best, and if you remember that, then we'll be all right.

On the same topic, because I'm also very concerned about the open-endedness of this -- and I think it could be cleaned up -- there are a variety of informally recognized aboriginal governing bodies. It may be the family unit, the clan, a band, a tribal council or maybe a breakaway group. Nevertheless, they have their sphere of influence. It does seem abundantly clear that the concern about this and the intent of the legislation is such that there should be some qualifier here and perhaps some amendment that would indicate the type of aboriginal governing body. It may be something like "provincially recognized," so that the intention of the minister is carried out in the

interpretation. I'm really concerned when we get into the roadblock situation, where we have a group that is not even representative of the band or of the general interest of the band but that has its own specific axe to grind -- they're just like we are, just individual groups and peoples -- if we consider those individuals as a governing body -- and to a degree they are, within the broad parameters.... If the minister would accept a qualifier on that, like "provincially recognized," then I would have a great deal more comfort in that definition.

Hon. D. Marzari: I'm informed that under

section 942.16, this has been written basically so that the province can assist in ensuring that appropriate first nations governing bodies are notified. So basically there is assurance farther on within the bill that gives you some guarantee that you'll be dealing with governing bodies that in fact are working with or are listed with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs of this government.

[3:00]

C. Serwa: Just once more then: why is it inappropriate, then, to modify the legislation to improve it just ever so slightly to make certain that it's clear in the

definitions

section of the bill, rather than referring to it later on? Because what the minister has said is not quite what I think the minister wants to be made clear in this

definitions section. It would seem to me that it would establish the credibility and the legitimacy of the governing body. I think that's what has to be done, and it would be best to be done here for clarity in the

definitions

section rather than in some subsequent area that may indicate -- but not absolutely, as it would in the

definitions section.

Hon. D. Marzari: I think it might be best to leave it open-ended in the

definitions

section and just make absolutely sure that we use the appropriate

section further on to help define. It was very difficult, I felt, to start to use a definition which might constrain in the final analysis of an overall, larger picture. The important thing here is that we use the later

section of the bill to help determine and define for the various regional districts who the first nations governing bodies are. They will certainly self-identify, I'm sure. So leave it flexible in definition, but then work with lists and Aboriginal Affairs down the road so that the right people will be at the table. That's the crucial thing.

L. Fox: I just have one further question. It relates to what we've been talking about in the last few minutes. Given that it's a general thrust of this legislation to encourage municipalities or this new growth strategies region to consult with the aboriginal people, would the minister not have thought it would have been useful to have a definition of "consult" in this section? Because we know the different views that are being given to British Columbians by different ministries of what consultation means.

In fact, in many areas, there's some concern that the consultation process is literally almost a veto for the native, so I think it would have been very useful if the minister would have had a definition in this

section as to what this bill means by consultation, because I read through the bill and wasn't really satisfied that I understood or could interpret a consistent process for consultation.

Hon. D. Marzari: The member's jumping ahead a bit to

section 942.17, but basically we used the word "consult" after a lot of consideration was given to other verbs. The important thing here is to bring people to the table. It's very important that this act not interfere with constitutional mandates or rights of first nations. It is not the intention of this bill to start to draw boxes or create special categories. We will be assuming, and working with regional districts who are preparing plans with the assumption, that there will be consultation. Now, that consultation can look like notification to a first nation that a growth management plan has been initiated.

It can be an invitation to first nations to participate in the development of a strategy; it can be an invitation to a first nation to identify its interests in the course of the development of a plan. It can be meetings with first nations with no particular agenda, or it can be an invitation to first nations to participate on an intergovernmental advisory committee, which will be, for example, a technical group of civil servants and Crown agency representatives. The important thing here is that there be the consultation.

It is very important that consultation not be too closely defined, for fear that we will end up stymieing the process rather enabling it.

I am interested in seeing meetings, consultations and involvements. I want to see local governments entering into implementation agreements, wherever that's possible. I want to see the door open, so that local and regional governments can create a table to sit down for first nations. How that happens can be decided by the local government and the first nation. There is nothing prescribed in this bill as to how it should look, who makes the first phone call or who writes the first letter.

It is not the intention of this bill to start framing something that will be used as a piece of litigation later on down the line. It is simply an attempt to make some rational decisions around land use or servicing.

C. Serwa: The consultation process realistically should be a two-way process; this is very necessary. When I'm listening to the minister speak, I hear the concerns of the aboriginal groups as to how they reflect on the regional district's growth strategy plan. In my particular constituency of Okanagan West, we have a great deal of development by the Westbank Indian band going on in both areas G and H on the west side of the lake, as well as significantly high-density development. There is absolutely no influence or control by the regional district. There is no consultative process, for example.

There is no planning of services required, be they sewer or water, etc. The growth can transpire on band land, being federal private land. Does the minister see any opportunity under this growth strategies act to encourage consultation between the bands who are developing land to a very high density?

[ Page 14092 ]

Hon. D. Marzari: It is an opportunity, but it's not legislated. There are enhanced opportunities for local governments to sit down with local bands, largely because of interest about this act now, to bring regional planning into some kind of focus and perspective that will encourage a sharing of visions and goals for a region, a basin or a group of regions.

I'm sure many of the first nations that aren't presently engaged in service agreements or in land use discussions might see that with the facilitation of the provincial government and with the implementation agreements that will be signed down the road in due course, there is every reason to plug into a strategic growth management initiative. In doing so, the federal dollars and provincial agency dollars can flow to a region to help rationalize its transportation and its water or air cleanup. This suits everybody.

In engaging in the initial discussion and in sitting there and making sure the implementation agreements really do reflect the spirit of the plan in the last analysis, it's a win-win for everybody. So there is an opportunity here, but I don't say there is a necessity, a mandate or a legal requirement.

C. Serwa: I have one further question on this particular topic, because it is an important area. A significant portion of our regional district is band land, and when the minister talks about air quality.... Provincial statutes have no legitimacy on band land with respect to air quality. You don't require burning permits; you can do what you want. There's nothing that the province can do with respect to water quality on band land either.

The other area of concern here is the competing interests. Obviously, you're into the marketplace. You're competing for commercial and residential development.

You know, there's a conflict of interest here. If the band, for example, has the ability to perhaps stymie or negate a growth development strategy in an area of the regional district, and it's to their benefit to do so, and this legislation enables that but without some sort of balance.... I know it's outside the parameters of this legislation and perhaps of provincial authority. But if we want to get someplace by working together, we can't get there by loading it so that one side has all of the advantages and none of the responsibilities. That's my concern with this, unless it's applicable to all elements, not simply to regional districts -- with the exclusion of, for example, band land.

Hon. D. Marzari: This act doesn't force bands to do anything they don't want to do. This act, for the most part, doesn't force local governments to do things they don't want to do. Neither does this act basically give a veto power to an individual band or a first nations governing body. We're talking about basic consultation, invitation and tables where discussion can take place. We are not talking about veto power of any individual first nation over a regional district growth management initiative.

C. Tanner: It seems to me that we're anticipating a debate that we should be having under

section 942.17. I think it's a very important part of this debate. Can I take it, then, that when we get to

section 942.17 the members who have spoken will forgo that debate? Would that be a logical conclusion, Mr. Chairman?

I have another question on another part of the

definitions, and that is the official community plan. Unless I've misread this, it seems to me we've got a very confusing set of facts. I mean, the numbering system in itself is quite brilliant, but the official community plan "includes (

a) an official settlement plan under

section 809(3) of this Act before that

section was repealed by

section 4 of the Municipal Amendment Act, 1985...." I look at

section 809(3), and I don't see how it is pertinent to this particular definition, unless the minister's got some other explanation which has escaped me.

Hon. D. Marzari: It does look confusing, but official settlement plans still exist in some communities in our province. They were basically done away with, as I say, under the Municipal Act in 1985, but official settlement plans still exist, and this clause recognizes them. Where a community has, rather than an official community plan, an official settlement plan -- which was the old language under a slightly different mandate -- we are recognizing them here. In other words, we're not telling a community that still has an official settlement plan that it doesn't count and that it's not inside the planning framework.

C. Tanner: If I was a green lawyer coming out of law school and was asked by a municipality to check on this legislation, not only would I be dealing with this enormity -- this 600 pages of backwards-and-forwards reference -- but now I'm going to deal with this,

an act that's repealed. Is the minister saying that we're dealing with

an act that's repealed?

Hon. D. Marzari: It's simply a carryover from an old type, an old label -- a language around settlement planning. We are now recognizing settlement plans as official community plans, which is simply to notify communities that still operate under the old rules that they are, in fact, recognized by this provincial government as having a community plan -- which, I should also remind the member, is updated every five years; I'm assuming that we will be seeing fewer and fewer. How many settlement plans do we have now -- just a few in the province? Within the next few years most plans, if not all, will be official community plans.

[3:15]

C. Tanner: I'm sorry to pursue this, but I don't understand how you can have

section 809(3) when there's no

section 809(3) here.

Hon. D. Marzari: I am informed that this clause is legally necessary to recognize those communities that still have official settlement plans, even though official settlement plans were repealed by

section 4 of the act in 1985.

C. Tanner: They don't make it easy, do they?

I'd like to introduce an amendment to

section 942.1, which adds the following:

"'affected body' means any person referred to in

section 942.3, other than a local government;

'provincial body' means any provincial

(

a) Crown corporation,

(

b) Crown commission,

(

c) Crown agency, and

(

d) ministry that is included in a consultation plan under

section 942.17(2)(e)."

It's submitted under my name, and I believe you've got it, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We do have the amendment. We have reviewed it; it certainly seems to be in order. We'll allow the minister an opportunity to respond.

[ Page 14093 ]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Marzari: Affected local government is basically what we're dealing with here in this act. I don't see any necessity, really, to further define what an affected local government is, because they are, in fact, the primary movers here. They are the autonomous units of local government that are driving this legislation, and they have helped write this legislation.

I think that if the member is interested in pulling Crown agencies into any discussion here about what an affected local government is, he should be reminded that under sections 942.16(4) and 942.29, which define the mandate and the context of the intergovernmental advisory committee, he will find that all the Crown agencies, federal and provincial, and special agencies -- even of local government, improvement districts or whatever -- are at the table during the implementation stage. You will find many of them at a technical table from the very beginning of the planning process.

One of the major features of this bill is that it pulls Crown agencies, provincial ministries and federal ministries to the table at the outset of the planning process, and it certainly keeps them there after the plan is approved for implementation purposes. Since that is one of the basic tenets of this bill, and one of the basic promises this bill is offering to communities, you can be well assured that Crown agencies and ministries are well taken care of in the content of the bill in our later discussions.

The vehicle for implementation is there, but it's important to separate what they do and what their context is from the local governments themselves. The affected local governments are basically the agencies -- as I say, the autonomous local government units that drive the bill.

C. Tanner: I and my caucus are coming from a different standpoint than....

Interjection.

C. Tanner: When they get here.

We are coming from a different standpoint than the minister is, and we're saying that we want some compulsion on the part of the provincial departments of the government to be compelled to do the same things that you're asking everybody else to do. I can give you a classic case in my constituency of a circumstance where a reserve has put in a sewer system which has to cross some federal land to get to a municipal sewer system, and it's not happening for the simple reason that the three authorities involved aren't sitting down together and discussing it.

As a consequence, sewage is being trucked from reserve lands every single day, at an enormous cost to the taxpayers of Canada. Because the sewer lines are already in there, at the turn of a tap we could have a great saving and a large benefit, not only to the community but also to the reserve.

This is exactly what's happening, and what's going to make it worse is that we're not only dealing with a federal authority, we'll shortly be dealing with a municipal airport authority, which is another separate body not mentioned in this legislation at all. That's why we feel that you need this amendment to bring all those various people to the table with some compulsion. As we read it, it's not defined in your

definitions, and we think it's absolutely vital that you put this amendment through.

Hon. D. Marzari: It doesn't make sense to include amendments when we have the provisions in

section 942.17 for the very agencies that the member is concerned about:

"

(1) During the development of a regional growth strategy,

(

a) the proposing board must provide opportunity for consultation with persons, organizations and authorities who the board considers will be affected by the regional growth strategy, and

(

b) the board and the affected local governments must make all reasonable efforts to reach agreement on a proposed regional growth strategy."

So you have your agencies there, and in

section 942.17 once again, in subsection (2):

"...the board must adopt a consultation plan that, in the opinion of the board, provides opportunities for...ongoing consultation with...(

e) the Provincial and federal governments and their agencies."

It's very clearly spelled out later in the bill as to what these agencies are and what their roles are in the context of the regional growth plan.

L. Fox: I believe that the Liberal critic is trying to bring forward a process that provides some protocols for ministries and the responsible agencies -- something that I am very much concerned with and am going to address in later sections of this legislation.

Without those protocols being in place -- with the Highways ministry, the Ministry of Environment and other ministries which will be front and centre in many of the issues that will be addressed through this legislation -- it's going to be very frustrating indeed for this planning process to identify some initiatives -- for instance, the sewage problem in the CVRD, and there not being a process to deliver any change because there are no protocols in place with respective government ministries to help resolve that concern. That may be the reason the member chose to bring this amendment forward.

I really believe that if the minister doesn't think it necessary to reflect this kind of definition, perhaps she should put all of our minds at ease and tell us that those protocols are presently being discussed and will be in place prior to any implementation of these strategy initiatives.

Hon. D. Marzari: The whole bill, as a matter of fact, is about protocol. The whole bill is a process. It's a process which basically encourages regions that are suffering the consequences of unplanned growth.... It creates a process for them to be able to come together and agree on what their issues are and what they can do to solve them; who disagrees in the mix; who can handle the growth and who can't handle the growth; what the neighbours think about that growth; where the roads should ultimately go, where they should connect and in whose neighbourhood that should happen.

All this is a process that takes us towards issue solution. A big part of that solution is how the provincial government plugs in. We have the provincial government with its resources and its facilitation plugging in early in the process with every ministry that a region defines as being important. We have the province plugging in with a facilitator to try to ensure that everybody's talking to each other and that the provincial government is hearing the voice of the community.

Then, in the last analysis, one of the major and most substantive pieces of this bill -- without which nobody would have bothered coming to a year and a half worth of consultations -- is the part where there are implementation

agree-

[ Page 14094 ]

ments signed between regional districts and the provincial government. I am awfully sorry to Hansard up there for bashing away at the microphone.

The protocols will be found in the implementation agreements, and those implementation agreements will take the form of actual contracts, memos of understanding, agreements on provincial expenditure, agreements with Crown agencies or corporations -- similar perhaps to the Columbia Basin agreement that was just signed and similar to other agreements that are signed between the provincial government and regions, such as the Peace River regional agreement that was reached a few months ago.

These implementation agreements are basically the bread and butter of what this legislation is about, and they are very firmly entrenched in the pages of Bill 11. Without these agreements firmly entrenched, this bill would be just pieces of paper that recommend good planning. Implementation agreements are absolutely crucial to the appropriate completion of community problem-solving and regional growth patterns, which cost too much for the local taxpayer, both in money and in quality of life, if they're unplanned.

I think the members are trying to say that this bill isn't worth the paper it's written on if it doesn't include Crown corporations, Crown agencies, Crown commissions and provincial ministries at the beginning. I think the amendment that's being put forward suggests that.

The amendment is also suggesting that down the road, the provincial government itself should be signing off on a regional growth strategy for any given region. This has been discussed, believe me; I should tell the member that. This has been discussed at great length with the regions and the municipalities of this province. I think there's a pretty strong notion that if the provincial government puts itself into the position of actually signing off and becoming a responsible party for a regional growth strategy, very quickly regional growth strategies would become the property of the provincial government.

That is not the intent. Regional growth strategies, and the solutions that regions must come up with to define and then solve the problems, must be the property of local government, because it is local government and regional government that drives this piece of legislation. They are the governments which sat down and helped mould this legislation. In a sign-off by provincial government inside this process, we would turn this legislation into the property of this level of government, which is not where the issues or the solutions must be vested.

What we have to look toward down the road are action performance contracts, properly and completely enunciated and articulated in the provisions of this bill as we move through it. But defining provincial bodies that must be involved and then insisting that the province sign off on a regional growth strategy is to remove ownership of the planning process itself and the implementation of the process. That is the last thing any member of this House wants.

Every member of this House and every member of local government that I've conferred with is interested in the maintenance of local autonomy as much as possible and in community problem-solving, using good, solid, negotiated contracts with other levels of government, Crown agencies and provincial ministries. I rest my case on the amendment to the bill -- and on the next amendment, which I know will be coming along -- on the basis of local autonomy.

[3:30]

L. Fox: I just want to follow up very quickly, because I know that the mover of the amendment would like to speak. First, I want to point out that I didn't speak in favour of the amendment. I certainly am a great advocate of local autonomy, but with local autonomy also comes responsibility; hence the need for protocols. I recognize, hon. Chair, that this is a pretty far-reaching debate for this particular

section of the bill, but I think it's very worthwhile, and I sure am thankful that the minister is prepared to entertain it.

We don't want a regional strategy plan individual property or air quality that impacts on industrial development or any of these other areas without having the ability to follow through and deal with the compensation issues that flow out of that, especially in terms of property. The minister will be well aware of our debates a year ago. I believe that was on Bill 25. In some components of this bill I read opportunities to take the pressure away from municipalities needing to deal with the compensation factor, and later on in the bill we'll get into that to a greater degree.

In real fact, if this system is going to work so that there is a true partnership with business, industries, individuals, municipalities, regional districts, the provincial government and, in some cases, the federal government, then there have to be protocols developed in order to follow through and meet the targets and objectives of the planning process. That was my point, and I wanted to reiterate it once again; it's very important.

I would only mention that if the member for Saanich North and the Islands is attempting to do this through this amendment, perhaps it could be redrafted in a way that signifies that correctly. Knowing that member, I don't believe he wants to put more power in the hands of the provincial government; indeed, I think he wants to obligate the provincial government to be an equal partner in this process and be prepared to meet the obligations that they will have flowing out of this process.

Hon. D. Marzari: I just want to tell the member categorically that regional growth strategies are general policies; they are not land use plans. They do not replace the individual municipality's ability to zone its land use. Okay?

The regional district is not engaged in microzoning of land here, and therefore we're not talking about strategies that will be in general conflict with the official community plans. We're talking about regional growth strategies that will be compatible with official community plans. Official community plans might be adjusted in accordance with the regional growth strategy. Therefore our strong opinion is that the regional growth strategies are not going to result in reduced land values or a necessity for compensation in any way, shape or form.

If an OCP gets amended by a municipality to bring it into conformity, into consistency, with a regional growth strategy, then we're not changing the goalposts there. The rules remain the same as they are now for OCPs and for changes that are made to municipal land use. Municipalities are in the same position and will be in the same position as they basically are now. We may not agree with what those goalposts might be in terms of long-range planning, but the fact is that this bill does nothing to change those goalposts or any rules around compensation.

[ Page 14095 ]

C. Tanner: Referring to what the minister said and to the previous speaker from Prince George-Omineca.... He is partly right about what our intentions are.

But we have another very strong fear in this whole suggested package of legislation. That's the fear that we've probably all experienced in our municipal capacities, which is that the provincial government didn't come through particularly -- not the municipal government, not the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, but the other provincial ministries. Highways comes to mind immediately and Environment comes to mind. For example, with zoning in the Islands Trust, the final signing-off authority is the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

They're signing off, would you believe, for Health; they're signing off for Environment; they're signing off for municipal governments; they're signing off for everybody. That's the final authority. The heartache and troubles they go through on the Gulf Islands to get any sort of plan through because one ministry doesn't cooperate with the other.... We have that problem within our own provincial government. What we're attempting to do is get a commitment from the government for the various ministries besides the lead authority in this case -- your ministry, Madam Minister.

If that's a problem in our own provincial government -- which we live with every day, and we can pick up the phone and talk -- imagine the problems we foresee with Crown corporations, which, by their very nature, boast of their independence and don't frequently even report to their ministers. We don't get their annual reports, because they are so independent. Then, on top of that, think of the federal government, which thumbs its nose at anybody beneath them, in their view. They will pay no attention to provincial ministers, because they think they've got -- well, they have -- the authority to pay no attention.

What we're attempting to do is to get the provincial ministries in line with the minister's plan, to get a commitment from Crown agencies that they also will follow the minister's plan -- because I don't see the commitment here in the legislation -- and at the same time send a warning signal to those federal departments which fall within the jurisdiction of the province that we can expect from them the very cooperation which we expect from our own ministries.

Hon. D. Marzari: It's obvious that no piece of provincial legislation is going to be able to mandate the federal government to sit down at the table. My knowledge of systems is that it's best to work with them when you've got a bill like this that starts to outline specifically how people must sit down and talk to each other -- or how they should sit down and talk to each other. As I said before, this bill wouldn't even be in the House if local governments didn't feel that it provided them with the contract with the provincial government that they need in order to deal with their problems.

This bill is basically in itself a commitment of the provincial government to do the problem-solving that you're talking about -- to solve the problems of water and air pollution, transportation gridlock and all those ails that lamentably affect the larger urban areas in our province. This is the contract, and as we sit down with each individual regional district or group of regional districts, the contracts that are signed between the regional districts and the provincial government will be the contracts that will implement the agreements, that will implement the plan. That is the nature, that is the substance, of what this bill is all about.

The intergovernmental advisory committees and the implementation agreements which are structured later in the bill provide this province's guarantee that the issues of urban sprawl and urban growth can be properly dealt with. They cannot be dealt with by fiat; they must be dealt with by the proper process -- sitting down, creating the tables, creating the agreement mechanisms, creating the dispute resolution mechanisms that will take us down the road to good contracts between the provincial government and local communities. Will this bill guarantee that? Will this bill actually say: "Thou shalt....

The provincial government shall guarantee certain transportation corridors 30 years down the road"? It cannot.

Bringing in the whole prospect of provincial sign-off on a regional strategy would kill it. As I said, it would remove the ownership of the strategy to the provincial government, and the regional government would find itself constantly lobbying provincial government as senior partner. This bill tries to create equal partners around a table, and pushes the concept of equal partnership to its logical conclusion, which means good contracts between negotiating parties. That is what the bill is about. I say -- and I'll say it again -- the intergovernmental advisory group and the implementation agreement

section in effect give the member what he's looking for here in a way which doesn't infringe on the autonomy of the local governments that drove this bill in the first place.

The Chair: I want to remind members that we are discussing the amendment. Any more discussion of the amendment?

C. Tanner: I can't help using that expression: "The path to hell is paved with good intentions." I suspect that's what we have here. I say that with the full knowledge that I know how much work members of the minister's ministry put into it. I appreciate what they've done, but I don't think....

My short experience in this House and my experience with local government has been that while we can get all sorts of cooperation from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, which deals with municipalities, we can't get cooperation from Highways, which has its own agenda. The Highways ministry will do what it likes, bar none. In fact, if you have one like we had a few years ago in the previous government -- a good few years ago -- which rode roughshod over the whole province at high speeds and did exactly what he wanted to do.... As a consequence, municipalities were chopped to pieces.

They had no recourse, except for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. But in that particular circumstance, the Minister of Highways was the impresario of development, and he got away with it all over the province.

The same thing can happen again in the Ministry of Environment. In fact, you might even say there is a comparison between the two now, because the Ministry of Environment seems to be the provincial ministry that has the clout. In my constituency, when anything happens -- and you have to apply to Nanaimo to get anything done -- you wait months before you get a reply from the Ministry of Environment, because they have their particular agenda which has nothing to do with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I don't think those guarantees are in this legislation.

I respect the minister for what she's attempting to do; I respect her staff for what they've attempted to do and for the efforts they've put into it. But the fact of the matter is that she

[ Page 14096 ]

doesn't have the clout to carry it in cabinet if the members of the other ministries don't want to do it. I'm trying to put it in here so that you have got the clout.

Hon. D. Marzari: I'll just wrap up the debate on the amendment by saying that the internal coordination between ministries has begun already, in preparation for the bill and for the unfolding of regional growth management. The Ministry of Highways has been more than cooperative, and in fact subdivision approvals are in the process of being devolved to regional districts that are prepared to accept subdivision approvals. This is a major step forward, a major step in the right direction, and it's just one of hundreds of initiatives that must be taken by the provincial government in order to pull themselves into line with regional needs and with growth management requirements.

This bill in itself, as I said, pulls all those agencies to the table; it demands that those agencies be pulled to the table. If the agencies are not at the table, there can be no growth strategy. If there is no growth strategy, there is not a function here; there is not a bill. These agencies will be at the table, and they are required to be at the table. So the bill gives the member all the assurances that he needs. It does not provide him with gold-plated guarantees that everything will run according to plan or according to Hoyle.

But it is the process that sets us off in this province in the right direction; it is the process of which local and provincial government have been able to say: "Yes, this is our first step. This is the step that we can take which will take us down the road to doing good contracts with each other." It's a planning bill in the best sense of the word.

[3:45]

C. Serwa: I think the amendment was perhaps well intentioned, but appears to be born in confusion and debated in confusion. I certainly can't support the amendment. Where we have the official opposition critic indicating that Crown corporations should be consulted, and we have the Leader of the Official Opposition saying all Crown corporations should be privatized.... Are we going to consult all corporations? It doesn't make any rational sense at all, and I think the last bit of debate on this amendment hasn't made any more sense than the official opposition has been making.

Interjections.

The Chair: On the amendment, member, may I advise the committee that we have indeed canvassed this amendment at some length now, and so I'm going to ask people to please focus their remarks rather considerably.

C. Tanner: I'm sorry -- because of the exuberance of the moment, I didn't hear what you were saying, Mr. Chairman. Could you just repeat it again for me, please?

The Chair: I simply made the point, member, that we have indeed canvassed this amendment at some length, and it would seem to me that our remarks, if there are any further required, ought to be very focussed indeed.

Shall the amendment pass?

C. Tanner: I wonder whether the minister and the Chairman, as a special consideration for the effort that I put into this, would stand this down for a while and we can go on to the next one. I have another amendment coming up.

The Chair: I don't see agreement to that, member; therefore I have to ask the question on the amendment. Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived.

D. Mitchell: Just one question on the

definitions

section before we move on, hopefully. The

section provides the definition of a facilitator. I know we're going to deal with that in a subsequent

section of the bill, but perhaps this might be an efficient way to ask this question. The facilitators that are contemplated here under this

definitions section, I understand, would be appointed by the minister to assist regional governments with developing a process for regional growth strategies. Who would these facilitators be? Could the minister inform the committee who she or the ministry might have in mind for these facilitators who might be appointed? Would they be public servants of the province of British Columbia? Would they be MLAs for the areas affected, which might be an interesting use of members of the House? I'm not sure if that's being contemplated or not.

I understand that if local governments get together to form a regional growth strategy, they could appoint their own facilitator, I would imagine. But this would be in the event that the minister might feel that a facilitator is important and would be necessary to help the process. The bill clearly doesn't say that the minister should or "shall" appoint a facilitator, but the minister "may" appoint a facilitator, so this is an optional process. I'm wondering if the minister can give us an idea of what category of professionals in the province of British Columbia might be contemplated to fill this important role of facilitator.

Hon. D. Marzari: There's no individual profession which we're referring to here; I imagine the job descriptions get written. But obviously we're looking for people with certain judgment, with planning skills, with organizational skills, and with the skill of being able to pull tables together tto ensure that there's a healthy debate and discussion of issues, problems and solutions for regional districts.

Obviously, a facilitator must be able to work well with the regions, and I can guarantee that the minister will not be making decisions around who the individual facilitators are without a full consultation with the regional districts involved. I would add that the facilitator must and should be compatible with, and have a reasonable working knowledge of and reasonable amicable relations with, the regional district that's engaged in that land use plan. It's a very special role which must be played, and it's also very important that the minister appoint the facilitator and pay for the facilitator.

D. Mitchell: Just to establish the last point the minister made -- that the minister should pay for the facilitator, as well -- I think that's an important point. If a facilitator is appointed by the minister to assist local governments with the process of developing a regional growth strategy, it is at the minister's

[ Page 14097 ]

discretion. Presumably it might happen if one or other of the local governing bodies affected prevail upon the minister and ask for some assistance and for a facilitator. The minister said that the ministry or the provincial government would pay for the facilitator. Can the minister tell us what is contemplated in terms of remuneration for a facilitator who might be appointed? Has there been any thought given to that?

If the individual was a public servant, presumably there would not be any extra budget required for that. But if the facilitator was an independent professional, a planner practising in the province, presumably there would be some remuneration. If putting together a growth strategy for a complex region was involved, the process could be a lengthy one -- it could go on for some time. So what kind of compensation would the minister have in mind?

Hon. D. Marzari: At the present time, I don't have a salary range in mind, though I'm also thinking about using existing staff to do some of the initial work here. If there's going to be contracting to be done, we'll discuss that down the road when the time comes closer for facilitators to be engaged or hired or sent to the regions. But as of this moment, there's no discussion or thinking through of what the pay scale or what the contract level might look like.

D. Mitchell: Just one final question, then, on this definition of facilitator. I think the minister inferred this in her first answer, but I'd like to just be clear on who the facilitator reports to. If the minister appointed the facilitator to assist with the local governing processes in developing a regional growth strategy, that facilitator would be working, by definition, very, very closely with the local government bodies -- whether they be regional districts, municipalities or what have you.

In order to have the trust and confidence of those bodies to function as a facilitator in that kind of environment, would the facilitator be reporting to those bodies? Or would the facilitator be reporting to, and therefore be taking direction directly from, the minister?

The reason I ask this question is that it's an important one relating to local government autonomy and to the independence of this process. The minister made the statement earlier in this debate, in this committee today, that this whole process of regional growth strategies has to come from the communities, from the local government bodies, not from the provincial government, and that this facilitator might play an extremely important

part in the process of putting together a regional strategy. Yet if the facilitator is reporting to the minister, and presumably therefore being paid by the minister and taking direction from the minister, it certainly has implications for the autonomy that she suggested earlier; in fact, it suggests that that autonomy might not be there.

Hon. D. Marzari: The facilitator is appropriately vested in the ministry and reports through the ministry, and that is where the role should be played. Obviously, the facilitator should also have good working relationships with the regional districts. The facilitator has no overt power except to facilitate, whether that facilitation be in the pulling together of the regional growth strategy in the beginning of the exercise, or whether it be in facilitating dispute resolution down the road, when there are local governments in conflict over particular provisions of the growth strategy act.

It's appropriate that the facilitator have one accountability -- that is, back to the ministry, because it's also the role of the ministry and the role of a provincial government to coordinate within itself to ensure that it is in fact pulling together the appropriate complex of interministerial functions to be able to answer the needs of the local communities.

So the facilitator does not have dual accountability; that is not an appropriate role to put anybody in -- you get shot in the front and stabbed in the back. I've discovered that anybody who is labelled "coordinator" ends up burning out very early on in a process. Single accountability, obviously with the local governments.... The regional government has every opportunity throughout the planning process to talk to the minister about the nature of the facilitation, and a facilitator is not a facilitator unless they are doing what they are hired to do. So, single accountability, but a good working relationship with any regional district that's doing its plan.

L. Reid: I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Reid: It's my pleasure to welcome to the galleries this afternoon 27 grade 7 students from Garden City Elementary School in my riding. They are accompanied by Mrs. D. Gilbert, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

C. Tanner: I have one final question. " 'Official community plan'...(

b) Part 1 of a rural land use bylaw..." -- could the minister tell us what that pertains to? We've already had one description which has been repealed. I was wondering whether this is still in action or if that's been repealed too.

Hon. D. Marzari: Apparently "Part 1 of a rural land use bylaw" is equivalent to an official community plan, obviously coming out of a rural area or an electoral district.

Section 7,

section 942.1 approved.

section 7,

section 942.11.

C. Tanner: Madam Minister, we agreed earlier on to keep to the.... Mr. Chairman, I think you agreed that we would talk about the

preamble and bring it in at the end, and it seems to me that we have another

preamble here. I don't see why we need this; it seems repetitious to me.

Section 942.11 reads fine as far as subsection (2)(

a) down to (

n) is concerned, without having this

preamble. If we do need it here.... Why do we need it in the first place?

Hon. D. Marzari: This is not a

preamble; this is basically a purpose of regional growth strategy. Each of these sub sections of this purpose

section has been carefully thought through with local government around the province. Mind you, many of the provisions in this statement of goals -- preventing urban sprawl and creating settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles, the efficient movement of people while making effective use of transportation corridors.... Goals like these don't particularly pertain to low-growth areas or areas which are not suffering the effects of unplanned growth. But when we carried these goals and statements of goals around the province for a year and a half and moulded them and changed them in accordance with

[ Page 14098 ]

what local governments said were the principles of planning and the principles that they wanted to see established in this act, these are the ones we came up with. Even the low-growth areas basically conferred and agreed, and consented that these goals would be a statement of what quality of life should be about, and what they would like to plan around were they to engage in a managed growth plan for their region. Far from being a

preamble, this is basically a statement of goals.

Mind you, it must also be stated that these goals are not mandatory. They are not carved in stone on the minds and the tablets of every regional district. Rather, we must call them something like guidelines and goals to assist regional districts to think through their own goals and their own particular problems, and to help them define what their top priorities are for intervention in their planning processes. When we read these goals from

section 942.11(2)(

a) to (n), we have to be mindful of the fact that they are not, as I say, carved in stone but are in fact a reflection of communities throughout British Columbia and their interest in the development of quality-of-life benchmarks for the province.

[4:00]

C. Tanner: I can't help but note that the goals in

section 942.11(2)(

a) to (

n) nicely fit the page. I sort of wonder, because it didn't go on to the next page, whether what motivated the minister in the consultation process was that or the fact that they ran out of ideas. There's one very obvious one missing. There should be a

section 942.11(2)(

o) added on the end, and it should say something like: "This secures the acceptance of first nation lands to growth strategy." There's a very notable absence of that goal.

I know we've had this discussion, and we're probably going to have it again, although it's been fairly extensive at

section 942.15. But the fact of the matter is that it isn't a goal, and it should be a goal. It's absolutely essential. In most municipalities, to my knowledge, they've got problems with reserve lands. Why isn't there something down here, at least as a goal, that it's what the minister and her bureaucrats want to obtain?

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

L. Fox: Contrary to the official opposition critic, I strongly believe that this is the meat of the whole program in this

section and, I think, deserves a lot of debate around the principles of this bill and of each section.

The first observation that I had when I read through this.... I was quite concerned, because nowhere else in the bill can I find it addressed. With the growing need that we have in the fast-growing areas of this province for identification of, for instance, school sites, we see nothing in this legislation that would allow this strategy to work collectively with school boards in identifying educational sites for schools. That's number one.

Along with that same frame of mind, I was quite amazed in the Education estimates when I asked the minister whether he'd had any dialogue with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The problem of acquiring sites is a very real problem in school districts in British Columbia, particularly in the Surreys, Richmonds and Vancouvers, where we have growing numbers of children. Yet that particular problem, which is a very real one, is not identified in this section. Could the minister give the committee some rationale as to why it should not be included in the growth strategy plan?

Hon. D. Marzari: Well, basically, the goal of limiting "urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be provided in a timely...manner" certainly must refer to the social infrastructure goals that you've referred to here.

Throughout the course of the bill, in terms of who the local governments must confer with, school districts are outlined as one of the agencies that must be conferred with or consulted with. On the next page of the bill, in the next section, we're talking about regional matters and regional agencies that must be pulled in, or we're talking about services which must be allowed for and planned for by regional districts.

The exclusion of education was not intentional, but I do believe it's basically contained within the very first goal -- the business of avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that we've got public facilities and services, land and other resources adding to the quality of life in a community, and not detracting from it.

L. Fox: I guess my only observation would be about that answer is that we do make some rather "motherhood" statements in this particular section. It would seem to me that education should qualify, if it were truly of value to this government, in that we could have very easily identified that as one of the main objectives.

Because there truly is a kind of real regional problem with respect to growth, so I would like the minister to put something more definite on the record that indeed encouragement will be given to these new strategies to organize, promote and orchestrate cooperation between school districts and this new planning process to deal with the specific issues around acquisition of school sites and planning for acquisition of those school sites. I think it really deserves a statement from the minister to identify that as something we should be addressing through this process.

Hon. D. Marzari: I understand the member's concern. Obviously, I felt that the opening statement and the goals covered healthy communities and those basic pieces of infrastructure -- from schools to day care centres to hospitals to courthouses -- that make up the basic rubric of what a community's all about. And certainly I can guarantee that this government is working toward trying to create an appropriate planning atmosphere for the selection of school sites.

So I will just take that under advisement and guarantee the member that in fact school sites are very much a part of the agenda of this government and of the Ministry of Education, and leave it at that. But basically the goals here outlined are the goals that have come to us through an 18-month consultation process with local government itself. And school boards are very much incorporated into the consultative process.

C. Serwa: Referring to

section 942.11(

a) under "avoiding urban sprawl," I want to talk briefly about that because this has a significant role to play in urban sprawl and what has occurred in the province. I'm looking at the government that is probably responsible for the greatest theft imposed upon a free people by a duly elected government. I'm talking about the agricultural land reserve, which you're the authors of,

[ Page 14099 ]

where a small percentage of the people who happen to own that land are paying the price for the green space that you happen to enjoy.

But that's not the issue. Under this section.... With respect to urban sprawl, one of the realities that occurs in my constituency is the fact that the agricultural land reserve has prevented good, sound urban planning. We have a very large community -- Kelowna was one of the places which underwent, through your government, a forced amalgamation process. So the city of Kelowna is very large in area. It contains a great deal of agricultural land.

That agricultural land has increased the cost of development and also imposed on the community a hopscotch type of development, where some parcels can be developed and other parcels cannot be developed. So the infrastructure costs are much higher; the planning room has gone away. Actually, legislation this government -- a former administration -- brought in prevents doing what you're proposing to do, which is to prevent urban sprawl. So perhaps the minister could enlighten me on how she's going to plan for something that is already in place, and which is creating urban sprawl in the central Okanagan.

Hon. D. Marzari: I simply want to assure the member that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Agricultural Land Commission are very much in the consultation loop. I know there are particular difficulties around land use in the Okanagan. I understand that the Okanagan is in the throes of a very serious transition in terms of its growing urban densities. I can only assure the member that the Okanagan is going to be very much inside the growth management strategy. It has spent a number of years trying to work together between the three regional districts on various issues -- starting with water, basically.

This legislation will now give the Okanagan an opportunity to have a facilitated discussion around how it wants to proceed, and how it must proceed.

The planning solution coming out of the Okanagan might be, and probably will be, extremely different from the planning solution that we will see on the east coast of the Island, or in the Greater Vancouver Regional District up to Hope. I can only assure the member that the table will be there: the Ministry of Agriculture will be there; the agriculture land reserve will be there. The discussions will emanate from that Okanagan table -- not from a debate in the Legislature, but from the local community itself.

C. Serwa: From listening to the minister's response, then, the Agricultural Land Commission will be there. But will they be sensitive to the needs of the community and the planning process within the community? What's happening at the present time works against the community. First, I spoke about the urban aspect and the type of urban sprawl that is encouraged -- that is made mandatory -- by the present legislation and the unwillingness of the Agricultural Land Commission to recognize that a community has to have space to live and grow.

The other downside of this is with respect to agriculture. The farmers who are entrapped within an urban development find that they're fundamentally victimized, once again, because of the rural-urban conflict that occurs. Certainly with respect to orchard lands, spraying, noise and also the imposition of using the orchard as a playground for the high-density areas around it make a very, very difficult type of problem.

I hope that in this planning process, where the concern with urban sprawl is, there is some strong mandate to bring all of the players to the table to address all of the concerns and requirements of all of the participants involved, because if you do not, then there's no hope of managing urban sprawl.

Hon. D. Marzari: That is the essence of the bill.

G. Wilson: The reason I ask the questions I do on

section 942.11 is the implications in

section 942.14, which is where there are mandatory or ministerial requirements with respect to these growth strategies. Everything up to

section 942.14 talks about how the minister "may," the regional districts "may" and the local governments "may," and it tends to be somewhat open and discretionary. But in

section 942.14, which we'll get to very shortly, hopefully, all of that discretion is eliminated. We start to get down to some things that must be done. We'll talk about that. When we look at this, one of the things I notice is that in a number of these subsections in 942.11(2), subsections (

a) through (n), even though it says they should work toward.... I'm anticipating that the minister is going to say that this is something that is a general goal objective, and therefore it is not something they have to do overnight.

Some of these recommendations, however, have very clear cost implications to local government. That's what causes me some concern. Since this bill has come forward, I have had a chance to get on my phone and consult with a whole series of planners and regional district reps. Having come out of the regional district system after being elected at that level of government for a number years, I have contacted people I know in the system, and all of them to an individual -- and I should put this on the record -- congratulated the minister with respect to the consultation that has been undertaken with this bill.

Even though they don't agree with everything in it, they agree with most of what's in it.

The one area where they do have some real concern is the question of these growth strategies that are going to have cost implications for local governments. One of them is (i): "...adequate inventories of suitable land and resources for future settlement...." If we're going to have a proper inventory, inventory development, land use mapping and the kind of geotechnical work that needs to be done, that is going to imply dollars; there has to be some money spent.

[4:15]

Similarly, we talk under (

b) about the use of settlement patterns that minimize the automobile and move toward efficient public transit. Public transit is clearly something that most local governments would like to encourage and enhance and see grow in their communities. But again, there are cost implications with respect to contracts awarded -- particularly in light of some of the controversies that have existed in the province over the last little while.

I'm concerned that when we start to look at the sections in here that are not really generic, in the sense that they're not motherhood -- and some of this in here is -- these growth strategies imply costs to local governments. Can the minister tell us what plan...? There's nothing in here that really suggests that, and therefore there must be some plan to provide the necessary funding for the kind of work that the minister is advocating be done.

[ Page 14100 ]

Most regional districts have staff that are pretty much doing all they can right now under their traditional planning functions. The last thing we want to do is duplicate the planning function between municipalities within regional districts, or in regional districts that have companion plans. We don't want to duplicate the expense. Is there an overall strategy that would put together some money to do the kind of broad-based, integrated land use planning and inventory development that would greatly facilitate these plans? If so, where is that spelled out in this section?

Hon. D. Marzari: This bill doesn't go into an inventory of land use planning and the processes that are now engaged in by this provincial government to work with resource areas. This plan basically works inside those areas that haven't been dealt with by other land use planning processes in the province. It intersects with them, but it doesn't outline how it intersects with them. This is something that we have to work on and develop as time goes by. In fact, the interministerial committees will, I hope, start to inform that process.

Basically, these goals don't even begin to talk about what mechanics have to be brought to bear in order to solve the problems that municipalities and regions may identify. If a region identifies with these goals -- or a certain number of these goals, or five or six of these goals -- and decides that a strategic and action plan is going to relate to these goals, the implementation agreements and all of the interministerial and Crown agency consultations have to come together to do some implementation and problem solving. There's nothing in here that will say how this problem is going to be solved; that comes later on. As you said, Mr. Member,

section 942.14 is where you start to engage the processes to ensure that the problems get solved.

If the member is saying that there's no commitment or money to meet these goals, I can assure the member that, in effect, money comes -- provincial dollars flow, federal dollars flow and taxpayers' dollars flow -- when a community comes to an understanding that it has a finite problem that can be solved using solutions 1 through 10, each one of them carrying a cost.

Long-range financial planning for a community means that those taxpayers' dollars will be found, just as they have been found for the infrastructure program, for example, where communities have articulated their goals for the last 20 years, saying they needed hard services in the ground to maintain the quality of life, quality of water and sewage disposal in their communities. Nobody complained about there not being any money around to do a hard-service delivery when the infrastructure program was delivered to us.

When the federal government came along and said, "We'll provide 33-cent dollars," municipalities in this province rallied to the flag -- and so did the provincial government. In fact, we're one of the few provinces that said: "We want to continue this program, and we're putting more money on the line."

So lack of dollars is not the issue as much as taxpayer willingness to outline some goals, say where the problems are, get on with the job of creating the will to be taxed and put dollars on the line to do things that need to be done. Communities will find that way. They'll find that way through developing their own dollars and their own tax base, or through signing contracts with provincial governments, provincial Crown agencies or the federal government to see that it is done. As I say, the infrastructure program in the last year is a perfect example of that.

G.

Wilson: I don't take issue with what the minister has said, except to say it is clear that while most people want to have adequate sewers and proper water systems and those kinds of services available to them -- and they don't particularly mind paying for them if their services are adequate and they recognize the need -- the one thing that I hear a chorus of as I travel around the province and consult with people from virtually every region is that they are becoming extremely alarmed at the size and cost of local government in relation to the size and cost of the provincial government in relation to the size and cost of the federal government.

So the infrastructure program which has been alluded to by the minister might be very useful. In fact, I think my own riding has had five approved projects, and I'm very pleased about that and work very hard to make sure that that money continues to come in.

But the fact is that it is all taxpayers' money. What I'm getting at here is that it would strike me, if the requirement is.... When we get to

section 942.14.... The reason I want to link those two now, with indulgence of the Chair, is because under that.... "On the recommendation of the minister...a regional growth strategy must be developed and adopted...." It's not a "may"; there are no "mays" at this point. A regional growth strategy "must" be adopted.

So you ask yourself: what is this regional growth strategy? Well, that's what we read in this:

section 942.11 is what it is. There are issues in here that the minister may very well insist be in that plan, which is going to have a cost implication to local government and which is going to be passed on down to the taxpayer. Yet the local government really has no control over things like transit development or transportation utility corridor development. The local government can't control that.

I remember when the Sunshine Coast tried to get its share of revenue off the natural gas pipeline that went right through the middle of our regional district, and we couldn't even cut the same deal that was cut in the interior municipalities, because the previous government had negotiated a deal with the gas company. So we didn't have any opportunity to try and deal with that issue even though it affected our local planning.

My question is: if this is going to be the set of criteria which constitutes a regional growth strategy, is the government then committing -- if it is going to require local government to put this in place -- to provide that local government with the necessary resources to make that happen? That's my question, and then I have another question with respect to the inventory.

Hon. D. Marzari: In the interest of brevity, the answer to the question is yes.

G. Wilson: Those elected members of local government and planners -- who tuned into this debate after I telephoned them earlier on this morning to let them know that it would be on -- will be absolutely delighted to hear the minister say that. I'm sure the letters are being typed now as we speak.

My last question on this

section deals with the "adequate inventories of suitable land." As the minister knows, one of the things that the Alliance and I, as leader of the Alliance, have been very, very keen on since my election in '91 is the development of a proper land and resource inventory for British Columbia. It strikes me that this is a perfectly reasonable vehicle to accommodate that, and I think that this is what we can do.

[ Page 14101 ]

I'm hoping, with respect to those inventories, that we might include documentation of material in some kind of compatible form that already exists. I'm thinking, for example, of the mapping and the kind of zoning that was done in my own area -- as an elected member of the regional district -- only to find that we had very, very detailed and very useful maps already completed by B.C. Tel. We didn't realize that if you get a compatible system, there can be many different sets of materials that can provide the kind of inventory we need for exactly what's being developed here.

I wonder if the minister might just say, with respect to the "adequate inventories of suitable land and resources for future settlement," if the minister indeed envisages that this might provide the base for the provincial inventory of land and resources that is so necessary. It strikes me that very few areas of the province are not included within a regional district, or that very few areas in which growth and development are occurring are not under some kind of local government. If that's the case, and if there's a commitment to it, I think it would certainly enhance the will of those people in local government to get on with the job.

Hon. D. Marzari: This bill doesn't pretend to be the overall land use plan for the province. It does patch in, though, to a resource and land use plan that the province has been putting together, which is coupled with the parks, recreational and protected-areas plan that we have put together in the last three years. This is the urban component of that overall picture, you might say. Down the road I certainly hope that we would have an overall picture and plan and even perhaps a compatible system that can pull in the appropriate map, so that everyone can see where they are and where the land use planning is inside and on the fringes of their community.

In terms of the "adequate inventories of suitable land and resources," I think the member is trying to expand that into a notion that it's basically a planning tool to ensure that every community has a land bank and a resource for future expansion. If that is in fact a community's top priority, obviously we all have to pay attention to that. The provincial government has to pay attention to that in the context of community priorities.

But I cannot at this point say that this clause or this goal can be used to say that we are using this legislation as an overall land use plan, land inventory or land bank for the province. Rather, it's simply a statement from a number of communities that it would be useful and a top priority for them to be able to acquire some land -- which need not be all that expensive for communities if we bring the right players to the table and do some appropriate planning with, for example, Crown Lands, which owns 90 percent of the land in the province.

L. Fox: I'm pleased to enter back into the debate. I guess my observations have been, particularly in the rural parts of the province, that.... My discussions have been primarily with the politicians, not with the planning department. I would not be surprised if the planner would welcome any expansion of planning. I mean, I've known many planners in my days, and anytime they want to expand their departments they certainly are capable of identifying the need and making a good, strong argument.

But, from talking to the politicians, I want to say that most rural municipal and regional district politicians I've spoken to have really not paid a lot of attention to this legislation, because they understand that they can opt into it. Because of that, they don't envision that their area is a growing area, so really haven't spent a lot of time consuming.... Even though the minister has attempted -- as has the UBCM -- to inform municipalities of this legislation, they haven't really given it....

Those communities and regional districts that do not see themselves in a fast-growing scenario have not paid a lot of attention to it. But aside from that, there are a couple of issues that I'm really, really concerned about. Although we can address them to some degree in later sections, I think they should be addressed at this time.

The member from the Sunshine Coast alluded to one: in many of these categories contained within this section, there are going to be some costs identified. Realistically, as we talked about earlier, there's going to be a need for those costs to be identified in order to (1) have good, effective planning, and (2) look after real property interests and the impact it's going to have on property values.

[4:30]

I know what the minister said earlier with respect to that, and I understand full well that planning in itself does not immediately have any impact on property value. In real terms it does, however. If I have a particular vacant lot that is planned rural or residential.... The opportunity may exist to have high density contained in there, but if we identify in that area a need to set aside property for a future transportation corridor, a future school site or whatever the case may be, it immediately renders my property of less value; and I can't do anything with it in terms of developing, because it's being considered in the planning process.

I have to come back to the argument that I've made before. When we start to do that, we should identify what the real value of that property is that's fair to municipal, regional and provincial governments as well as to the property owner. There should be some recognition that, yes, if we choose this corridor, here's what the overall costs are going to be. Therefore we can set up a protocol where we can deal with those issues immediately with those landowners. It does a number of things. I think it's upfront, and it provides us with cost-effectiveness in terms of our planning.

We can then decide on corridors that are pleasing aesthetically as well as perhaps suitable financially. I think it brings some credibility into the process. I would first suggest that if we can't accept that that should be a principle, then we have a real problem.

The other issue I have here.... I'll ask them both at the same time. When we look at some of the highlighted areas -- at housing; at reducing and improving the environment; at water control, both groundwater and surface water -- we start to sit back and ask who is going to end up with the responsibility of mitigating any impact of any policy. I think there's a real possibility that the province would be in a position, without those protocols in place up front, to say: "That's your policy. That's beyond our ability to deal with currently. If you want to resolve it, you folks within that region can pay for it." That's a real concern, and it's not clearly articulated within this legislation.

Those two issues, I believe, are very, very important and key to this particular section. We should have some principle statements on how those are going to be addressed by this minister.

[ Page 14102 ]

Hon. D. Marzari: The first issue has to do with.... I believe the member is pulling a deja vu: he's bringing Bill 25 from last year onto the floor of the House again. At that point we decided that we would not be engaging in long-range planning -- which we really do need -- because of private property rights and the lack of compensation which can be afforded right up front, when and if a transportation corridor is allocated.

I think the court in Maple Ridge said that unless a capital plan of a municipality basically reflects its long-range plans, there can't really be a long-range plan or an allocation of a transportation corridor, which says that long-range planning is more than a little difficult. This legislation does not address the issues raised by Bill 25, nor does it promise that there will be long-range planning without compensation. It basically states that these are tables to sit around; if you want to do long-range planning, you should do it legally.

There is no changing of the goalposts around compensation or lack of compensation from previous legislation; and OCPs and municipalities have all the powers that they have now to compensate or not compensate. So that deals with item number one, in effect. Down the road, we'll have to make some pretty strong decisions about the ability of capital plans to actually pay compensation for a transportation corridor that may be in the offing, but that is not within the framework of this bill. So basically, that deals with that.

The second point I believe the member raised had to do with downloading that he perceived might occur if we were to take each one of these goals and a municipality or a region were to adopt each one and say: "Okay, this one is going to cost us such-and-such, and this will cost us such-and-such." I believe he is afraid that the municipality will say: "If we adopt the third goal and the provincial government is not prepared to pay for it, then we will be forced to pay for it ourselves and to raise our taxes accordingly."

These goals are a checklist for communities to use in the development of their regional growth strategy. They are not mandatory pieces of an overall recipe to make the perfect cake. Municipalities or regions can buy in or buy out of these goals. We are simply suggesting that these are some of the areas which should be investigated. In fact, municipalities and regions themselves said that these are the things they think they should be addressing.

Down the road, the contracts will determine what can get funded and what can't get funded, and those contracts might reflect differently in different regions. Different regions might decide that they do have the will or the commitment to get on with particular projects on their own. In other areas -- like transportation, for example -- they'll be coming to the provincial government for help. If they have an affordable housing program, they will definitely be coming to the provincial government, and possibly even to the federal government -- if there is any affordable housing coming out of the federal government within the next decade.

There is no compunction here to subscribe to or vest financial interest in these goals. The municipalities and regions are not being forced to adopt an expensive solution if they happen to adopt these goals. Rather, the framework that's established here, using these goals as a checklist, is basically the creation of a table where all the interests can sit -- the local government and the interministerial interests of the provincial government and Crown agencies -- to try to arrive at some solutions.

If the regions want those solutions to be affordable -- and I'm sure they do, as do we -- the contracts will reflect the ability of the region and the province to come together and cost-share or create contracts which will solve transportation problems, which will put in water distribution networks or put in sewage disposal units that will be affordable in the long haul.

The advantage here is that there is a plan in place, and that everybody can understand that plan and see what the expenses might be five, ten or 15 years down the road. That's what planning affords the region here. It is not a recipe for downloading by any stretch of the imagination; it's simply an ability for communities in the province to work together to come up with some good problem-solving.

L. Fox: I guess part of the reason I asked that question -- and I think it's going to become more and more relevant as we march through the rest of the bill -- is that there's little to no opportunity, or any particular function, once a respective municipality opts into the program, to opt out for a 20-year period. There's going to be a lot of questions asked, in terms of these responsibilities and the obligation one will carry when signing on to a particular area.

What I understand from the minister's answer is that each situation, or each region, may be treated differently, depending on the provincial government, I guess, identifying a perceived need, priorities or whatever. That sounds to me like it's a bit of the provincial agenda driving it, instead of the local agenda. If that's not the case, I'm not sure I understand how the government would then make the determination that one area or specific region should be treated differently in the contract than another region. Perhaps the minister might clarify that for me.

Hon. D. Marzari: I didn't mean to leave the impression that it is the provincial government making all the determining moves here. The determining moves are made by the planning process at the regional level. It's the regional government that determines what its priorities are. Of course, when you're sitting down at a table as a regional politician, you're not going to ask for pie in the sky. You're not going to say that you need a 3,000-bed hospital in a small community; it's not realistic.

You're sitting down, making your plans, looking at your priorities, thinking about the needs of the community and working with an interministry agency -- a group of senior people from the various ministries of the provincial government and the Crown agencies; you're sitting down and saying: "These are our priorities." You, as a regional board, are driving it, because you've got your plan in place and your municipalities are onside, and woe betide the provincial government if they don't come along with a decent response to your priorities.

The driver here is the local government; the context is a partnership. The final outcome is a series of contracts, and regions might ask for different contracts and different solutions to their problems. They'll have the advice; they'll have the facilitation of the provincial government; and, hopefully, the provincial government gets a better planning framework out of this so that it can look a few years down the road with different communities and say: "Yes, we can live with this" or"This is something we can do" or"This we can fit into the five-year plan" -- inside highways, for example.

It makes for a win-win situation for everybody, not a top-down decision by the provincial government that it's going to do such-and-so here and such-and-so over there. It basically

[ Page 14103 ]

provides everybody with a planning format so that they can do some decent capital planning.

The Chair: Shall

section 942.11 pass? The member for Saanich North and the Islands.

C. Tanner: That's the first time, Mr. Chairman, you've missed me. You need a mirror up there so you can see behind you.

I have two problems with this particular section: subsections (

h) and (i). They're both the same problem we tried to pass our amendment for, because they both concern something which is outside the purview of the municipalities or the regions.

In the second one,

section 942.11(2)(i), we're talking about the Agricultural Land Commission. Since this government has been in office, the Agricultural Land Commission has shown a reluctance to make any decisions -- that I've heard of, certainly in my constituency -- which have been of assistance to anybody other than themselves. While I don't necessarily disa