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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 21

[ Page 14125 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. E. Cull: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today Rosemary Barnes, who is President of the B.C. Real Estate Association, and 65 representatives from the B.C. Real Estate Association who have been meeting with members of the assembly over the last day or two. So I'd like to ask all the members to make them most welcome.

G. Campbell: For the last year I have been one of the newest members of the House, and I'm pleased to say that that will not be the case shortly. I would like to introduce to the House today the newest, the MLA-elect for Abbotsford, Mr. John van Dongen.

F. Gingell: I had the very nice privilege of lunching today with two charming ladies who are also acquaintances of the member for Saanich North and the Islands. So will the House please welcome Christine Tanner, wife of the hon. member, and Rebecca Tanner, daughter of the hon. member.

L. Stephens: In the House today and visiting the premises are 29 elementary school students with their teacher, Mr. Wiebe, from Langley Prairie Fundamental School in Langley. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: Although the Minister of Finance introduced the people from the Cariboo Real Estate Association, it's not often I get to introduce someone here who comes all the way down from Fort St. John. But it's certainly my pleasure today to introduce to the House Kim Mackay, a realtor from Fort St. John who is here with the Cariboo Real Estate Association. Would the House please make her welcome.

G. Wilson: Today we have four guests with us from the community of Abbotsford: Barbara Wightman and her daughter, Rosalind Delmonico, and her delightful daughter, Courtney Delmonico, and her aspiring political son, Andrew Delmonico. Would the House please make them all welcome.

L. Stephens: Also in the House today, visiting with the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board, are constituents from Langley: Mick Stiksma, Margaret Shaw, Wayne Mulyk and Trudy Lancelyn. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Every year at this time a group of dedicated parents and teachers in Port McNeill bring a high school class down to the Legislature. They are with us again here today -- students, parents and teachers -- from North Island Secondary in Port McNeill, and I'd ask the members to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Class Proceedings Act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At this time I would like to introduce Bill 16, Class Proceedings Act. In the spring of 1994 the government announced that it would undertake to develop class action legislation. That announcement, made approximately a year ago, was the first step in the government's promise to offer hope to groups of people who have been overlooked by the justice system.

Over the summer of 1994, extensive consultation took place with all parties who were interested in assisting the government in the development of this legislation. The Ministry of Attorney General received numerous submissions from a wide variety of British Columbians, who offered their valuable advice on the shape of class action legislation for this province.

I'm pleased to introduce today a bill that reflects the interest contained in those submissions. Bill 16 will allow individuals to apply to the court to bring a civil action as a group, and to seek redress for injury or damages caused by the same or similar circumstances. Class actions have been used in other jurisdictions in legal actions involving consumer goods, civil rights, securities, competition laws, environment and other areas. In British Columbia, Bill 16 will allow women injured by silicone gel implants to benefit from class proceedings legislation.

Bill 16 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. D. Marzari presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. D. Marzari: The Home Owner Grant Act provides a measure of property tax relief for B.C. homeowners who live in their own homes. For hundreds of thousands of British Columbians, this program has made it a little easier to afford a home. The legislative amendment I am introducing today will further increase access to this program by extending eligibility for homeowner grants to occupants of all housing cooperatives and equity housing societies.

These forms of housing already make a significant contribution to the supply of affordable housing in British Columbia, and their importance is growing. The Ministry of Housing's Homes B.C. program supports housing cooperatives and equity housing societies in order to increase the supply of affordable housing. Typically, people who live in these units are in the low to moderate income range and cannot afford conventional home-ownership. This legislative amendment will have a positive impact by making their housing more affordable.

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 14126 ]

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF FOREST PRACTICES CODE ON NORTHERN COMMUNITIES

G. Campbell: My question is to the Deputy Premier. On the weekend I was in Williams Lake at a meeting with members of the North Central Municipal Association. All members of the North Central Municipal Association are concerned about the potential reduction in annual allowable cut as a result of the Forest Practices Code. I wonder if the Deputy Premier would be willing to make available to all members of the North Central Municipal Association the studies that have been done by the Ministry of Forests and Wild Stone Resources, including the assumptions of those studies, so that they can prepare for any changes that may take place as a result of the introduction of the Forest Practices Code.

Hon. E. Cull: I would be happy to take the question on notice for the Minister of Forests.

[2:15]

The Speaker: The member has a new question?

G. Campbell: This question is also for the Deputy Premier. As you know, this government promised to be open with British Columbians. A number of reports have evidently been done by the Ministry of Forests, prepared by Wild Stone Resources. In the past, the Premier has said that he would make those reports available.

Will the Deputy Premier undertake to get in touch with the northern communities to include them in the discussions about any strategy for the future so that we don't have to have the kind of quick response team that the government is quickly trying to throw together for the Kootenays, and the northern communities can prepare for any changes in their livelihood as a result of changes in government policy?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm surprised to hear that question from this member. These are the people who voted against the forest renewal strategy, which is working with communities in this province to ensure that we secure jobs through forest sustainability throughout British Columbia.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

K. Jones: Last Monday at a conference in Vancouver, the Minister of Government Services criticized charities for not being vocal enough about their support for the NDP's policy to introduce government-run video lottery terminals. The Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit has called for the elimination of existing illegal VLTs through strict law enforcement. CLEU has made it very clear that there should be no expansion of gambling in B.C. Can the Minister of Government Services tell us why he has decided to ignore the advice of CLEU?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Despite several statements that I have given over the last two or three days, the member opposite doesn't seem to have a clue. It is the intention of this government to bring about a comprehensive policy on gaming in British Columbia within the next four to six weeks, with a specific inclusion of gaming for first nations.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

K. Jones: To the same minister. Dozens of communities across B.C. have passed motions condemning the NDP's VLT policy, and many have also enacted bylaws that forbid VLTs altogether. Will the minister assure all British Columbians that these municipal bylaws will be respected so as to protect communities who do not want an expansion of gambling?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can assure the member and this House that there will be a comprehensive provincial policy on gaming announced within the next four to six weeks, and many of the questions that he and others have raised will be addressed.

SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FINANCING

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Education. This government has doubled the debt loaned through the School Districts Capital Financing Authority. Yet an internal audit by the comptroller general suggests:

"The ministry has no procedures to verify that approved capital funding was spent for approved purposes...The ministry does not obtain or review documentation to support payments made by school districts for capital projects...Decisions to finance school district capital projects...are not made in the context of the province's overall financing strategy...."

How can the government possibly agree to spend $1.3 billion when it has no guarantee that the money is going to be spent for the purposes approved?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: This government supports publicly administered, publicly funded public education, and we do so by putting funds where our mouths are. We are proud of the accomplishments of building capital facilities throughout the province in response to the needs of children and families. However, we are to some degree hobbled by some poor policy left in place by the previous administration, of whom the member opposite knows much. The audit to which he refers dates back to 1992. We are doing our best to continue to clean up the mess left by the previous administration and will continue to do so.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The comptroller general notes that this current government reversed the capital approval process. Indeed, he goes on to note that as a result of those changes, "...there is...a risk that capital projects could be undertaken and financed...without Treasury Board approval [because]...Actual capital funds spent by districts and institutions, and the timing of these expenditures, are never reported and compared...." How in the world can this government put taxpayers $1.3 billion further in debt and not have the kinds of controls the comptroller general believes you should have?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I find it greatly ironic that the member opposite was part of a previous administration that had a very poor process in place for approvals of capital expenditures. The process has been much improved by this government having brought in a cash flow management system that's much superior to the capital envelope system that the previous administration used. I would also point out what

[ Page 14127 ]

we discovered upon assuming government: there were commitments made and funds in excess of $100 million dedicated and hanging out in the system. They were not accounted for, no process was in place for them; and we are still trying to clean up that mess.

REDUCTION OF HOME-CARE SUPPORT SERVICES

M. de Jong: My question is to the Minister of Health. Some 65,000 British Columbians depend upon home-care support to live independently and with dignity. Many of those people were left without services for the past six months, until the strike that was very recently resolved ended. Their reward for enduring the strike has been to receive notification from the Ministry of Health that as a result of a new classification system, they're no longer eligible for home-care support. My question to the minister is: how can he defend this very callous decision to abandon the sick and elderly whose dignity depends on their ability to receive home support services?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, in spite of some of the concerns about the home support strike -- which went on too long -- essential service legislation was in place, and essential home support services were provided. The member opposite knows that.

I agree with the member that home support is an essential element of ensuring the necessary support for those who wish to live independently and at home. That's why funding for home support rose 32 percent over the first three years of this administration. At the same time, we have a responsibility to make sure that the services are going where they're needed. That is why -- in his riding, as in others -- we've asked those providing home support to review eligibility for the housekeeping part of home support services to make sure that they are provided where they are needed. Where they are not needed, we make adjustments.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: With the greatest respect, those are very hollow words indeed for the 755 patients in Abbotsford alone that are affected by this decision. They're outraged, and they're lighting up the phone lines at constituency offices across the valley. I would like to know from the minister what he would have me say to Mr. and Mrs. Anderson, who at 80 years of age, blind and disabled...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Proceed, hon. member.

M. de Jong: ...have just been told by this minister's officials that the minimal home support, which enables them to live with dignity and independently, is being withdrawn. What does he have to say to Mr. and Mrs. Anderson and the countless others whom his ministry has abandoned?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I suggest that the member opposite tell his constituents that this government intends to support medicare and to continue to increase funding for it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I also advise him to tell his constituents that if a mistake has been made, there is an appeal process in place. His constituents should go to the public health unit and seek appeal to make sure that needed services are provided. That is the direction I've given the staff on this thing.

The hollow words in this Legislature are the words from the member opposite, who on the one hand keeps saying, "More, more, more; fund more," and the other hand says: "Fund less, less, less. The cuts have been too little." Which is it, up or down, hon. member?

FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Attorney General. Recently, Nelson Riis, an NDP MP from Kamloops, voted against the Liberal gun control bill. Just yesterday, the governments of Alberta and Yukon and the Saskatchewan NDP government called on Ottawa to withdraw Bill C-68 or at least to implement it only in Ontario and Quebec on a trial basis. Will the government of B.C. join with other western provinces, including the NDP government of Saskatchewan, in having this onerous and intrusive piece of legislation withdrawn?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The prairie Attorneys General were, I believe, testifying in front of the parliamentary committee. Among other things, they made a number of recommendations for amendments to the proposed bill, which I have also made in my discussions with the federal minister -- proposals we made at the federal-provincial meeting in January here in Victoria and which have more recently been endorsed by the Canadian Police Association, which says that when these amendments are made, as they should be, the police across Canada will be supporting that amended bill.

APPEAL OF WAYNE SULLIVAN VERDICT

J. Dalton: I have a question for the Attorney General. In April of this year, Crown counsel decided not to appeal the verdict of Wayne Sullivan of Prince George, who shot and killed his wife. Sullivan was found not criminally responsible, partly because he was intoxicated at the time. Now, to add insult to injury, he is insisting on the survivor benefits of his wife's estate.

The Attorney General has refused to launch an appeal of this verdict to the Supreme Court of Canada, despite the very dangerous precedent it sets. Can the Attorney General explain the rationale for not appealing this decision?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll take that question on notice.

ABORIGINAL GAMING POLICY

G. Wilson: My question is to the minister responsible for gaming. In light of the breakoff of discussions between the province and aboriginal communities, will the minister tell us what action he or members of his staff are taking with federal officials to seek amendments to the Indian Act and the Criminal Code of Canada to prevent aboriginals from acting unilaterally on this matter in the province?

[ Page 14128 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I want the House to know that it has never been the intention of this government to treat gaming as an aboriginal right. I am very clearly and firmly of the view that one law applies to all British Columbians. We would expect them, whether they are first nations or other people in British Columbia, to obey the laws of British Columbia as well as the Criminal Code of Canada.

ROBERTS BANK BACKUP LANDS LEASES FOR TENANT FARMERS

F. Gingell: My question is for the minister responsible for lands. The minister should be aware that almost two years ago the tenant farmers of the provincially owned Roberts Bank backup lands were promised new leases that recognize this government's commitment to the dedication of these lands to agricultural use. This promise was made by the Premier.

By following through on this promise, the minister could accomplish three things: first, she could help preserve agricultural activity in the lower Fraser Valley; second, she would encourage investment directed at improvement and regeneration of these important agricultural lands; and third, this might help repair the tarnished and tattered credibility of the Premier on the issue of keeping his promises. Will the minister, new in the role, today make the commitment to follow through on this promise?

Hon. E. Cull: I will take that question on notice.

[2:30]

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice.

The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In

Section A, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; and in the House, I call committee stage on Bill 11.

GROWTH STRATEGIES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

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

section 7,

section 942.14 (continued).

The Chair: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. Excuse me, member. I'll just ask.... Excuse me, members. Could I ask those people who have business elsewhere than the chamber to please depart the chamber. Notice I'm not being specific.

D. Mitchell: There had already been some good debate on

section 942.14 yesterday. I've been reading through the comments made by the minister in response to questions raised by a number of members: the member for Prince George-Omineca, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and others. I'd just like to seek some clarification about what powers this

section confers upon the minister and the cabinet requiring the adoption of a regional growth strategy, and how that balances with the principle of municipal autonomy, which the minister spoke about quite eloquently during this debate. I think that's the crux of this very important

section of the bill.

I paid attention to what the minister said in response to some of the other members yesterday. Just very briefly, the minister indicated that a regional growth strategy is going to be required where there is a reluctant party. "Where there's a reluctant party, the minister has to use that discretion." That is what she said yesterday in response to the member for Prince George-Omineca. Further, she was responding to questions that this might be a threat to municipal autonomy.

She said: "It's obviously a threat to communities that for various reasons are not interested in coming into a long-range planning process, for whatever reason they may have, such as, perhaps, desiring to remain no-growth communities." That's what the minister said yesterday in response to this.

There's a fine balance in this bill between the minister's power and discretion, which can be used to require that a strategy be imposed, and the notion that this bill is driven by local governments, which the minister has also said. I'm wondering if the minister can clear up any contradictions that appear to exist -- at least in my mind -- when I listen to these competing ideas: municipal autonomy on the one hand, and on the other, the minister's power and discretion, which can override that autonomy, it seems.

Hon. D. Marzari: I should say here that one of the reasons for this

section -- that is, to give the minister the discretion to pull in a regional planning mandate for a growth strategy -- came from municipalities and regions themselves. At first we discussed trigger mechanisms by which certain regions would automatically come inside the rubric of a planning process. We jettisoned the notion of trigger mechanisms -- that is, a population growth mechanism; something that was driven by a formula -- and replaced it with the notion of ministerial discretion.

It is my notion that this will very rarely be used, if ever. It is there as a tooth in the legislation that will drive the municipal agenda toward encouraging regional growth strategies, so we can have comprehensive growth plans, for example, on the east coast of Vancouver Island, throughout the lower regional mainland up to Hope, and throughout the Okanagan. The discretion is there. It was advised by the municipalities and local governments themselves. I figure, therefore, that it's fair and just that we have this mechanism for ministerial discretion through the executive council.

D. Mitchell: I wonder if the minister would agree that this

section is included in this bill not only as an incentive -- which is the sense of what I'm hearing the minister say -- but also as a bit of a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of local governments that, for whatever reasons, cannot come to terms or agreement on a regional growth strategy.

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes.

Section 7,

section 942.14 approved.

section 7,

section 942.15.

[ Page 14129 ]

D. Mitchell: This is "Requirements for adoption" of a regional growth strategy. There are some important exceptions that are listed under subsection (2). It states that there are particular grounds for why there could be exceptions to a requirement for adoption. I wonder if the minister can briefly explain why those exceptions are needed. Why are these safety valves required in this legislation?

Hon. D. Marzari: Subsection (2) provides that local governments may agree to disagree on certain items. A local government may object to a specific provision of the regional growth strategy, for example, and a board may consider that the specific provision isn't critical to the overall strategy. Therefore the local government can accept the regional growth strategy on the basis that the provision doesn't necessarily apply to them. That basically gives them a fail-safe; it gives them an ability to continue discussion that keeps the table together.

D. Mitchell: I wonder if the minister could then explain why these exceptions are in there. Is it effectively an opting-out provision for local governments that don't agree with the regional growth strategy that might be agreed to? A consensus may be formed, but if a local government doesn't agree or can't come to terms, are these exceptions there so that a local government, regional district, municipality or village can effectively opt out of that strategy?

Hon. D. Marzari: No, we're not talking about opting out here; we're simply taking a look at those issues which may not be critical to the overall growth strategy or to the ultimate success of the strategy. The mayor of Oak Bay recommended this particular provision at one of our workshops. The intent was to provide municipalities the opportunity to agree to disagree on some issues that the region itself determined were not crucial to the success of the strategy. So it's not an opt-out. You'll notice that in the following provision in subsection (3), it provides that local government could choose to accept the provision later on.

D. Mitchell: I don't want to belabour this point, but just so that it's understood: where a regional growth strategy is put in place, there can be exceptions on certain aspects of that strategy, and some local governments within the region as it's defined can agree to disagree on a particular element of the regional growth strategy. The minister says that's not opting out, but if a regional government and a local government can agree to disagree, doesn't that effectively say that the overall strategy for the region may or may not be binding on all participants in the process? Isn't that equivalent to a kind of opting-out provision for parts of the strategy itself?

Hon. D. Marzari: The overall strategy is assumed to be in place and intact, and this provision is to take those exceptions that are not crucial to the overall strategy. This is not an opting-out provision; it is a small exclusion. It isn't critical to the overall success of the strategy. It does not represent an opting-out clause for municipalities.

D. Mitchell: I have one further question on this. I am struggling to understand this concept of a regional growth strategy where regional governments within a defined region will come together and form a strategy, but there can be exceptions. I think it's important for there to be some flexibility in this, but I wonder if this concept of a regional growth strategy is so loose that....

The minister says that small exceptions can be provided. What happens if a number of participants in the process want to see exceptions for different parts of the strategy? Couldn't that strategy itself become so porous, so loose, so flexible that the regional growth strategy itself becomes almost meaningless? It might be just a statement of principles that sounds great, but there could be so many exceptions, based upon the competing or various needs of communities within a region.

It really raises the question of why we're adopting a regional growth strategy; why we're putting this into the requirements for adoption. Why have a strategy if...? The minister says it's not opting out, but it sounds awfully like opting out to me.

It sounds like the opportunity exists for local governments not only to agree to disagree, as the minister says, but to basically disregard aspects of the regional growth strategy that's adopted by the region. What does a consensus really mean then, and what are we requiring these local governments to adopt if in fact they can follow through on the exceptions provided in subsection (2) of this section?

Hon. D. Marzari: It's the regional board's responsibility to protect the integrity of the plan itself -- not the minister's responsibility, the regional board's responsibility. It's up to the table, at the local and regional levels, to ensure that the substantive provisions of the plan to minimize urban sprawl, protect water resource and clean up the air are there and protected. It is not the responsibility of this legislation to prescribe in finite detail what exemptions might be made or, where there might be disagreement, to come down in favour of one side or another.

The purpose of the legislation and of this clause is basically to allow a little flexibility so that the table may be kept together, the plan may continue to thrive and the essential elements of the plan may be protected -- and so that municipalities may, from time to time, agree to disagree on certain components. The regional district and the peer group will basically decide on what those issues are and they will be recorded. That is very different from saying a municipality can disregard any piece of the plan at its whim.

D. Mitchell: Presumably this would apply to first nations participants in the regional growth strategy as well. I'd just like the minister to confirm whether or not that's the case and whether or not this subsection was placed in the bill to take into account issues that may involve first nations.

Hon. D. Marzari: First nations are not governed by this act or by this bill, except unless the Sechelt band wishes to sit at the table, at which point I'm sure they would be fully recognized by the bill.

[2:45]

C. Tanner: The Liberal opposition, as you know, has a fundamental difference of opinion with the minister on this bill, and that is the fact that we are asking many different areas of government to come together, with the notable exception of the ministries within this provincial government. As a consequence of that disagreement, I am introducing an amendment to

section 942.15(1)(c), to read as follows -- and I believe the Chairman has a copy of it: "(

c) the regional growth strategy

[ Page 14130 ]

must be accepted by affected local governments and Provincial bodies in accordance with

section 942.19." I offer that amendment and concede the floor to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

On the amendment.

G. Campbell: I think this is a very important amendment. Having spent time.... I know the minister has spent a considerable amount of time with representatives of local government across the province. I know she's spent a considerable amount of time with the planning elders -- as she calls them -- of British Columbia, but I think that she also has had a great deal of experience in these things herself.

Having gone through the exercise of trying to build a regional strategic plan, as the minister has tried to outline today, I have to say that the most serious flaw in this bill is the fact that the provincial government, indeed, can act on its own without reference to the regional plan, without reference to the work that's been done by communities. There are so many areas of concern -- where, in fact, the decisions that would be made by a provincial ministry or Crown corporation can have huge impacts on the regional plan. It would mean that you would have to go back to the drawing board.

We have looked, for example, as announcements have been made by successive governments -- not just this government, but by successive governments -- that have had no reference to a plan, where there is no commitment to a plan whatsoever.... And this particular government -- even when there has been a commitment, both in writing and verbally, that the government would work within regional planning constraints in cooperation with the region -- has effectively gone and ignored it when it met with its political needs.

The problem, we all know, is that if we do not in fact include provincial agencies, if we don't include provincial transportation decisions, if we don't include provincial hospital decisions, and if we don't include provincial education decisions; if we don't include provincial decisions with regard to advanced education, then all of the work that's done at the local community level and all of the work that's done to bring regional communities and entities together will be for nought.

It will mean a lot of work put in by citizens without any real validity if the provincial government is not willing to be bound by the same strategic regional plan that is suggested in this regional growth strategies document.

I concurred with the member for Prince George-Omineca yesterday when he brought up the issue of schooling. I think we also have to recognize that there are no issues that have as much impact, particularly on rapidly growing regions, as transportation issues do. Successive governments have made decisions that completely ignore regional plans and regional work that has been done by communities, municipalities and regional districts to try to control their growth.

When you look at institutions of higher learning.... I can tell you that in the region I come from and that I represented for some time, the second-largest generator of transportation difficulties was an institution of advanced education, which was not included and not contained, in fact, by the regional strategic plan.

I would urge the minister to accept this amendment. I believe it is absolutely critical that if the principles and goals she has outlined with regard to this bill are to be met, then it is imperative that the provincial government, provincial institutions and provincial agencies be included, and that they accept and agree to be bound by the regional strategic plan that is outlined -- that we're attempting to outline -- through this legislation.

Hon. D. Marzari: Mr. Chair, the Leader of the Opposition presents a case which he thinks represents the wishes of municipalities and regions of the province; in fact, the opposite is the case.

In canvassing the province, regions and municipalities, who owns the strategic growth management plan was an issue; ownership is an issue. If, in fact, the provincial government is put in a position of having veto power over a plan, it basically undoes the sense of regional or local ownership of a planning process. It's extremely important that the regions and municipalities represent ownership, take ownership and drive the planning process, basically, with the guidelines that this legislation represents.

A veto power puts local government in the position of becoming a lobbyist to the provincial government and seeing what they can get from the provincial government at any given point, depending on their priorities. It encourages the risk of having the provincial government lying in the weeds, then coming out at the last minute and exercising power over local government decision-making. In my mind, it is not appropriate, and it skews the whole balance of what decision-making goes on in the process of developing these plans.

Rather than giving the provincial government ownership from the outset by saying that the provincial government will sign off on regional plans, the bill outlines a process whereby the provincial government sends delegates to sit at technical tables while the plans are being developed. Then it provides implementation contracts, ensuring that the provincial government and its agencies -- and the federal government, for that matter -- will deal seriously with implementation agreements with the regional government.

Obviously, transportation is one of the biggest issues, but there are others, whether they be sewage disposal, water distribution or air quality control measures. These are all measures where the provincial government has the bigger buck and is therefore very much the larger partner when it comes to implementation agreements. It is very, very important for the ownership of the plan itself that the provincial government not have direct veto ability at the beginning of the planning process, or halfway through the planning process after a pubic hearing.

We prefer to go this route, not only because it's driven by the local governments themselves, but also because it's a more appropriate way for the provincial government and its agencies to become involved with local and regional planning.

With the intergovernmental advisory strategy group that meets with each regional plan as it is developed, hopefully we can imagine that every ministry or every Crown agency will be properly informed about the evolution of the regional plans as they come along, and will start to be able to think through the long-range capital planning that will have to be accomplished in order to properly meet the objectives of each of the high-growth regions. For these reasons -- ownership interests of the regional and municipal governments, fear of a

[ Page 14131 ]

provincial veto and the building of an equal partnership as the plans unfold -- I would recommend that we vote against this amendment.

G. Campbell: The minister has misconstrued fairly dramatically the intent of the amendment. It is certainly not to provide the provincial government with a veto. That is the last thing we have on our minds through this amendment. What this does say is that the provincial government will accept the regional plan and will carry out that plan in accordance with

section 942.19, which means that if the province does not accept the plan, there is a way we can go to resolution.

The fact of the matter is that the province today has a veto, and I'm staggered that the minister doesn't understand this. The province can decide to announce commuter rail without any discussion about whether it fits into the transportation plan for a region. It can do it without any reference whatsoever to the overall growth strategy of the region, and under this legislation the province will continue to do that. This legislation protects the province's veto. This legislation does not bind the province in any way whatsoever to live within the strategic plan that the region has put forward.

We are suggesting that if the minister does indeed believe that this growth strategy legislation should work, then she has to understand -- and I'm sure that in talking to local officials, they would tell the minister this -- that the province must be included in the plan and must be willing to go through the dispute resolution mechanisms that are in place. It is not a matter of the province driving the plan or vetoing the plan. In fact, if this legislation is left as it is, we almost guarantee that the province will veto the plan with the province's actions, as they have done time and time again over the last decade.

I would encourage the minister to think about how the province does veto these efforts that are put forward by communities and regions when they make decisions out of context. This is simply saying that, like the local communities and other agencies that are included, the provincial government, provincial ministries and provincial Crown corporations would be put into the planning process. They would be included in it in a real way, and when there were disputes, they would move to dispute resolution so that the plan could be accepted.

It is certainly not giving a veto or taking away ownership from the regional planning body. What it is doing is saying that the provincial government will follow in line with the strategic plan that is put in place.

Look at transportation decisions that can be made by the provincial government without reference to the regional plan. Look at the hospital decisions and health care decisions that can be made by the provincial government without reference to the strategic plan. Look at the advanced education decisions that can be made by the province without reference to the regional plan. It simply guts the intent of this legislation not to include provincial agencies and the provincial ministries in following through the planning process, in including themselves and in following through on

section 942.19, which commits them to work through this process in good faith with local communities and to commit to the dispute resolution process.

Otherwise, the province does have the veto the minister is concerned about protecting local administrations from. I believe the amendment speaks directly to that. It removes the veto from the province and ensures that there will be regional ownership of the plan. I'd like the minister to reconsider her comments in view of that, now that I've been able to clarify the intent of the amendment.

L. Fox: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that clarification, because in my initial reading of this amendment I was somewhat concerned that it appeared to go against the intent of this section. The amendment reads: "...the regional growth strategy must be accepted by affected local governments...." Even though the minister doesn't appear to want to call this a limited opting-out provision contained within

section 942.15(2), in actual fact it's there, and this amendment would seem to take away that flexibility. That was one of the concerns I had. I have no concern at all with the intent to somehow bind provincial ministries and agencies to work within the scope of the strategic plan. I think that should be a very important principle, but my difficulty with the amendment.... Maybe I could ask the minister if her ministry officials would agree that the clause would indeed limit the opportunities of affected local governments.

Hon. D. Marzari: At a later point in the bill, in

section 942.27, which we'll be coming to, we'll be talking about a regional growth strategy developed by a community. It doesn't necessarily commit or authorize a regional district, municipality or board to proceed with designated projects -- for many, many reasons. So we're saying here that for the sake of flexibility and adaptability, we're looking for consistency and continuity, and we're looking for partnerships between local, regional and provincial governments.

This bill is a process bill, which basically says that this is the best way we can create those partnerships. This is the best conceivable way we can create the tables for discussion and the planning atmosphere which does not repeat some of the mistakes that have been made in the past, which included such items as allowing senior levels of government or a regional level of government to make land use decisions over and above the heads of municipal governments.

So we're making every attempt to try to keep the municipalities as autonomous as possible, yet giving up very finite degrees of their autonomy for the purposes of doing regional planning. We're trying to give regional districts the flexibility that they need to pull together a plan of reasonable integrity.

[3:00]

The bill gives everybody a lot of leeway. In other words, it does not punish municipalities or regions if, in fact, they feel that they must make some deviations or adopt different opinions as they go along, based on new information. Neither does it force the provincial government to sign off for the reasons I mentioned earlier, having to do with ownership, with the integrity of the planning process and with the nature of the bill itself.

It's a bill which basically creates the tables for discussion and pulls the provincial government and its agencies to those tables so that appropriate decisions can be made in capital planning, and financial arrangements can be made for future needs down the road.

This bill is a political bill, and it relies on political processes between the three levels of government. It provides the framework and the tables for those political processes to occur. It does not force the issue with one or other of those governments to comply to the letter. It's important for the provincial government -- I speak as a provincial minister

[ Page 14132 ]

now, having come from local government -- to do integrated, comprehensive listening to regional and local governments. This bill provides the provincial government with a lesson in how to do that, because I don't feel the provincial government does a good job of that.

In this position, I and many of my colleagues spend a great deal of our time trying to coordinate ourselves inside a structure which isn't necessarily a structure which cooperates within itself. It's not built that way; it hasn't been built that way for 700 years, I imagine.

So this bill is an attempt to create the kinds of frameworks which will assist and mould the ability of ministries and corporations to listen or to hear and to start planning with communities, rather than placing artificial coercions on any level of government, including the provincial government, to comply with any given plan or any given strategy. The important thing here is partnerships, and the important thing here is contracts.

Those are the contracts that will be developed between the three levels of government and Crown agencies, if they are not privatized, and we'll see our way through to serving the interests of growth management in the process of doing that. I'm talking process; I'm talking ownership. These are the reasons why we cannot accept the amendment.

C. Tanner: The minister has missed the point in her reply to the Leader of the Opposition when she says that this is an attempt at a veto. It is exactly the opposite of that, in effect. In fact, this gives the minister an opportunity to add belief and authenticity to her words when she says that she wants the provincial government to comply with the same plans that she's asking the junior governments to comply with.

If legislation is a level playing field in which the minister has got the rules all laid down for everybody below that level, and she cannot touch and affect the legislation for the people above -- that's the federal government and Indian reserves, and so forth -- she has got the ability to say that her fellow provincial ministries should comply. And while it says that here, there is no compulsion. It would give a great deal more authenticity to her words if there were compulsion, and that's what we're asking for.

We say the minister has designed a bill which helps regional and municipal governments get together and design a plan.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that there has been sufficient discussion on this amendment, and I would call the question on the amendment.

The Chair: Just to clarify, member, I don't think that is within your power to do, but I understand your point -- moral suasion.

I'm going to take the member for Richmond Centre. Is it for a brief introduction, member?

D. Symons: Yes, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Serwa: On the amendment, hon. Chair, I just wanted to stand up and reserve my right to enter into second reading debate in some of the future sections, which your latitude allowed the minister to enter into on this amendment. The purpose of my rising at the moment is just to reserve that right.

The Chair didn't pay any attention to that, so I'll have to do it again.

The Chair: I am sorry, member; there was a procedural point I was trying to sort out. Please....

C. Serwa: Well, I just wanted to reserve the right, hon. Chair, that you extended to the minister to enter into an expanded second reading debate on the amendment proposed to this particular bill. I just wanted to stand, because in the future there are several sections which will require that type of latitude.

The Chair: I disagree with the member's conclusion, but his point is taken.

G. Wilson: Speaking against the amendment, I'm not sure where this research came from or where the advice was with respect to this, but my guess is that it's from a municipal lawyer who is trying to bind these so-called provincial bodies.

There are several reasons why we can't support this amendment. First of all, the concept of a provincial body.... If this had been thought through at the outset of this bill in presentation, there would have been an amendment to the

definitions

section to include....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, the member for Saanich North and the Islands says if I had been around to hear it.... In fact, I have been here from the beginning of the debate of this bill.

Had this amendment been adequately thought through, there would have been an introduction to amend the

definitions

section of the bill to tell us what the provincial bodies were going to be. The fact is -- just to show you how ludicrous this amendment is -- that for those areas outside of the Greater Vancouver Regional District.... I can understand why, when the Leader of the Opposition, whose sole political experience has been as the mayor of Vancouver, sees that the sun rises in Chilliwack and sets in Lions Bay.... There are other parts of the province where this makes no sense at all. The provincial bodies that he intends to bind often do not correspond with the boundaries of regional districts and municipalities being affected by this particular bill.

The second problem is that it is not often wise legislation that binds senior levels of government, which in effect, if we read through the appeal process, are going to have to be allowed to act....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I do not stand up and heckle the member for Saanich North and the Islands when he is making a point in debate. That he should continue to do so is exceedingly discourteous and unfortunately a tradition that has

[ Page 14133 ]

become part of this member's contribution to this chamber. I would seek that you try to bring order so that we can have some reasonable debate here.

The Chair: The member's point is well taken. As you know, it is the practice in this chamber to allow some latitude for all members to participate, albeit indirectly. But I ask all of us to be cautioned by the fact that we ought not to interfere with the standing member's right to carry on with his or her remarks.

G. Wilson: The second point I was attempting to make is that it is rarely good legislation when one attempts to bind senior government -- in this case, the provincial government -- in a statute directed primarily at municipal levels of government. There are several reasons why you don't want to do that.

One is that if you're looking at a regional growth strategy in which there may be conflict over the land use and how land uses are going to be developed, the last thing you want to do is bind the very body that may be the process of appeal for those people who believe they've been poorly served in the initial plan.

Second, there is an issue with respect to a later

section that provides an opportunity for senior government to effectively use existing plans as these regional growth strategies. If those plans were used and contested by local government at the local level and, through that contesting of that plan, it was found that there had to be a binding provision in the provincial government, it would do an enormous disservice, especially to smaller regional districts or areas that don't have the same weighted vote that they may in a normal planning process. So for a second reason this is not a sensible or properly thought through amendment.

The last issue, and this is probably the most important one, is that if you allow for this to be binding on all provincial bodies -- which would include all of the Crown corporations, hospital districts, school boards and a whole variety of Crown agencies that presumably would be encompassed in this -- my guess is that it's going to make it virtually impossible to get agreement on a plan. All of those bodies are going to have to be consulted, to be involved in it and to protect what they deem to be their vested interest.

What is likely to be the result of that is that people will strive to put in place the broadest base of restriction on land use, which will then be implemented over top of fee simple land and will bind -- often in perpetuity, in cases -- people's ability to use their land as they should do under existing zoning regulations. We've got legal jurisprudence -- and I'm prepared to raise it in a future

section -- where the judges of this province are saying this is not the dutiful and rightful role of the provincial government.

So had there been a little research done on this, we would have seen for those three reasons that this is not a well-thought-through amendment. This is not something that enhances this bill, but in fact would do a significant disservice to those people who will be affected by it.

[3:15]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 14

Dalton

Gingell

Reid

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

Hurd

Stephens

Warnke

de Jong

K. Jones

Symons

Anderson

Jarvis

Tanner

NAYS -- 45

Dosanjh

Marzari

Pement

Edwards

Zirnhelt

Charbonneau

O'Neill

Garden

Perry

Hagen

Kasper

Hammell

B. Jones

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Miller

Smallwood

Cull

Gabelmann

Clark

MacPhail

Ramsey

Barlee

Pullinger

Evans

Randall

Beattie

Farnworth

Doyle

Janssen

Simpson

Sawicki

Jackson

Tyabji

Wilson

Chisholm

Mitchell

Serwa

Hanson

Fox

Neufeld

Lali

Schreck

Copping

Krog

T. Perry: I'd like leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

T. Perry: I spied in the gallery two old friends who were co-founders of the nuclear disarmament group in the Slocan Valley in 1982: George and Marion Bergevin. Although their own representative in the Legislature failed to recognize them, I'd like to introduce them on his behalf. Would members please make them welcome.

The Chair: Shall

section 942.15 pass?

Interjection.

The Chair: I'm sorry, member for Saanich North and the Islands. I thought I could slip one by, but clearly I can't.

I think what I will do, members, is ask those who are not participating in committee to please depart the chamber before we resume. I'll give you a moment to leave.

C. Tanner: I'm sorry. I thought we were going to lose that in the shuffle. I have nothing more. We've made our point on

section 942.15, and, as far as I'm concerned, that

section can pass.

Section 7,

section 942.15 approved.

section 7,

section 942.16.

G. Wilson: I have just a very quick question about

section 942.16(2) with respect to powers of the minister, where it suggests: "If a regional growth strategy is to apply to less than

[ Page 14134 ]

the entire regional district or is to be prepared jointly with another regional district, this must be authorized under

section 942.13(2)...." When we discussed that, as well as

section 942.14, I mentioned that this particular

section was going to be somewhat relevant. One of the reasons that I raise this now is that in a provision later on.... I don't want to jump too far ahead, but there is a provision later on in the

section of this bill that provides for the minister to actually take existing land use plans -- they may in fact be from two different regional districts -- and to use those as part of, or in total as, the regional growth strategy process. I wonder if this section.... In terms of the portions of a regional district or a combining of regional districts, it says that the requirements of this have to happen if it's envisaged that the minister can use this

section to force plans that are potentially sitting on shelves to be a part of the binding provisions under

section 942.14.

Hon. D. Marzari: The intent of this particular section.... In fact, there are other provisions in the act that allow the integration of existing plans such as the GVRD's, to bring it into the fabric and the mainframe of the act. But subsection (2) is a clarification applying to less than an entire regional district. It has nothing to do with ongoing plans that may be inside that regional district or an adjacent district.

L. Fox: I would like some clarification on subsection (3). It seems to me that this subsection says that the provision does not apply to a municipality under subsection.... Subsection (2) can be applied later if the municipality decides to accept that provision. It seems that out of caution you may have a lot of municipalities or interested parties sitting around the table not prepared to make a commitment to enter into the process until such time as is decided what the outcome and the impacts of that are going to be, because there is no opting out. Once you say yes, you're in it.

There's no opportunity to get out of it, so there's going to be some hesitancy by individuals to get into the process. They don't have to opt in and be part of it in the beginning, because they can opt in later. I'm wondering if the minister wouldn't agree that this whole process seems to be counterproductive in terms of dealing with the overall interests of that region.

Hon. D. Marzari: Subsection (3) refers to the initiation of the process; it doesn't refer to six months down the road or 18 months down the road, and suddenly the region or the municipalities decide there is going to be another major issue. This is at the beginning to provide municipalities with a definition of the scope of their plan, so that they can feel comfortable and secure in entering and engaging in the plan. This basically gives them instruction to serve notice on what the major issues are going to be, if they are more than housing, transportation, services, parks, natural areas and economic development.

It is providing municipalities with the security of knowing what the scope of the plan might entail.

Section 7,

section 942.16 approved.

section 7,

section 942.17.

D. Mitchell:

Section 942.17 deals with the consultation that is to take place during the implementation or development of a regional growth strategy. I have a question regarding subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (1) deals with the consultation that is to take place during the development of a regional growth strategy, and subsection (2) deals with the consultation that takes place immediately thereafter, once a strategy is accepted -- as soon as possible after the initiation of a regional growth strategy is put in place.

There seems to be a difference in the kinds of consultation that would take place during the implementation of strategy and immediately thereafter. I wonder if the minister could explain why that would be. For instance, in subsection (1) it says that the board should consult with everybody it considers might be affected by the strategy -- and it is totally up to the board's discretion to decide who might be affected by the strategy. But in subsection (2), immediately after a strategy is adopted, this

section tries to define and to list those who should be consulted. It's quite a broad listing, but I wonder why that listing wouldn't relate to both prior to and after the fact. Why are their differences in the consultation process?

Hon. D. Marzari: These are not two separate consultation processes: subsection (2) is simply an elaboration of subsection (1) for the purposes of the bill. If you read the first line of subsection (2): "For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), as soon as possible after the initiation of a regional growth strategy...." That is the initiation, not at the conclusion of the plan. This is at the very beginning, so subsection (2) becomes simply an elaboration of subsection (1), and not a separate and distinct part of the public process.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's explanation of that. Subsection (1) says that during the development of a strategy, the board is to consult with everyone who it feels will be affected, but subsection (2) lists the minimum. In addition to that, I suppose, it could be whoever the board considers.

Section (1)(

b) says: "the board and the affected local governments must make all reasonable efforts to reach agreement on a proposed regional growth strategy." That's during the developmental stage. Who will decide what "all reasonable efforts" are? Is that totally up to the board, or is there any definition? Would the minister offer any guidance on what "all reasonable efforts" might mean?

Hon. D. Marzari: This is called the best-efforts clause. Every reasonable effort will be made, and the judges of that will be the public themselves. If they do not feel they've been properly included, they will be able to take citizen recourse -- through the courts, if necessary. The important thing here is that it's in the bill. Reasonable efforts must be made. In fact, those efforts are further spelled out in the course of the bill. This is minimum consultation, desirable consultation and consultation which anyone engaging in a planning process would do in any event.

This is a stipulation that reasonable effort must be made, and fine detail on what reasonable effort should look like is not here. The bill is not entirely prescriptive on that score, but there is provision, obviously, for citizens to make their complaints.

D. Mitchell: This test of reasonableness is an important one, and it comes up later under subsection (3), which says: "A failure to comply with a consultation plan under subsection (2) does not invalidate the regional growth strategy as long as reasonable consultation has been conducted." The term "reasonableness" again enters into the legislation -- "reasonable consultation." I'm assuming that what the minister has said about the test of reasonableness will apply here as

[ Page 14135 ]

well, but the failure to comply with this consultation plan is pretty important. What if someone comes forward after a plan has been adopted during the initiation stage -- a local government, an individual citizen or a private sector participant in the region -- and says: "Wait a second; I wasn't consulted. I don't think there has been reasonable consultation." How would this failure to comply be determined in terms of whether or not reasonable consultation has been conducted? Could the minister offer any guidance on that? I think this could be so highly subjective that it could be one of the most contentious aspects of this bill.

[3:30]

Hon. D. Marzari: That's the reason for the clause itself. If a board's consultation plan provides, in general terms, that citizens would be consulted, the chance of an individual citizen successfully seeking to overturn the entire growth strategy in judicial review on the basis that the individual citizen was not personally consulted.... This clause minimizes that possibility.

I reinforce, therefore, the concept of reasonable consultation as being a recognized term that can be used as a protection -- not only for the regional plan -- and as an encouragement to the planners and the regional planning body to anticipate and resolve difficulties before they start; but it's also security for citizen groups.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

D. Mitchell: I have a further question on what appears to me at least to be a contradiction here. In

section 942.17 under subsection (2), it states very clearly that the board must adopt a consultation plan. There's no discretion allowed there; there has to be a consultation plan in place before a regional growth strategy can be adopted and implemented. And yet under subsection (3), it says that a failure to comply with this consultation plan doesn't invalidate the regional growth strategy. How can we have it both ways? I ask the minister for some clarification on this apparent contradiction. There must be a consultation plan, but if you don't have a consultation plan, it doesn't invalidate the strategy.

I mean, is there not a contradiction here that's going to cause a lot of confusion for the general public in the important consultation process as we move forward with these regional growth strategies?

Hon. D. Marzari: The provision under subsection (3) insists that there be a consultation plan. It has to be there; that's a basic framework for the planning process. We've learned a lot in this province, largely from the GVRD's initiatives through the last 20 years. I'll reinforce the message that if people aren't included in planning, a plan isn't worth anything. This process involves and insists on the involvement of affected governments, groups and agencies; there's no double-messaging here. It insists on reasonable consultation.

That is a protective clause to ensure that one individual citizen, for example, cannot claim that because they had not been personally informed, the plan is invalid. That is a protective clause for the overall planning process. Consultation with affected governments, citizens, groups and agencies is built in.

D. Mitchell: I'm a little bit puzzled by this. I think this is potentially a very important

section of the bill. It deals with the public consultation that is to take place when a regional growth strategy is implemented. There must be a consultation plan, but if you don't have a plan, it doesn't seem to matter. At least, that's what the wording of the legislation says; that's not what the words of the minister say, but I'm referring to the actual bill.

I'll just take it one step further by referring to subsection (4) of this section. In subsection (4) of this section, there's a requirement for a public hearing to take place. I'll just ask the minister this, using this as an example. In subsection (4), where there's a requirement for the board to conduct a public hearing and provide an opportunity for the public to make their views on the strategy known, what would happen if a public meeting were held in a region where a regional growth strategy was about to be implemented and a wave of opposition came forward at the public meeting?

If not just one individual but perhaps a number of stakeholders and citizens came forward in a public meeting and said that they weren't consulted, they were opposed to the strategy and they didn't believe that the consultation plan was valid because they weren't included in the process, what would happen? Would the public meeting itself be a bit of a charade, just like the consultation plan itself? The failure to comply with the consultation plan suggests that the consultation plan might not be that crucial.

Is the public meeting referred to in subsection (4) just a phony consultation -- another stage in a plan that is going to be implemented regardless of the public wishes?

Hon. D. Marzari: The member speaks as someone who has perhaps been through too many local planning consultation programs and doesn't see the value of public hearings.

The clauses themselves insist that consultation happen, but they don't prescribe the specifics of that consultation. For example, if the regional district is going to have five workshops and then decides at the last minute that it's going to have seven because groups were left out, they're not going to go back and revisit the regulations and the terms of reference for the plan by going to seven workshops. Similarly, in going to a public hearing....

If there were a wave of opposition at a public hearing -- and very often there are; public hearings encourage those who are opposed to a plan -- it gives the regional board an opportunity to have further workshops and revise the plan, if they so desire. That is further consultation; that is a further outreach possibility for the board.

We're saying that there's going to be public consultation. The broad scope of that consultation should be outlined somewhere near the beginning, but it doesn't have to be executed to the dotting of the i and the crossing of the t. It doesn't have to be executed perfectly. You're still okay; the plan can still be considered intact and have integrity. What's being said here is that the spirit of reasonable consultation must prevail. In the last analysis, if citizens do not agree that consultation has been appropriate, they can use the existing recourses that are there for them in the law, such as going to the courts, if they so desire.

D. Mitchell: I have just one further question on this, then. The minister has talked about the recourse that can take place if citizens feel aggrieved because proper consultation hasn't taken place under this

section of the act. Since some of the previous sections we've dealt with in this bill provide a safety valve in the form of the minister's office, allowing the minister some discretion here, I wonder whether the minister would regard her office as being part of the recourse for a citizen, a group or a local government who felt that proper

[ Page 14136 ]

consultation had not occurred, or that a public hearing needs to take place and hasn't taken place -- or whatever form of consultation is required.

If due process doesn't seem to have been followed under the terms of this legislation, will the minister regard herself, either under this

section or any other

section of this bill, as having the power or the discretion to compel further consultation to take place? Could she compel a public meeting or a series of public meetings to take place in a large region? What powers does the minister have? What discretion does the minister have under this legislation to ensure that consultation takes place and to be that recourse, so that there isn't simply a recourse to the courts and to judicial processes that are expensive, time-consuming and sometimes not effective in achieving the ends of the proper consultation that this

section seems to contemplate?

Hon. D. Marzari: The member seems to be seeking some reassurance, and having been through a number of public processes that involved citizens opposed in a public hearing process or in a consultation process, I can understand the points, and they're well raised.

The judicial review process is a reasonable and rational process for citizens to use if they do not feel they have been properly consulted. I should also say at this point that it's not appropriate either for the minister's office to be used as a court of last resort for citizens to appeal to, if they feel they haven't been properly heard in a public hearing.

It is something that the provincial government, this minister and this ministry stay away from, most particularly around local disputes in land use matters, because it's not useful or desirable for the provincial government to be intervening where people may have local disputes around local land use decisions. Similarly, around these regional growth strategies, I would say that the minister, the ministry and the provincial government should stay well away from local disputes. If the local governments themselves disagree inside the framework of the plan, they do have a dispute resolution mechanism.

Because the member has raised this concern, and because I do have some empathy for this concern, I will ensure that guidelines are developed for the facilitators and the facilitation of the program that will set out perhaps more rigorously what public consultation should look like and what its shape should be.

J. Dalton: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Dalton: I'm pleased to welcome a class of grade 11 students from Brentwood College School, which is up the road on the Malahat, as all members will know. They're sitting up here behind me. They are accompanied by Mr. Robert MacLean, their social studies teacher. I want to thank the students particularly for the very perceptive questions they have just put to me. Would all members please make them welcome.

C. Tanner: I was surprised how long it took the minister, when answering the questions from the previous member, to tell him that the word "reasonable" is interpretable in the courts. There is obviously always recourse in this legislation through the courts, because to my mind, that's what this

section says.

If I might, I'd like to use this

section to ask a specific question concerning a bill and debate we had last year on a highway. It was a planned highway going through private property. The way I read this section, and particularly as you put in

section 942.17(2)(a) "its citizens" as the first item before everybody else, and you mention "persons" first in

section 942.17(1)(a) -- you've put in "persons, organizations and authorities" -- obviously the minister and her staff had individual citizens within the area foremost in their minds of those people who should be consulted.

While I appreciate that consultation can take place in a public arena, in the case that we had last year -- and I've forgotten the number of the bill concerning the highway....

Interjection.

C. Tanner: Bill 25 -- thank you, minister. Concerning that bill and the debate we had where a private property owner -- or a number of them, but one specific one -- felt aggrieved, in this case would they be consulted? If we had a situation where the growth strategy plan included a highway in the long range, and no compensation or no ability had been undertaken by the region to look after the individual's property, would this be the place where they would be consulted?

Hon. D. Marzari: I should say that that particular group of citizens in the Maple Ridge situation had been consulted for many years. They knew exactly where they stood for many years, and in fact their court case and the resulting decision of the judge was no surprise to them; the process and their recourse was no surprise to them. As I stated yesterday, this bill does not change any of the goalposts around issues of compensation, nor does it challenge any judicial decision that has been made, most particularly the one in Maple Ridge.

Rather, this bill simply takes what we have now and does not change any notion of what compensation should or should not be, and observes the judicial requirement that local government put their money up front if they're going to do any long-range planning. We have difficulties with that, because long-range planning sometimes means you have four options, and paying compensation for four separate rights-of-way might be rather difficult for local government. But we're not changing the goalposts on that.

This

section is talking about a general consultation. It's not talking about specific or targeted or individual consultation with citizens. It's the general consultation process, which should be an integral part of any long-range strategic growth management study.

C. Tanner: Let me just make it absolutely clear that I understood what the minister said, because in

section 942.17(1)(a), the first you say have to be consulted are "persons"; in subsection (2) of that same section, the first you say have to be consulted are "citizens." Admittedly, they're both in the plural, but are you only talking in the plural? Do you never talk in the individual?

[3:45]

Hon. D. Marzari: This legislation in subsection (

a) does not refer to individual citizens.

[ Page 14137 ]

C. Tanner: In that case, while we have made no difference to the situation we had last year under Bill 25, if a local region decided to make some plans -- which included, for example, highway plans, which would make sense, or even potential school property and so on, which was privately owned -- would those people go to a public meeting and say: "If you do that, what's in it for me, or what happens to me, or what affects me?" Or would that still be a private decision of the individual to go to the courts rather than to the planning process? The point I'm trying to make is that if it isn't, we've lost something in this new legislation, it seems to me.

Hon. D. Marzari: If rights-of-way are designated by a strategic plan, it's likely that the official community plan of the local government of the municipality will be the one to enact the change. Insofar as we're talking about the local government creating the change in its official community plan, there will be no change in the rules from what they are now; no one is losing anything here. The municipality will conduct itself by the same rules that it presently governs itself by; and the citizens will have the same access through the second hearing debate of the strategic plan of the regional growth plan, and they will also have access to the local council.

L. Fox: I just want to follow up on the earlier questions by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. I was pleased to hear the minister suggest that she would highlight some clarification in the regulations around what this consultation would be. But I'm somewhat disturbed about some of the discussion I hear, because it seems to me that when we draft legislation, we should be attempting to do the best job we can to stay out of the courts. Otherwise we provide a society or legislation which is only.... The only time people can defend their interests is if they have money.

So I think we've got to be doggone sure when we draft this that we don't put too much emphasis on the courts being the deciding factor in making the appropriate

interpretation. That's one observation I wanted to make, and I'm sure the minister would like to comment on that.

The other one that I would also like to make and would ask the minister to give some consideration to in the regulations is the time frames that legitimately should be considered in setting up a process -- time frames for notification, for instance, similar to what we see in the existing municipal legislation around the developing of OCPs and settlement plans in regional districts. Because what I as a community leader might figure as being fair, I'm not sure that other individuals or specific interests within a community will perceive as the same.

And if the minister doesn't want to be the arbitrator in some of these issues, then I think it's very important that she lay out in regulation some guidelines that the public understands and that the process honoured in order to come up with its plan.

Hon. D. Marzari: I thank the member for his comments. The guidelines, I think, should make some reference to time frames for consultation. That might be useful.

I should also add that there is every intent here, with this concept of reasonable consultation, that that doesn't encourage the court process. The judicial review is a process which can be used for any legislation and all legislation; it's not a special judicial review, court process or legal process just for this act. If anything, there's a disincentive, because no regional district or municipality wants to be held up in its regional growth strategy by the threat of court action being taken against it for lack of reasonable consultation.

So I would suggest that, in fact, there is an incentive here for regional districts to do more than reasonable consultation so that the issues they are discussing can be properly put on the table by the widest group of individuals and agencies imaginable and so that it will guarantee the ultimate passage of the plan.

Section 7,

section 942.17 approved.

The Chair: Shall

section 942.18 pass?

section 7,

section 942.18.

C. Tanner: Madam Minister, the facilitators in

section 942.18.... We're talking about what they're going to do, but I don't see any itemized authority that the facilitator has to compel other provincial ministries to go through this process. I know it's written here that they should, but I don't see any power itemized where he has the ability to compel, with effect, other provincial ministries to concede or go along with the designated plan. Am I missing something in this section? Could the minister explain it to me, please?

Hon. D. Marzari: The facilitator is basically there to assist the proposing regional district board and all the affected governments in getting involved and getting together, and to pull the agencies and local governments around the table. The facilitator is not an enforcer, although the facilitator does report back to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. There's no compulsion here, and no ability for the facilitator to insist. But there is the assumption that in the engagement of our regional planning process, all the appropriate agencies will be around the table.

Certainly, this government is committed that all appropriate agencies will be around the table for every regional planning initiative.

A facilitator can do no more; a facilitator's role has been considered by local governments, and local governments would not feel comfortable if the facilitator were expected to be an enforcer. The facilitator will get involved later on, however, with the dispute resolution and in pulling together the mechanisms for dispute resolution.

The compulsion, when it is to come, will come from cabinet. The Premier's commitment on March 2 to the UBCM and to the executive of the UBCM was that in fact the provincial government intends to be there for the intergovernment advisory group that will be the technical group for each plan, and it will be there when the time comes to implement contracts between the province, its agencies and regional governments.

C. Tanner: Could the minister give us an illustration of how she sees the facilitators being chosen? Where does she choose them from? What type of people? Would she be using the local governments and the regional governments -- people within that fraternity -- as facilitators?

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe I answered this question yesterday when it was asked. The facilitators will have to be very special people, obviously. I would assume that the facilitators will be hired; they will not necessarily be planners, but they will be people who work well with the communities, who have done some work with the regions, and who have the faith, basically, and the confidence of the municipalities

[ Page 14138 ]

and regions that they'll be working with. Therefore it would behoove the minister and the ministry to ensure that there's some consultation with the regions before the facilitators are actually hired.

These people will have to have the competence to pull people together, to work well at tables, to be able to synthesize vast quantities of material, to initiate dispute resolution if it becomes necessary anywhere in the process, and to assist in the general planning regime. These people could be staff from the ministry; they could be consultants hired by the ministry in consultation with the regions; they could be ex-politicians, for example, who have worked in the community and no longer have a vested interest in elected representation, as long as they have the confidence of the community.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Marzari: Does that leave politicians out?

The most important thing is that these people be competent and that they have the confidence of the people they work with.

C. Tanner: As I understand it, it will be the sole authority of the ministry, and probably the minister specifically, to make those appointments.

All through this legislation, the minister has pointed out how her helpful and hard-working ministry is going to make these plans happen and assist the regions in making them come about. Does the minister see, therefore, that if these people did come from the ministry -- one of the suggestions she just made -- they will be paid for by the regional group? If they're not, how's the minister going to find the resources in her ministry to do all the extra work that this bill is entailing?

Hon. D. Marzari: The commitment has already been made that the ministry will pay for the facilitators.

G. Wilson: I only have two very short questions to the minister on this section. It would seem that the facilitators, in fact, will become a surrogate for the minister. I say that because in the next section, which we'll get to momentarily, the facilitator has an opportunity to be one of those designated to review the plan prior to acceptance, if they're in that position. Where one isn't there, then the minister becomes that designate. Given that, I just wonder about the....

It says that these facilitators, once they are coming in, are "setting up and using non-binding resolution processes," but we notice also that this non-binding resolution process has become binding and effective on local government in the next section.

I'm curious to know what powers these facilitators are going to have with respect to their ability to actually gain information or to move an agenda forward if there is reluctance from the board. I'm thinking particularly in light of some controversial areas where there is a very urgent need for a growth strategy plan to be in place, but there are very jealous turf wars at work, and a facilitator may become de facto an arbitrator. I'm curious to know what those powers are going to be and how those are designated within this act, because it's not clear.

Hon. D. Marzari: I should repeat that the facilitator has no coercive powers. If the member is referring to the next section, talking about the facilitator acting in place of the minister, or if we're only talking about the facilitator being able to convene meetings, poll people around the table and receive the plan, as I believe it says in the next

section that we're to deal with, we're not dealing here with a facilitator who has substantive powers to make decisions.

[4:00]

G. Wilson: Well, then, I wonder if the minister might just elaborate a little on

section 942.18(4), where it suggests that: "Once a facilitator becomes involved under subsection (3), the proposing board and affected local governments must provide information as requested by the facilitator and must otherwise cooperate with the facilitator in fulfilling his or her responsibilities." The way one would read that, it doesn't necessarily mean there aren't coercive powers. There are limited options that the local government has in cooperation.

Hon. D. Marzari: In re-reading that section, we can read that "the proposing board and affected local governments must provide information as requested by the facilitator and must otherwise cooperate with the facilitator in fulfilling his or her responsibilities." The responsibilities are the responsibilities of coordination, the responsibilities largely laid down by the legislation and consultation, and the responsibilities of designing the scope of the plan itself. But no facilitator is going to step into a community and force the issue or try to coerce any regional district to perform and behave in a particular way. The responsibilities of the facilitator are just that.

G. Wilson: Okay. I take the minister on her word on that, and I assume that that is the intent. However, the intent of legislation and what happens are often not the same thing. So I just wonder if the minister is confident that somewhere in this act it provides authority or powers to local government -- given that the facilitator is the appointment of the minister -- or whether they have an opportunity therefore to appeal or have that person removed, in the event that some overzealous facilitator might in fact be advocating on behalf of one agent within local government against another.

Hon. D. Marzari: There's no coercion here. The local government can call a bluff, can basically see through the games and make recommendations, or phone the minister. You can rest assured that there will be no attempt here to send a facilitator in with a top-down agenda or a heavy-handed approach. The essence of this whole bill is coordinative and integrative; it is not coercive or top-down.

G. Wilson: Let me put it very specifically then: does local government have the power to fire the facilitator?

Hon. D. Marzari: Local government certainly has the power to recommend to the minister that the facilitator is not working out for the region.

C. Tanner: There's an exception made in this

section in subsection (3)(b), where there's a request made "by an electoral area director of the proposing board, if this is supported by at least 2 other directors." I was wondering what the motivation was behind that particular exception. You've got two ways that the facilitator can be activated, if you like. In (

a) it is "by the proposing board or an affected local government"

[ Page 14139 ]

and in (b) "by an electoral area director." What's the reason for that particular section?

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. D. Marzari: Electoral areas aren't incorporated; they're not municipalities. Electoral area directors have wondered aloud at many workshops how they get involved, where their power is and how they can exercise some voice in the preparation of regional growth strategies. This basically allows an electoral area director, with two other electoral area directors -- which sort of forms a critical mass of electoral area directors -- to have some say in pulling in a facilitator or in the preparation of the plan. They don't have any formal sign-off.

They don't have any opportunity to have their issues considered except at this juncture, so it's important that they be included in the preparation here.

C. Tanner: I'm sure the minister is aware that in many regional boards, many urban directors -- municipal directors, regional directors -- have some problem with electoral area directors who they think don't have very much to lose and consequently are part of the decision. You're making an exception for the electoral area director; why wouldn't you make the same exception for a municipal director, should he be supported by a couple of others? You could have a municipal director in a small, isolated urban area where he'd have the same problem as the electoral area director.

Hon. D. Marzari: Municipal councillors obviously have their council, speak through their council and have the power of the incorporated council as their planning entity and as their sign-off. They have power to sign off; they have power to engage with the regional district. They're sort of wards of the regional district in many respects; the regional district is their federation.

The electoral area directors are very often the unsung heroes of rural planning, out there very often alone, trying to make land use decisions in the unincorporated areas. It's very important for them and for us to recognize them. This is the point in the act where we do recognize their ability to get involved with the process of developing the role for the facilitator, and ensure that they're at the table. So their involvement with the facilitator here is recognizing their role in the process.

C. Tanner: Madam Minister, was this discussed at the UBCM -- this specific feature? The reason I'm asking is.... Was it supported by them? Was it supported by municipalities generally? Because, as I said, in regional boards this is a common complaint: some of the more dissident electoral area directors do have a lot to say, with nothing to lose. I'm surprised that you've got this

section in, other than if there was a full discussion when you went around the province with the municipalities and the UBCM on this particular item.

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, this has been canvassed with UBCM. In fact, it was a significant discussion because of the electoral area director's role in the regional district and their inability to act as an incorporated entity. Where were they going to get involved? They could not be involved in sign-off, because the municipalities are involved in sign-off, and electoral area directors individually couldn't engage at that level. But it's very, very important -- and I've made this clear from the beginning -- that they have to be recognized and they have to be considered a part of that overall table.

This is the point in the act where we do recognize them and give them the ability to work with the facilitator to make their concerns known.

C. Tanner: Would I be right in thinking that some of the reservations I've expressed on behalf of some of the urban municipal directors are taken care of by the fact that the electoral area director has got to be supported by two other directors? They don't necessarily have to be electoral area directors; they can be any directors of the regional district.

Hon. D. Marzari: That is correct. They work with two other directors, whether or not they are electoral area directors. They can work with two other members of city councils. And that's important too. That pulls them into the process and gives them reason to know that they are being heard.

C. Tanner: I'm not sure that with the way you have it phrased that there isn't an ambiguity there, because it sounds to me like you need the word "any" in order to be more specific. As it reads now it almost appears -- and that's, in fact, how I first read it -- like the other two directors have got to be electoral area directors. I think it might be an amendment which would make it clearer in law, should this go to court, and might make it easier for the minister in future, if she made that definition.

Hon. D. Marzari: It could be as the member suggests, except that in some areas there aren't two other electoral area directors, and having the critical mass of directors to bring forward a request for facilitation is an important one. So that's basically the way we've "writ" it. The electoral area director could well couple himself or herself with two other electoral area directors to bring forward a concern.

L. Fox: One of the first points I want to address in this

section is in subsection (2): "On being notified that a regional growth strategy has been initiated, the minister may designate..." -- or appoint -- a facilitator. First of all, I guess that begs the question: at what point does the minister envision this process to be initiated? Is it when one municipality comes forward and suggests that it would like to see a growth strategy started? What is "initiated" really considered to be?

Hon. D. Marzari: The official initiation of the process is the first motion brought to the regional district board that there be a regional planning process. Once that motion is passed, we would consider that the process has been initiated. Obviously, in most instances that we're dealing with now in the high-growth regions, they're already well underway. But for future programs, it's obvious that we're going to have to stipulate that the first motion that a regional growth strategy be initiated will be the takeoff point.

L. Fox: Then a further question -- because it says that the minister is allowed to designate, or may appoint, a facilitator at that point in time.... Obviously -- I would hope, at least -- we wouldn't immediately be appointing somebody until there is something for that individual to do, and that it would happen somewhere down the road when it becomes obvious that there is a need, and something for that facilitator to be doing. That's one question.

[ Page 14140 ]

The other question is: how does the minister envision the facilitator's office? Is it going to be an independent office within a region, and therefore staffed and so on? Is it going to utilize some of the administration within that existing regional district, perhaps, in order to be cost-effective?

Hon. D. Marzari: I think that is to be negotiated between the ministry and the individual region. Obviously we are concerned about costs. In fact, that was one of the major concerns raised in the consultation as we went around the province, and that's why we are going out of our way not to inject a huge budget into the program. But we are going to try to bring good people to the program and elicit good support from the local communities. Where the facilitators are housed and who their support staff is will be negotiated with the regions in which they're working.

L. Fox: Would the minister then explain to the committee what she would envision as a typical office structure for a facilitator?

Hon. D. Marzari: No, I wouldn't do that, for the obvious reason that I don't want to prejudge how different regions might want to establish or structure the facilitator's role. I think it would be prejudging the issue to say anything prescriptive about what it should look like and where it should be located.

L. Fox: That concerns me a bit, because it would appear to be something like writing a blank cheque. Bureaucracies have a way of growing, and once they're established it's very difficult to control. It would seem to me that there would be specific guidelines given as to what the structure should be. If they are truly only a facilitator, then it should be rather simple to do that. I don't understand how we could be entering into a process where we're not sure how many facilitators would be utilized throughout the province.

We're not sure what each structure is going to look like; therefore we're not sure what the costs would be. It seems to me that some estimates, and some thought, must have been given to this whole process before the minister agreed that it would be at provincial expense.

[4:15]

Hon. D. Marzari: It might be that regions have developed their growth strategy to a point where all they need to do is integrate it into the purposes of this bill, and where we can proceed without a facilitator. It may be that the GVRD is at a point where we should simply negotiate how they plug in what they've already done and get on with the job of signing some implementation agreements. In some other regions it may be that the services of a facilitator might not be required; there may be somebody in the regional district administration or in one of the municipalities who is capable of taking on this job.

At the very minimum, when a facilitator is required, it may be simply a consultant, based downtown -- although I would hope not -- who would make regular visits to the region, oversee a plan as it's coming into place and try to deal with some troubleshooting.

At the other end of the scale, there might be the need for a full-time person to help draw people around the table, solve some disputes and ensure that the program unfolds, the planning gets done and the appropriate resolutions come to the board at the appropriate time. It's very difficult to say. Obviously some thought has been given to the role of the facilitator and what kind of person that should be; some thought, too, has been given to the budget within the ministry as to how we can readjust what we have so it doesn't overwhelm the planning function of the ministry itself.

I can guarantee the member that the costs are not going to be exorbitant, and ministry staff is not going to be expanded to deal with the program. We are adjusting inside the ministry to maintain our existing staffing levels and still incorporate the regional planning program. I anticipate no expanded bureaucracy, which was one of the messages that came back to me from the municipalities and regions involved. I do envisage, though, a couple of people -- consultants or staff members or people that we can agree on with the regions -- that will help to monitor and see the planning process through.

L. Reid: Hon. Chair, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Reid: I am delighted to welcome to the precincts today 28 grade 7 students visiting from my riding, the riding of Richmond East. There are here with Mrs. Aitchison, a teacher, and they're representing Garden City Elementary School. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

L. Fox: The first question I'm always tempted to ask after a member from Richmond introduces a group of students is whether or not they're in portables.

Back to the minister. I was somewhat relieved when I heard the minister talk. Earlier in debate on this legislation, I was convinced in my mind that we were going to have these facilitators all over the province, and it was going to be an automatic structure. From what I hear the minister saying, a facilitator may not even need to be appointed. If there are some examples out there where municipalities have been able to come far enough through the process without a facilitator, that would tell me that other municipalities and regions might be able to achieve the same thing.

That begs the question: does the minister envision that a pool of facilitators might be prequalified -- although maybe not utilized -- so a region may say: "This guy or this gal is someone we could work with"? Is it going to be that kind of situation, or is it going to be a reactive situation, rather than a proactive structure?

Hon. D. Marzari: I should add once again -- and I think I've said it 15 times so far during the course of the legislation -- that the legislation itself has largely been written and driven and demanded by the municipalities and regions of this province. The facilitator was not something that sprung full blown out of the brains of Municipal Affairs staff. In fact, the necessity for someone to help was requested by the municipalities and the regions of the province themselves, sometimes saying: "Look, we can't do this on our own; you have to help."

Municipal Affairs has helped in the past. This is a formal declaration that the provincial government is prepared to send someone out to help with creating tables, pulling together thoughts, amalgamating materials and assisting with

[ Page 14141 ]

dispute resolution. This is a response, not a coercive effort by the provincial government to facilitate where they're not wanted. It is, in fact, a response to requests for help that local governments feel they must have to deal with those issues that transcend their local boundaries.

Regional planning in its old context doesn't ring true with many municipalities in this province. There's a desire by the municipalities to create or recreate a sense of being in charge without necessarily recreating a whole regional planning structure. What we have is this measure that will send out people from the provincial government to assist in the development of regional growth plans without necessarily structuring a whole apparatus called regional planning. This is a response to an issue raised by municipalities and regions. It's an issue that we're trying to address in response to them.

Can we be proactive? I think the legislation is proactive in terms of process. It works with municipalities that have been asking for help. But we are reacting as well. So I want to assure the member that we are not dealing with a breed of people who run through the province with their own notions in mind about what land use should look like and how transportation corridors should be developed. This is an attempt by the Municipal Affairs ministry to respond to an outstanding request.

L. Fox: I'm not trying to belabour the point, but I think the role of the facilitator is going to be extremely important in some areas and under some circumstances, because this legislation does have the ability to pit one community against another. To get over that situation, the role of the facilitator is going to be extremely important. My question is whether or not a list of individuals who are going to be prequalified as facilitators is going to be available so that regions can then choose somebody that they feel some comfort with, or somebody who has a background that they can relate to and feel comfortable with, so that they can move forward.

Hon. D. Marzari: Let me guarantee the member that if a facilitator is going to be designated by the minister, there will be consultation with the regions so that there will be some comfort. I can't promise the member that there will be a pool of facilitators lined up against a wall for regions to choose from.

The Chair: Clearly, fighting words.

L. Fox: It is, because it kind of belittles what I was trying to say. All the way through, the minister is suggesting that this is bottom-up legislation, not top-down. This is one of the areas where it's top-down, and I'm trying to get the minister to concede that there should be a process of identifying a facilitator that would work within a region more comfortably than others. The municipalities and regions might be more comfortable with one person over another. We see that every day in mediation, arbitration -- you name it.

I am trying to get some commitment from the minister that that kind of relationship is going to exist and that municipalities are going to continue to enjoy what the minister appears to be so proud of: the bottom-up structure.

I would like to make one other observation on a statement the minister made a few minutes ago about all this being requested by the UBCM and the regions. I have been through that process, and I've seen how legislation sometimes.... It may have been intended, and the discussion and the dialogue was to achieve a specific action, but in the end, for various reasons the legislation does not meet the test. That's the reason we go through here.... Just because the UBCM is happy with it -- in my view that's great -- doesn't mean that everything within it has been discussed and refined.

Section 7,

section 942.18 approved.

section 7,

section 942.19.

C. Tanner: I have a quick question.

Section 942.19(2) says: "Acceptance of a regional growth strategy by an affected local government must be done by resolution of the local government." I take it that's a simple majority.

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes.

C. Tanner: Throughout this whole

section 942 and all its sections, it appears to me that there are time frames and compulsion later on -- time frames in that if you don't want to accept it you've got 120 days to say why, and compulsion as to reasons why you can't accept it, and even potential exceptions made for the jurisdiction which is saying: "We don't want it, but maybe you can give it to the rest of them." To borrow a phrase from the member for Prince George-Omineca, "bottom-up and top-down," this is another

section where it's a little bit top-heavy, particularly on the individual municipality dealing with its region. I wonder whether the minister would comment on the fact that in subsections (6) and (7), particularly in (7), is the feeling that the people that don't accept it are some sort of pariahs and that we've got to lean on them so heavily that we'll only give them 120 days. Why shouldn't a district have a different view from its surrounding municipalities? I can think of an exception very close to this building: Oak Bay, which has been notorious for being different from everybody else around it. Is there no way of accommodating that sort of exception to the rule?

Hon. D. Marzari: First of all, it must be declared at the outset that the planning process that we have to engage in here has to have an outside max. There has to be closure. We cannot roll these plans along year after year after year, with local governments saying, "We just can't come to closure; we can't come to agreement," and the provincial government reasonably helpless to deal with that fact. Local government -- and this was an issue around which there was a great deal of discussion at the UBCM -- wants closure; they want to get involved with implementation agreements.

The provincial government wants closure and wants to engage in bona fide contracts with different agencies of government. Deadlines were set to prevent stonewalling. Deadlines were set by the municipal governments. In fact, many municipal governments said 120 days is too long; after all, the regional district and the municipalities will have been engaged in this for two years before the 120-day sign-off comes along.

So there are two years -- let's assume that it's about two years -- for the initial preparation of the plan. Then once the plan has gone through its public hearing and it's signed off and sent back to the municipalities, one can only say that there has to be a set period of time for the municipalities to say yea or nay: "Yes, we can live with this" or "No, we can't live with this." In fact, there are two years after that for the

munici-

[ Page 14142 ]

palities to in effect adjust their official community plans to make a statement back to the regional district about how they intend to fit themselves into a plan they've already agreed to. These are outside maxs. I'm sure that most communities that engaged in the consultations would like to see them bumped along in a much faster mode than what's presented in the legislation. But for due caution, for proper diligence and to ensure that there's no sense of coercion, we did stretch the time out to 120 days in the particular provision that we're talking about here to ensure that municipalities had full opportunity.

But I don't imagine that municipalities will be going to the full max, using all that time to come in with context statements or using the full time to come in with their approval of a plan. I'm sure that after two years of sitting around tables once a month discussing the context and the scope of planning, they're going to have very strong opinions which will have been articulated far before the time comes for them to make their final statements known. So basically what we have in this

section has been driven by the UBCM and by the municipalities themselves saying: "You're going to have to put some deadlines on to ensure closure." Basically I have full confidence here that we're operating in a manner that's consistent with what's been demanded and what we can live with.

[4:30]

C. Tanner: Just to endorse what the member for Prince George-Omineca was saying about his experience in the UBCM.... My understanding of their attitude towards this legislation is: "What the hell, we've got nothing else to lose. We might as well go for it." Quite frankly, it sort of endorses what his experience has been.

section 942.19(6), the statement is made that: "If an affected local government fails to act under subsection (4)(b)" -- which is a very important part of this legislation -- "within the period for acceptance or refusal, the local government is deemed to have accepted the regional growth strategy." That is a very telling statement. Why doesn't it say that it also applies to provincial government departments?

Hon. D. Marzari: We've decided, on that latter point about the provincial government being given sign-off authority and veto power over the bill and over any plan.... This was decided on by the UBCM, the city councillors and the regional district directors themselves in an effort to find a way to seek closure at each logical interval in the process. After two years of planning and 120 days of having a chance to look at it, one can only assume that municipalities that are engaged and involved, and that care about the region and larger problems they have agreed upon already, can only be deemed to be in favour if they have not responded.

C. Tanner: I agree with what the minister just said as far as the local governments are concerned, but it doesn't say anything there about the Ministry of Highways. This ministry has had a reputation in the past -- I'm not sure what kind of reputation it has now, from what's left of it -- of being very autocratic and of knowing what's best for local municipalities because they're building highways to move traffic. What happens if part of the plan includes some stratagem that means a highway, which is included in the Ministry of Highways? Where does it say anywhere in this legislation that they too are compelled?

If a question is sent to them, and there is no response within 120 days, are they included automatically?

Hon. D. Marzari: There is nothing in this

section to talk about provincial governments signing off from the regional growth strategy. But I can guarantee the member that while this time is elapsing -- whether it be 60 days or the 120 days for this particular

section -- the technical advisory group that comes from every ministry and every Crown agency will be hard at work. It will be working as hard as the regional district itself to come up with a compatible and comprehensive provincial response -- whether it be in terms of capital planning, regulation or policy formulation -- to ensure that the framework of the regional plan can be met by the provincial government. Even while these days are elapsing, I can assure you that there will be a committee of provincial officials meeting early and continuously throughout this process to do nothing but pay attention to the structures and frameworks of the plan.

Upon closure of the plan, those contracts that hopefully will have been developed during the course of the planning process will be signed, ratified or honed to perfection or completion. The important thing here is closure of the planning process, because once the planning process is over, it can be ratified, and in five years it can be reviewed. Then we know what we've got, and the contracts can be signed, sealed and delivered. Then the provincial commitment will be visible and will be ratified.

But as this is going on, the Ministry of Highways will be seated at the table. As municipalities are ratifying, negotiating or preparing their context statements, the Ministry of Highways, among ten or 20 other agencies, will be there talking about subdivision, roads and transportation planning. That is what this bill guarantees that no other bill in the history of this province has guaranteed. Consequently, closure for the planning becomes extremely important.

C. Tanner: I don't think this bill does guarantee it, but I am reassured to a small extent by what the minister says. But would the minister be a bit more specific and tell me whether the Highways ministry, all other provincial ministries and Crown agencies are committed to the 120 days -- the same as the municipalities?

Hon. D. Marzari: The upside here is that the provincial government and its agencies are not sign-offs here. They're not signing off on the closure of the plan; they are subject to the local government's signing off on the plan. The timing of the plan is up to the regional government, not to the provincial government. When the closure happens, it's not up to Highways. Provincial agencies have no veto here; they have no power to sign off on any parts of these plans. They only have the obligation to be at the table to discuss the problems, and to make changes inside their ministries and their agencies to respond.

They have the obligation to sign contracts with the region to deal with the problems that emerge and are identified, and to come up as problem-solvers. That is the obligation of the province -- not to have ownership or sign-off authority inside the time frames that are suggested here.

C. Tanner: I think the minister is walking around the subject. All I ask is a straight yes or no to the question. If the municipalities are obligated to under 120 days under this plan,

[ Page 14143 ]

are provincial ministries -- be they what they may; the Highways ministry in particular, but also Education and all the others -- making the same commitment that you're asking of the municipalities, which is to say: "Yes, we're in" or, "No, we're out"?

Hon. D. Marzari: We've had this debate. It's not a yes-or-no answer. It's an irrelevant question.

L. Fox: I want to ask a question for some clarification around subsection (5) -- I'm so thankful for this plain language we've seen initiated in some of this legislation. Could the minister please explain the intent of subsection (5)?

Hon. D. Marzari: If all the municipalities agree sooner than 120 days, there's sign-off and ratification. If they don't, the 120-day period is, in fact, the outside maximum they're allowed to run to. Subsection (5) provides that the acceptance of a strategy is effective when all local governments have accepted the strategy before or at the end of 120 days. Subsection (6) clarifies that where the 120-day acceptance has expired and the affected local government hasn't said yea or nay, we're going to assume that the local government has said: "Okay, it's all right; we haven't complained."

L. Fox: That's what I was trying to garner out of it. It seems to me that if for some reason there's a breakdown in the system and there hasn't been official notification from the local community, there could be closure because it's perceived that because they didn't complain, there was closure. Is that what the minister is telling them?

Hon. D. Marzari: The regional board will have certainly met within that 120 days, and I'm sure that it will certainly be an item on the agenda of the regional district. The system can't really break down unless the regional district hasn't met for 120 days. Also, there's the backup proviso that a facilitator will be able to notify and help the municipality ask for an extension if it's absolutely necessary or if there's just cause for an extension. That is a possibility, as well.

L. Fox: So the minister, then, is telling me that if there were an early sign-off of 120 days, that part wouldn't be in effect, and that it only comes into effect if the 120 days has been reached. Thank you.

Section 7, sections 942.19 and 942.2 approved.

section 7,

section 942.21.

L. Fox: I would like, at this time, to propose an amendment. In actual fact, the amendment would come into a number of clauses where the same statement is made. But, given the minister's statements.... And I apologize -- I only have one copy of this amendment, but I'll read it out. The second-to-the-last line of subsection (3) says: "...if the minister considers that these parties will not be able to reach agreement...." My amendment would replace those words with "if these parties do not reach an agreement."

The reason for putting that amendment forward.... I think the minister has made it very clear that she didn't want people coming forward and using the offices of the ministry. Indeed, she wants the local people to work out their own strategies and their own plans. She doesn't really want to see individuals running to the minister to do it for them. What this does is encourage those parties not to use the minister's office but to work it out themselves.

They and the facilitator have to determine that it can no longer be resolved locally themselves, rather than the minister determining: "Hey, this process isn't working." It puts a lot of pressure on the local governments, and it takes some pressure off the minister. As well, it will resolve and maintain the local autonomy that the minister is suggesting.

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Marzari: By the time we reach this point in the bill, we're not dealing with choices about strategies around problem-solving. We're dealing with what kind of non-binding resolution process is going to be used. There is a menu of two or three possibilities for a non-binding resolution. We're assuming that the municipalities or regions, or a combination of them, can't reach an agreement. If they can reach an agreement about which non-binding resolution process they're going to use, that's fine.

But if they can't decide which of the three they're going to use, it seems to me that it's appropriate for the minister to have the ability to step in and choose one of the three non-binding resolution processes that are outlined here. This is a technique inside the dispute resolution mechanism that we've designed. It would be useful, I think, for the minister to be able to step in here, because at this point the process is crucial and can't be adjourned. It's important to get resolutions and disputes properly dealt with.

[4:45]

I would disagree with the amendment and say that the minister should be in there directing that particular process. It's probably one of few places where the minister should be involved.

L. Fox: Actually, the next several sections have the same clause in them, and this amendment I've put forward would change all the sections. I think it is very important here, if the system breaks down, for the groups themselves to identify the fact that it has broken down, and at that point they need to request help in order to resolve it. We're talking about a process that has been driven by local governments and local regions. I think we should be concerned about the authority of the minister.

There may be ministers at some point in time that have reasons to step in -- political reasons or whatever -- and the way it's written, this clause essentially allows that minister to do that. If it were the other way around, where they would request help because the system has broken down, it would provide me and other people a lot of comfort in the process.

Hon. D. Marzari: I can guarantee the member that there would have