1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, JULY 9, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 12, Number 2
[ Page 8465 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
E. Conroy: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome my mother and father to the Legislature this morning: Ed and Irene Conroy from Castlegar. Would members please make them welcome.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to introduce Judith Korbin and members of the staff who worked on the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service and the Public Sector. I think they've done an outstanding job over the last year. In the gallery we have Judith Korbin, Peter Burton, Jan Mears, Stuart Lamb and Bob Whitelaw. I'd ask all members to make them welcome.
Hon G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Sector Employers Act.
Hon. G. Clark: The new Public Sector Employers Act reflects the results of substantial research, review and consultation with the parties in the public sector by the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service and the Public Sector. The commission's mandate was broad in scope, encompassing all areas of human resource management in the broad public sector in British Columbia. This act represents the lynchpin that the commission recommends as integral to achieving government objectives in human resource management.
These objectives are: to control compensation costs in the public sector; to assist in the coordination of collective bargaining within and between sectors of the broad public sector; to introduce a mechanism that will deal with administrative costs, particularly executive compensation; and to ensure that government deals effectively with wage equity in the public sector.
The implications of this initiative are quite substantive. The public sector provides service to the taxpayers. In so doing, the public sector human resource costs consume about 60 cents of every dollar, or $11 billion of the government's 1993-94 $19 billion budget, and approximately 300,000 employees are affected.
The new Public Sector Employers Act provides an important mechanism for the government to be able to influence the expenditure of its resources by and through public bodies. The bill will provide for the coordination of human resources and labour relations issues across the broad public sector, consistent with the cost-effective delivery of services in those sectors. It also will provide for consultation with the representatives of public sector employees on policy issues that affect those employees. The bill will achieve these important goals by requiring the establishment of an association of employers in each of the six public sectors other than the public service. These associations are given the responsibility to coordinate compensation, benefit administration, human resource practices and collective bargaining objectives within their sector.
The bill also establishes a public sector employers' council. This council, comprised of representatives of cabinet as well as each of the public sector employer associations, will set and coordinate human resource and labour relations directions across the broad public sector. The bill provides further for the accreditation of these associations....
The Speaker: I regret, hon. minister, your time has expired.
Hon. G. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I move the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 78 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.
LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This bill provides a new process for the cancellation of plans under the Land Title Act. Under the current version of the legislation, a landowner was entitled to annex an unused road or other dedicated area shown on a subdivision plan if he or she could demonstrate that it was no longer in use for its dedicated purpose. The existing legislation no longer serves the public interest. Apart from conferring windfall benefits on landowners, a road, park or other dedicated area shown on a subdivision plan is a public resource that should remain in the public domain.
The amendments create a new plans cancellation procedure which eliminates windfall benefits and ensures that public resources will remain in the public domain for so long as they are required. The bill also adds greater procedural safeguards for the plans cancellation process to ensure the inclusion of all interested persons.
Finally, the bill creates new powers for municipalities to better manage changing uses and affords other local government bodies the opportunity to veto any plans cancellation that would adversely affect a road, park or public square. These measures have been long sought after by municipal governments across this province and by many concerned citizens, especially in urban areas. The amendments introduced today will give them the means to control, plan and effectively oversee the use of these valuable public resources.
I move the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 73 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 8466 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Horse Racing Act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, the bill replaces the existing Horse Racing Act, which was originally developed in 1960. At that time the primary focus was protection of the public from illegal or unauthorized practices that would influence the outcome of a horse race. The industry then was relatively uncomplicated. Since then, horse racing has become more complex and sophisticated. If the Racing Commission is to be able to effectively regulate modern horse racing and assist the industry in adapting to the rapidly changing world of spectator sports, the existing Horse Racing Act is clearly in need of major revisions. First and foremost, the new act clearly establishes the authority of the Racing Commission to regulate horse racing in the province. The new act will be welcomed by the industry, as the existing one has required updating for a long time.
I move the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 72 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.
[10:15]
PACIFIC RACING ASSOCIATION ACT
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pacific Racing Association Act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The purpose of this legislation is to provide an effective means of operating thoroughbred horse racing facilities in British Columbia. The act establishes a corporation, the Pacific Racing Association, for this purpose. Directors will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: ...in consultation with the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association of British Columbia and the B.C. division of the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society. I move the bill be read a first time now.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. I know it is a Friday, but we are taking the vote on the motion.
Bill 74 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.
Hon. G. Clark: I have the honour today to present the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service and Public Sector, Volume 2. In addition, there are some half-dozen background papers which I'd like to table.
THE KOOTENAY SYMPOSIUM: A MODEL FOR COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
C. Evans: It's my pleasure today to rise to report on a symposium that was held in Castlegar on June 18, 19 and 20. The purpose of the symposium was to discuss the past and the future of the Columbia River basin. First, I will give you a little background about how we got to the symposium. When this government was first elected, the issue of the Columbia River Treaty and the history of the Columbia River basin was foremost in our minds. Indeed, my colleague from Rossland-Trail and myself often spoke on the subject in speeches at nomination and election time. That's not unusual, because the history of the Columbia River basin has been foremost in the politics of southeastern British Columbia for 30 years. In our first speeches, both myself and the member for Rossland-Trail described the shape and history of the Columbia River area. We worked to encourage the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Energy to come to Castlegar last year to meet representatives of regional government in order to try and start a new era of cooperation in the management of the river basin.
In 1992 we met in Castlegar with representatives of five southeastern British Columbia regional districts and the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket tribal council. When we were at that meeting in Castlegar, I think it was evident to all present that it was not possible to start from that day and move to a cooperative management of the river system in the future without first airing the past experiences of the people. Rather than using that meeting in Castlegar to plan the future, we used it to plan a symposium for this June, where representatives of the public, academics, historians and politicians would meet to discuss what actually happened 30 years ago, what the dams and reservoirs represent and where we might go in the future.
In preparation for the meeting in Castlegar, an organization was formed called the CRTC. This is the first time that the people of southeastern B.C. have ever self-defined themselves. Their school and regional districts, the association of Kootenay boundary municipalities and the economic development regional advisory group are all designations imposed by the province at one point or another in history. The Columbia River Treaty Committee was self-defined by the people who are affected by the treaty. That extends from Valemount all the way down to Golden, Revelstoke and Cranbrook and down to the U.S. border. They held seven meetings in order to find delegates
[ Page 8467 ]
from the general citizenry in the affected region who wished to represent their community and come to Castlegar. At every meeting B.C. Hydro representatives laid out the basic tenets of the treaty, the community discussed their experience and their aspirations and then they chose delegates to send to Castlegar to carry forward the opinions of their community. In my experience, it was the first time the community chose its own representatives to discuss its future.
The symposium itself opened with a presentation, by the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, of $3.2 million a year, forever, for the mitigation of fish and wildlife damage caused by the reservoirs. Friday night a fellow named Jim Wilson gave the keynote address. That gentleman was employed as a planner by B.C. Hydro 30 years ago. He pointed out three facts, which I think many of us have forgotten.
Firstly, he stated that the Columbia River Treaty represented the largest forced dislocation of human beings in the history of Canada, with the exception of James Bay, and 2,500 were people forcibly moved over 100 miles from their homes.
The second piece of information Mr. Wilson made everyone aware of was that there was no debate. In those days, the people in this Legislature were unable to debate the decision to sign this treaty, and there was no public hearing process. It wasn't like today, when a large development generates public hearings and people discuss whether it's a good or bad thing; it was simply decided upon.
Lastly, because everybody knew it was happening, peoples' homes had no value. No one would buy a home, store or farm in a place that everyone knew would be flooded. So when they were establishing the value of those homes, the value was basically zero.
I want to say one thing very clearly. For two days citizens stood up and talked about their experiences. We heard from a man whose mother owned a store and a home with lakefront and a creek running through it, and she raised three children using the money from the store to feed her family. That individual's mother settled her value for $47. But he and the other 150 people there said: "We want to start from now and go to the future. We want to cooperate with senior levels of government to define a healthier future for us all." It wasn't just about pain in the past; it was about gathering together so that we could move forward in a more cooperative manner.
I was incredibly proud of the people and of the minister responsible for Hydro, the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Economic Development and all of the MLAs and government workers who met there for three days to move towards a better future.
D. Jarvis: I regret that I was not at that symposium, but I wasn't invited until it was too late. However, I have to agree somewhat with the member for Nelson-Creston. It is now three decades since W.A.C. Bennett ratified the Columbia River Treaty and sold the downstream benefits to the United States for about 30 years. The then Premier stated that the benefits to B.C. were the free dams constructed in the Kootenays. W.A.C.'s favourite statement at the time was: "Nothing is freer than free, my friends." Well, we all know that in this world of "free, my friends," nothing is free for the people in the Kootenays. They've suffered irreparable damage and cost as a result of the flooding from these free dams and their ensuing reservoirs.
It's now payback time, I guess. The Columbia River is about to show its benefits to the people of B.C., and the benefits will be in the billions of dollars. To power this province right now, including our export commitments, takes about 46,000 gigawatt hours of energy. By the year 2003, just ten years from now, we can expect in excess of 10 percent of that power to come from the Columbia alone. That's enough power to support the annual needs of the entire Kootenays, Okanagan, Shuswap and Columbia areas.
The choice before us is what to do with these riches that were to benefit British Columbia. Do we continue to sell electricity into the American grid or return it to the people of British Columbia? One way means millions and billions to the province. It is generally our feeling that on the whole, the benefits either way should go back to the resource areas that it came from. For far too long, outlying areas north and east of Hope have given up their resources to the province, with little return. As I say, it's probably payback time for the Kootenays.
Management of this bountiful return is of great concern to all areas of B.C., and crucial decisions on these downstream benefits will have to be made soon. Who receives the plums? Will it be the special areas or the special projects? Many and various thoughts have been proposed. Some want to put it all into education or health care. Due to the financial mess of the latest governments, a lot of people are saying that we should use it to pay off some of our debts. All of these ideas have merit, but there are far-reaching implications in terms of our provincial development. Our future economic and industrial strategy should be considered paramount. Without a clear, comprehensive economic blueprint, we will probably miss the greatest opportunity presented to this province in a generation. It is crucial that this government present an economic strategy to this province, and that it be ready to meet the opportunity that is before us. If the Kootenays aren't considered part of the strategy, I believe it will be a travesty.
C. Serwa: It's really very interesting to listen to the private member's statement this morning and to the Liberal response. I can see that between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, there is not a devil of a lot of difference: both seem left of centre.
In any type of development there are some displacements. We know that. But the British Columbia that we know today, with the affluence and job opportunities in the Kootenays and all of British Columbia, is directly dependent on the two-river hydroelectricity development scheme in the province. Those are provincial resources, and provincial resources belong to all of the people of the province. This nonsense of returning to some specific area.... The Columbia River begins at Columbia Lake. How do you share? We all share in the benefits. We have job
[ Page 8468 ]
opportunities; we have an enthusiastic, hard-working group of people; we have developments at Celgar; we have recreational resources that have been enhanced; we have new communities. If the hon. member would be willing to table where someone has taken a store and paid $47 for that store, I would like to see that. There was fair and just compensation for the properties at that time. The property owners were given opportunities for other parcels of land in adjacent areas. Communities like Nakusp have done very well.
[10:30]
The Speaker: In response to the reply, the hon. member for Nelson-Creston.
C. Evans: I'd love to respond to the reply, but there is a more important job than arguing with each other in here, and that is to report the comments of the ordinary people who went to the symposium. There were facilitators who were chosen as volunteers from the general public. They listed several subject areas that all of the small groups discussed. I want to list them in order to honour those people. They talked about their emotional attachment to the lands and to the lakes. They asked us to understand that to them the lakes are more than money. They talked about the need for redress, some way of honouring what happened. One of the ways of honouring what happened is that they ask for a commitment from governments in future that no such project will ever happen again without debate. They talk about the need for empowerment. They said they are committed to moving past the past, but local people there need to be involved in decisions. They talked about the need for information and their experience that information is always collected in Victoria, and that they are out of the loop. They talked about sharing the economic benefits of hydroelectric development. They pointed out that if we're going to make electricity, they should share in the benefits of that electricity. They talked about the application of downstream benefits. What will happen with the next 30-year payment? Will it be spent here? Will it be spent in the region that experiences duress? They talked about reservoir management. Can we hold the water in those reservoirs at levels that makes it useful to people, especially during fish-spawning season and recreation season?
They talked about the duration of commitments. They suggested that I say to you folks that their suggestion is that this country and this province never again sign an agreement that lasts for 60 years. They talked about the need for some ongoing structure that they can be involved in. One of the small groups passed a motion, and I'll read it:
"Whereas the area within the Columbia-Kootenay basin has been heavily impacted by the construction of hydro dams and creation of hydro reservoirs; and whereas the benefits of downstream electricity generation have accrued to B.C.; be it resolved that the Kootenay-Columbia Basin Consultative Council become a permanent group with funding from B.C. Hydro, Crown corporations...."
And there is representation on cabinet advisory and ESOR boards. What they are saying is: "Be it resolved that some permanent authority to manage the basin come out of this process."
I was thrilled on Sunday afternoon to hear the Minister of Economic Development commit to a process to negotiate with the local people, to invent some form of authority where we can discuss lake levels, funding, redress and economic development for the future, and basically to manage the region where the people live in cooperative fashion.
RECREATION AND LEISURE: INDICATORS OF A HEALTHY COMMUNITY
A. Cowie: In my capacity as the official opposition critic for Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing, the focus this session has clearly been on municipal affairs and housing issues. For that reason, I have chosen to stress recreation as the topic of this statement in an attempt to recognize the contribution that recreation makes in our many communities throughout British Columbia.
With the realities of budget constraints, the provincial government is not going to be the primary focus in the provision of recreation and leisure. By careful channelling of available provincial funds, however, the government can help to open up opportunities for municipalities, non-profit and private organizations and, indeed, individuals to create or help to create a delivery service for a wide range of recreation and leisure services in this province. In this statement I have chosen not to outline the Municipal Affairs and Recreation programs offered by this province, which are best left to estimates. I will instead speak about broad changes and opportunities in this field.
As many members know, I have spent nearly ten years as a commissioner on the Vancouver Parks and Recreation Board. While much of my interest has been in the provision of parks and recreation facilities and in the design of parks and open spaces, I have long admired the contribution of those in the recreation field. The professional staff who work in this field have ever-broadening opportunities as recreation evolves to include tourism, recreation management, therapeutic recreation, programs for seniors, resort management -- for those who are lucky enough to specialize in the private field -- and programs for special populations.
The Vancouver Parks Board, like many municipal commissions and departments around the province, requires staff with an ever-widening range of education. The sophistication and opportunities are much greater now than when I first worked as a teenager in a small recreation department in eastern Canada. Twenty or thirty years ago, recreation staff largely came from sport coaches with additional responsibilities for managing parks and recreation facilities. In fact, even today the senior people are largely still engineering- and sports-trained. I predict that in the future, because of changes in education and community needs, the senior people will come from recreation and leisure. They are better equipped by their education to understand and manage the broadening demands of our more urbanized society.
[ Page 8469 ]
In Canada we have a two-tier system for education in the field of recreation and leisure. At the college level, the programs are designed to give the graduates specific skills to work in specific niches of the recreation labour force. In the second tier, the university programs are more commonly aimed at the study of leisure conceptually as a social service. There are now 20 colleges and universities that offer recreation and leisure programs within Canada. At the university level, programs can include tourism and commercial recreation; outdoor recreation, sometimes associated with forestry programs; various streams of administration; therapeutic recreation, often assisting in rehabilitation at hospitals; resource management, again associated with forestry programs; patterns of community development, which extends into the health field; culture; aging; psychological intervention; social organization; and many others. By examining the capability of staff in community recreation and leisure organizations, it is easy to assess the community's awareness of a healthy community.
Because of budget constraints, it is even more important today to know the health of the community. In Vancouver, for example, it is now common practice to conduct leisure needs assessment surveys before new community association programs are approved for new facilities to be built. Essentially, such assessments are more detailed than is usually done for community planning purposes. It is an effort to determine the major needs or market and can include a broad assessment of health and fitness, heritage, life skills, literary arts, multicultural aspects, outdoor recreation, performing arts, sports and visual arts. Provincial governments today should put a priority on assessing communities' needs, with such assessments done prior to funding projects and programs.
F. Garden: It's with pleasure that I stand to reply to the statement made by my hon. colleague. I acknowledge his expertise in this field over many years. It's an important subject. My years as an alderman in the city of Quesnel showed me how important it is to be able to cooperate with senior government in getting recreational facilities in small communities. That community transformed an almost inaccessible area into a beautiful waterfront trail around the Quesnel and Fraser Rivers. It is, I would say, one of the best recreational trails in the province.
The government is proud of its long-standing tradition of encouraging communities to undertake the administration of local recreation service programs. Based on the excellent programs in our communities, B.C. leads the nation in its sport and recreation participation rates. At the outset it should be noted that one of the principal means of support for community recreation in B.C. is through the provision of enabling legislation. The Municipal Act provides the powers for incorporated communities to undertake capital development of recreation facilities and the administration of the programs. In B.C. all municipalities have acted upon this power, and a large number of the smaller communities have undertaken the establishment of a recreation program either through a rural recreation commission or by forming a society; 150 of these are in the rural recreation commission category.
The direct role of the province, through the recreation and community services branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing, is to assist municipalities, provincial recreation associations and volunteers in providing recreation opportunities for all citizens. The ministry operates a system that provides organizational development for recreation organization, which was supported by the government in the amount of about $549,000 this year. It also provides leadership programs for both volunteers and professional staff and direct financial assistance for small communities and rural recreation commissions. As well, it undertakes promotion programs relating to physical activity, such as coordinating Fitweek in British Columbia.
In spite of budget constraints, the minister announced in April that there would be an overall increase in funding to this program of 18 percent. This includes doubling the assistance for recreation programs in smaller communities. The total value of these programs in the past year was $1.4 million. Every effort is being made to encourage development of leadership programs for youth, seniors, aboriginals and people with disabilities. It should be noted that many of the recreation programs are combined with programs from the sports services area, such as the introduction to coaching, ensuring that all British Columbians are aware of the opportunities to participate. The B.C. Games, the Seniors' Games and the Northern B.C. Winter Games are priorities of the branch.
During the past two years, the branch has worked on a new provincial strategic plan for recreation services. This document was completed in 1992 and is now used as the policy guidelines for the branch in the operation of its programs. The strategic plan was developed in concert with the recreation field, so that both the objectives of the branch itself and the general direction of the field are incorporated in the strategic planning. Current work underway this year has the branch undertaking further program assistance in smaller communities in the late winter and during the spring. Forty-seven community workshops on program development and planning were completed through assistance from volunteer leaders throughout the province.
[10:45]
At present, the branch is coordinating an aquatics outdoor recreation leadership camp for youth. This is taking place at Pasulko Lake and has been organized in cooperation with the Lytton Band Council as well as a number of other partner agencies such as the Red Cross, water safety division, Royal Life and others. Later in the summer, a similar back-country training course with be held for youth with the emphasis being on other outdoor recreation skills development and leadership. This government has taken a leading role in the provision of recreation for its citizens.
In conclusion, it should be noted that....
The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that your time has expired.
[ Page 8470 ]
A. Cowie: I'd like to thank the member for Cariboo North for commenting on the provincial programs, which are very good and very well carried out, and for commenting on the various games throughout the province, including the Canada Games and the Commonwealth Games that the ministry is helping out with next year in Victoria.
I would like to comment a little further, however, on the community level, which the provincial government does contribute to. It is important at that level to assess the various issues before giving funding. It's very important for the provincial government to make sure that communities are assessing the various participation rates and the barriers to participation that often exist in some communities, especially the poorer areas in those communities. They have to assess the preferred location and programs, the pricing considerations and many more aspects before deciding what new programs to initiate or what programs to continue.
Communities can no longer afford to build large facilities without a sophisticated understanding of the community's needs. Twenty years ago, in new communities like Surrey and Delta, rinks, pools and community centres were a simple reaction to the demands of young families. The new leisure pool in Delta, which many of us pass on weekends as we head back to our constituencies, is a very fine facility that is going to serve a much broader and aging community than would have been served 20 years ago. The needs in the community have to be understood so that it is properly programmed. I'm confident that they have the excellent staff who would be able to do that.
If a thorough understanding for such facilities is not evident, taxpayers will resent such expenditures. My congratulations to the many men and women who work in the recreation and leisure field, both private and public. Their jobs, as I have witnessed over the last 20 years or so, are much more complicated than we first expect. They have to know their community, or the market they work in, to be successful. Those who reach the top today must have a wide range of academic and practical management skills, as well as political know-how. Show me a senior park and recreation manager, and I will show you a skilled politician. They have to be, in order to serve the politicians and the public today.
OUR ENTERTAINMENT CULTURE: A RESPONSIBLE COMING OF AGE
S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, in a few months Surrey will officially become a city. Rapid growth has changed us from a rural municipality with five small towns into a big city that is planning for a population that will exceed that of the city of Vancouver in the near future. We're having growing pains.
As the MLA for Surrey-Green Timbers, I receive calls from my constituents who are concerned about the increase in violent crime. The murder of Jesse Cadman frightened parents and children, who now feel vulnerable in their own neighbourhoods. I was personally shocked by the stabbing death of Dorothy Britton, a frail woman of 80 who lived near my office and had come to us for assistance when she was having problems with her pension. We are worried about youth gangs and violence and abuse in the home and about the security of our property. We worry that our laws are not strong enough and are not enforced and that the court and parole systems aren't strict enough with convicted criminals. There's a sense of victimization within the community, as though people expect to be the victims of crime, and out of that fear comes anger.
A few weeks ago frustrated neighbours in Langley took action against a young man to demonstrate their determination to prevent him from behaving inappropriately -- in their view, criminally -- in the playground and around the swimming pool. I believe that this is a symptom of anxiety about crime, which turns to helplessness and frustration and then it explodes. But it also clearly demonstrates that people are prepared to take action. Jesse, Dorothy and the children in the playground -- we want their safety. So what do we do and where do we start?
I believe that as a community we have to start with the violence that invades our homes in the form of entertainment. The entertainment industry generates fictional violence that is propelled into our lives by technology, creating a culture of violence. From babies dropping out of airplanes on the screens of hand-held video games to graphic killings on television, we are, in the guise of entertainment, slowly but surely desensitizing our youth and dehumanizing ourselves.
As a teacher, I once watched in fascination while a pair of bantam chickens roosted on a duck egg, and then raised the little duckling as their own. The students called him Chuck the Duck, but he thought he was a chicken, imprinting from his bantam parents all kinds of chicken behaviours. The lesson for the children and for us all is that what we see is what we do. We learn by imitation and modelling, and over time what we see is what we are.
Our children watch an incredible number of hours of television each day. We've all heard the statistics. On average, they will have seen 20,000 murders by the time they reach adulthood. I don't believe that any person, let alone a whole society, can sustain a civil culture under that kind of violent bombardment. It is a tragic irony that through entertainment technology we promote the very behaviours we most fear. Technology has given us the tools to commit real crimes that imitate the fictional crimes we have watched. Entertainment has become a medium for a massive assault on rationality itself. Popular television teaches us that conflict is resolved not through discussion, demonstration and persuasion but through violence. We see violent behaviour, we hear violent language, and we react to the violent artistic techniques that carry the message. Like the little duck, we inevitably imprint this behaviour. It is inevitable that it will be reproduced in our everyday world.
It would be nice if we could simply legislate a violent culture out of existence; we can't. I am convinced, however, that we can reassert the fundamental value of reason in our social relations. As a society, we must first examine our motives for permitting violent
[ Page 8471 ]
behaviour to assume the mantle of legitimacy. Until we confront this cultural phenomena in our own communities, we cannot begin to draft laws that will deal with violent conduct. But people say: "Even if what you say is true, we can't do anything about it. It's a global problem. It's outside our jurisdiction. We in Surrey can't do anything about video games and television programs that are produced elsewhere."
Another irony is that the culture of violence encourages us to think of ourselves as helpless victims. The possibility that we could use reason to solve this very problem is not a part of this anti-rational model of humanity. But we are not helpless in these matters. I know that radical changes have occurred in public values since I was young. Those changes were the result of rational public arguments and discussion. I am thinking of changes in our attitude towards smoking and drinking. When I was growing up, these habits were learned routinely from our parents and, need I say, from the cinematic images of Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Now drinking and smoking are strictly controlled, and those who indulge do so in the face of strong public sanctions.
Like the environmental issues, we are tackling many global problems locally, and I believe we can do the same with the problem of violent entertainment. If we want to transform this culture of violence and control the tools of violence, we must take a long, hard look at what we are doing in the entertainment industry, or we will move inexorably toward a frightened and, I believe, armed society.
C. Serwa: I thank the member for her very thoughtful presentation. Regrettably, I didn't have time enough to advance on the topic of entertainment. On the title "A Responsible Coming of Age" my first thoughts were to the advancement of the arts and the cultural aspects of the community. Nevertheless, the hon. member for Surrey-Green Timbers has touched on a very important topic in a thoughtful and sensitive way. Often when we discuss violence, and certainly we hear a great deal more in growing communities, whether it's Surrey, which is growing in population and to a degree losing the sense of community with the tremendous influx of new people.... It's occurring the same in my community and in many other communities throughout British Columbia.
The member has focused on one aspect, which perhaps tends to portray a normalization of violence. There is no question in my mind, as there is no question in the hon. member's mind, that it has some significant impact on the growth and change of our culture. I recall reading in history virtually the same discussion going back in all of recorded history. First of all, we have to understand that, part and parcel, there are some dark sides of human nature. When we talk about violence, rather than playing around with the symptoms and results, perhaps we should understand and explore some of the fundamental causes. What causes the violence? Perhaps the break-ins. We're talking about a number of incidents that occur in a community and that are quite unsettling to the older members of the community. We have all sorts of stresses in our modern-day world. Obviously, from my perspective, jobs are not available as readily as they should be. Busy people are happy people. They are productive. They are secure in themselves. Their pride and self-esteem are there. To me, if we could achieve a day when 1.5 percent or 2 percent unemployment is the maximum that we would tolerate, then perhaps we would do something to mitigate some of the concerns that the hon. member was talking about.
There are other aspects, of course, that are challenges in today's society: the breaking up of the family unit, for example, and the number of single-parent families. While we say that there is nothing wrong with single-parent families, the reality is that when the hon. member talked about imprinting, fundamentally both parents play a significant part in the appropriate imprinting in the early years of a child. We tend to bring up children the way we were brought up, and this goes on for generations, so that's part and parcel of it. We look to other forms of imprinting. It may be, as the hon. member says, that which is convenient, the television and perhaps the video games. Competitiveness is perhaps a form of violence in some minds. Violence occurs in this very chamber, not physical violence, but verbal violence. The other night, after the stroke of midnight, violent words were uttered back and forth. I suppose that we're supposed to be examples for British Columbia. The reality is that the nature of human beings is within us all, and we react in different ways. It's the control of the basic factors that are enabling the violence that we're seeing today. Drugs are predominant in the increase in violence and violent crimes that are occurring, certainly with respect to break-ins. Again, seniors, especially in communities, are very unsettled and are uneasy with what is transpiring.
[11:00]
We're going to have to look at things again in a more mature way to strive to attend to the root causes of what is occurring. The member was talking about entertainment. When I was growing up, I read a lot of books. The books were written in perhaps the early 1900s. Some of you may have read Girl of the Limberlost and Freckles by Gene Stratton-Porter, and a number of books like that. Fundamentally, they were books that tried to expand on the values of a work ethic -- striving to do your very best and in the end things worked out. All of media has to focus on that.
S. Hammell: I'd like to thank the member for Okanagan West for his comments. I agree with him entirely that if we had full employment, or even if we got down to only 2 percent or 3 percent unemployment, we would be a much happier and healthier society. Certainly strains would come off. There would be less tension. I hope the member noted that in B.C. the unemployment rate dropped a full percent. I think I heard that this morning on radio. So we are working toward that goal.
But I am actually very focused in this discussion on the concerns of the violence transmitted by the entertainment industry. In Ottawa, in the U.S. Congress and across Europe, discussions are taking place on the
[ Page 8472 ]
role of the media in promoting violence. Here in British Columbia we must begin our own discussions. Community leaders have both the opportunity and the obligation to challenge the culture of violence, if we can. We can and we should lead the process in which, as members of the community, we begin to share responsibility for the safety of our homes and families. Believe me, after discussing this with the RCMP and other police forces, they cannot do it. It demands our engagement in the process. We cannot simply leave it to the experts: the RCMP, judges, criminologists and politicians; every one of us has a responsibility to play a part in the process and has an opportunity to begin.
I believe that we should make the same assumption about our ability to influence and control the entertainment industry as we have made elsewhere. Through face-to-face discussions at the community level, we can develop a process for dealing with entertainment violence. We have confronted other global problems successfully in the past, and it is critical that we join in the growing international resistance to this type of cultural violence. The slogan "Think globally, act locally" has served the environmental movement well. Because voices have been raised and heard, we have changed the way we conduct ourselves in relation to the natural world. I would suggest that we put the same kind of effort into changing relations with each other. If we can preserve our environment, we can preserve a civil culture.
CHILDREN FIRST
V. Anderson: In this statement today I wish to highlight an area of concern that I believe we in this House have been overlooking, which is the need for the children of our communities to be the first consideration in all our deliberations. I believe that we are all aware of the phrase we quite often use in an emergency: women and children first. In our deliberations on the question of equity, we have an example of the needs of women being amply considered and met and brought to the fore. But in our Legislature's deliberations and planning, seldom have I heard of the even greater need to put the well-being of our children first.
As to the degree of the demonstrated need, I would remind you that 6,000 children are currently under care in British Columbia. At the same time, nearly 119,000 children are living in poverty on the welfare rolls, and roughly another 119,000 children are believed to be living in homes where the income is even further below the poverty line. Besides these children, countless numbers of youth under the age of 19 are suffering from inadequate individual skills-training opportunities and for whom the future is not at all promising. These conditions exist in a society which has been ranked by the United Nations as one of the best places in the world to live. How ironical, hon. Speaker!
Are we startled when we read the United Nations children's fund report, which states that in this past year in Africa "nearly 5 million of the world's forgotten children died and another 5 million were disabled by severe malnutrition and disease?" The report goes on: "While Africa may have been a particularly devastating and public disaster and on a large scale, a quiet disaster stalks the rest of the developing world and affects fully half of the world's children. More than 400 million of the world's absolute poor are children who are not eating enough for the growth of their minds and bodies, who are not immunized against any of the preventable diseases of childhood, who do not have access to basic health care, who will never see a school and who's enjoyment of childhood is withheld by the poverty into which they are born."
The report goes on to say that the resources of this planet are sufficient for all of us, if we could and would only share them with one another. The facts are clearly before us. The children do not come first, whether we look at the world at large or restrict our view only to British Columbia. Let us be reminded that every minute of every day somewhere in the world, 27 children die. That equals 1,620 an hour, 38,880 a day, 272,160 a week, and 14,152,320 a year -- which equals approximately half the population of Canada. This does not take into account the billions who are struggling to survive in despicable conditions.
No, hon. Speaker, the children are not coming first in our actions. Yet I am convinced that there is not one member of this House who, if asked, would not say honestly and with conviction: "Of course children come first." I must admit that this part of my speech was the easiest to write. From here on I had to reflect on what we in this Legislature do about these facts. It is not just the magnitude of the numbers. As every parent knows very well, a single child in and of herself is precious beyond words, and the multitudes of numbers are only the reflection of the single validity of every girl and boy. Who does not weep at the funeral of a child? How can we help but weep, when even in the seven minutes that I have spoken, 189 children have died.
I am not trying to be melodramatic. I am just trying to remind us of the real reason why we are here -- at least in my mind. We are here, first of all, for the well-being of the children of the world in which we live. We have been discussing the saving of trees, fish, taxes and our comfortable way of life -- all valid, mind you. But if children are first, where is the discussion and the plan to save children? Where in the 70-some legislative bills that we have been discussing are bills regarding children? Where in the headlines is the neglect in B.C. that perhaps, first and foremost, is being perpetuated against the 300,000-plus children?
J. MacPhail: I thank my colleague, the member for Vancouver-Langara, for raising, in his usual articulate, eloquent and compassionate way, the issue of the care and protection of our children. I think he poses a question that needs to be carefully considered and responded to: where are children placed in our agenda of change in British Columbia? I hope I can provide the member with a different analysis than he presents about where children fit in our agenda. I start by saying that I share all of his concerns, and I share them on a local, a national and an international level. No matter what we achieve here over the coming months and years, our highest priority must still be to eradicate poverty among our children. I also note that the first
[ Page 8473 ]
step toward eradicating poverty among children is to bring about economic equality for women. We have to face up to the reality that it is women who today have the primary responsibility for child care.
Let me give you some comfort about how our government views society's responsibility toward children. While we do not have a specific ministry of children, our view is that each and every member of our executive council -- indeed, of our government caucus -- must have on their checklist of responsibilities the eradication of abuse and poverty that directly affects children. I know that our Premier considers the issues facing poor children to be one of his priorities, both at the local level and in his role as chief executive officer of the province. In his own riding he has established the Strathcona project to deal with the very issues that the hon. member outlined at a local level. By example, he has asked the rest of us to put forward programs. Many of those programs have already been established, and much is before you today in the Legislature: our hot lunch program, which we have put millions into; and our English-as-another-language program to make sure that children who arrive here can fit into our society.
We have provided funding for inner city schools, where children are affected very negatively by the inner city problems of great poverty. We have programs to help young mothers cope with being young mothers and also having to get a start in life. The huge strides that we've made in the area of provision of child care will affect our children wonderfully. We've just announced 7,500 new spaces, and those are for children who might otherwise be latchkey kids -- kids who have to go from school to an empty home. Now we will be able to keep them adequately and safely protected within their schools.
Also, I urge the member to read the report on family violence and our family legal system, "Breaking Up Is Hard to Do." It's an excellent report, and I'm sure he has already read it. I just completed it last night, and it gives us great direction, which our government will be very responsive to in terms of how to cope with the changing values and consequences of family breakup and its impact on our social structure. I also would refer to the strides that we're making in post-secondary education, because the best thing for eradicating poverty and taking care of our children is to provide them with an adequate education at all levels. We are trying to open up the system to create greater access to the post-secondary system so that children of all economic backgrounds and people with disabilities and from deprived backgrounds -- for instance, our aboriginal people -- have equal access to the education system.
[11:15]
The hon. member's concerns are absolutely valid, and we are working on them each and every day throughout government. While there isn't one ministry responsible, each and every ministry is responsible and delivers through all of our programs for the children of this province. I applaud you for raising those concerns.
V. Anderson: I thank the member for Vancouver-Hastings for her supportive words. I realize that attempts are being made to do many things. But with the magnitude of the concern, we have hardly begun. I'm interested that we felt it was important to have a ministry for women, which is recognized, and as of yesterday a ministry for multiculturalism was announced. It seems to me that once again youth and children have been put down the list. I would have thought that the ministry of children and youth should have come first -- not to denigrate the others but to emphasize that the focus on children and youth needs to be there before us all the time.
I also acknowledge that the report Making Changes from the Ministry of Social Services has itself indicated that this is the place to start. Its purpose was to review child protection legislation in British Columbia. I'm talking not only about the children of British Columbia but of our responsibility to the children of the world, because we cannot deal with one unless we are equally able to deal with the other. Our world concerns have been almost totally absent from our discussion in this Legislature. Even in our question of adoption, we must consider the opportunity for international adoptions, because that is the only hope for many of the children of the world.
Our medical sharing with other people around the world is equally important. The report Making Changes made note of the report of the United Nations. They commented on article 27 of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which was ratified by Canada after consultation with all the provinces. The UN report states that every child has a right to a standard of living adequate for his or her physical, mental, spiritual, social and moral development. I trust that we in this Legislature will take up the opportunity and the demand that we put children first -- not only our own children here in British Columbia but all of the children of the world. Unless we have that wider vision, we are not going to be able to deal adequately with the concerns even here in our own communities.
We must put children first. Only then shall we develop the fullness and discover the wholeness of living for them as well as for ourselves. One of our religious leaders over history commented that a little child shall lead. We need to follow.
The House in Committee of Supply B; R. Kasper in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING
(continued)
On vote 51: minister's office, $370,891 (continued).
A. Cowie: I'd like to ask the minister a number of questions this morning along the theme that we left yesterday. We were discussing the need for regional government. We also discussed the assessment system and some taxation, which I'd like to ask some questions about.
[ Page 8474 ]
First, before getting into some housing questions, today's Vancouver Sun, -- oddly, following what we discussed yesterday -- talks about "Sprawling Mega-city Threatens." Essentially we're talking about the Georgia basin and the need to plan on a basin level, which one could say is, if you want, a megaregion level. This has been one of the Premier's pet projects for a number of years, as I remember. It's something he that feels is terribly important. In fact, the Premier has gone south and talked with the Governors in the United States just south of us. I heard yesterday that while regional government is an important thing, the ministry feels it has to evolve. While I have some sympathy for this, I think that this issue as put forward in the Sun, and which also comes, of course, from the round-table recommendations....
I looked through the budget to try to find some funds that would deal with this so that this ministry could take the leadership. Municipal Affairs is the obvious place to show the leadership; it should go ahead and work with this subject. It should be the guiding hand and not leave it to some other ministry. I would like to know, other than the one person who was identified -- and that person is extremely talented and good but can only do so much -- where the budget is that this ministry is going to use to deal with this particular issue, which has been identified as the prime development issue of the next decade.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Unfortunately, I haven't read the story, but I have heard about it. I actually welcome those stories, because they basically provide the incentive to everybody to help us recognize that it is very important that the province move ahead, along with all the affected local jurisdictions. There is a greater requirement these days for growth-management strategies, and there is a very important role for the provincial government to play in terms of coordinating those efforts. As I said yesterday to the hon. member -- he may not have quite got my direction or what I was actually saying -- while we are prepared to provide leadership, and we have checked back in and we're doing heavy research and consultation, working with experts in the field and pulling together key stakeholders -- and I hate the term -- it's very important that local governments and key players in local government buy in to the fact that we need growth-management strategies.
As you know, in the GVRD there's a voluntary system at work, The Liveable Region. The players are hard at work coming up with a regional planning and growth-management strategy on a voluntary basis. Everyone will agree to a process, but if someone disagrees, they could opt out. While I support them in their endeavours to achieve a system, it could very well be, as the hon. member knows, that there may be a need for a legislative framework in terms of some requirements for the municipalities that make up the GVRD to have to stay the course, and opting out or vetoing may not be the best course of action for the common good for growth management in the GVRD. My position thus far has not been to say that we automatically will legislate that. We want everyone to know that we have a viewpoint on that, and we are working with all their interested players to indicate that the province is doing its work and that there probably will be legislation in '94.
Over the last year or so there has been no question that in areas where there was skepticism at local government level, bringing back some form of regional planning or growth-management strategy the skepticism that we don't require it or that it was just an intrusion into local autonomy.... I think there's some movement in that, quite frankly. I have noticed that is changing, for instance, in the Okanagan. Some years ago there was some resistance to having some regional strategy of growth management that had some legislative framework. I am very encouraged by some of the locally elected people in that area who are actually coming to us. We are assisting them substantially, not only with staff time but financially, to get them to start to prepare themselves, their electorate and the key stakeholders that there is that requirement in the Okanagan Valley. If you have been up there recently you know that it's under incredible pressure, and that it is a beautiful area of the province that really does need some growth management strategies. And they are coming to that conclusion.
In terms of support, my ministry is extremely active in financial support for local government and their planning. Last year we provided half a million dollars for regional strategy grants, which went to the GVRD and the CRD: $300,000 went to the GVRD in terms of their current work, and $175,000 went to the CRD. This year we have allocated $400,000 for regional strategy grants. It may very well be that we will expand beyond the CRD and the GVRD and take a look, as I said in my introductory remarks yesterday, at the Nanaimo region and, of course, the expanding need in the Okanagan Valley.
I don't have the figures here, but I think we provided approximately $3 million this year for overall planning grants for local government -- a substantial amount of money for their requirements. I have given more and more instruction to staff, and I think local government knows -- certainly in terms of this minister's leadership -- that we want to see our money go towards coordinating and looking at regional growth management strategies in their approach to regional planning.
The reason we are directing certain amounts of money to specific regions, as I said yesterday.... I think one of factors that led to some animosity towards the pre-'83 regional planning was that it was a universal strategy; that it didn't take into account the unique characteristics and differences in the various regions. I have categorically said that if we bring back regional planning or growth management strategies, in many ways they will be customized to the regions. For instance, I have said quite clearly to the Okanagan that they will have the opportunity to consult with us on whether there is a regional planning or growth management strategy in legislation. If we go that route, that would meet their specific requirements.
The bottom line is that we have $3 million total in planning grants: $500,000 last year, specifically to get these regions ready and up and running to move toward
[ Page 8475 ]
regional planning, growth management strategies and perhaps a legislative framework, and this year continuing that kind of provincial support.
A. Cowie: This panel which warns against vast urban blight is called the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. It is not a Liberal organization. It is chaired, in fact, by Mayor Joy Leach from Nanaimo. This panel is issuing a very strong warning. Essentially, we cannot just look back to 1973 when the NDP tried to do some amalgamations and tried to look at some regional planning and got stung. We can't be scared. We've got to show some leadership.
[11:30]
This panel, which is predominantly NDP people, is crying out that something has to be done. I am trying to find out where the leadership is, and I can't find it. I can't find it in this ministry. I know that the Premier sees this as a great concern. I can't find it in the budget. I find it in the papers. As much as I have great respect for the minister, he stood up and gave a very weak and wishy-washy approach to where we are going in regional government. "Am I going to be pushed somewhere? Please push me. Push me hard enough and I might do something." Where is the money to do this work that is so obvious? That's what I want to know.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm actually pleased to see my critic being demonstrative. He feels very strongly about this issue, as we all do. That is encouraging, because quite frankly, we are going to need a consensus of all political stripes and interested parties to be able to achieve growth management strategies. In particular, for the GVRD and CRD, we're going to need support from everybody. I would suggest, hon. member, that you -- and hopefully, my Social Credit friends across the way, in terms of the regions they represent -- may wish to embark on giving encouragement and support.
There has to be, as much as possible, an apolitical or non-partisan approach to coming to terms with the challenge we face. Quite frankly, hon. member, it is a challenge. As the hon. member knows, for various reasons the provincial government -- particularly the previous government -- checked out and removed itself from the field in terms of a legislative requirement for regional planning. We've now seen the results. It has gone unchecked and unfettered, and we are facing growth that is creating all sorts of ancillary problems every single day. So it's a challenge.
We're responding with resources -- millions of dollars -- for local government planning and specific money for regional strategies and planning. We are putting incredible staff resources within my ministry to move the agenda forward on growth management strategies. But I keep saying to the member that, like everything else, when you are dealing with a highly charged issue, with the longstanding tradition of local government autonomy and with the cry that has always been there in the past about regional planning or growth management strategies that encumber local autonomy, if we don't bring people along gradually so they understand where we are going, we will never get people to buy into those strategies. Quite frankly, we need them to understand them and to want to do them.
My strategy has been to keep it on track; it is on track. We have moved a lot of people who, when I started to discuss this a year and a bit ago, were saying: "What's the agenda? What's the provincial government up to?" They are not saying that anymore, because we are showing them through our work and assistance, and quite frankly, through the reality they face on a daily basis in their regions, that there has to be support by the provincial government. There has to be some sense, particularly in our fast urban growth areas, that although there may be contiguous and autonomous municipalities, with boundaries that are being imposed by the politicians, the issues that they face today do not recognize the boundaries that are in place. You're right that we have to convince people, and people have to buy into that and be part of it.
We will be going out very shortly on a fairly extensive consultation process in terms of our provincial role and the growth management strategies that people want for their regions. I have my viewpoints. I certainly have my views on what I think should happen, but this is too important an issue for both the province and local government for me, as minister, to arbitrarily impose an agenda today without some sense from those who know their regions best, and that's the people at the local level. My hon. friend from Vanderhoof and Prince George will, I'm sure, draw upon his experience as mayor and give us the opportunity to share our ways of doing things and how we think we can deal with our growth issues, or even with the desire for growth, in fact. It's not always how to deal with growth; some people actually want more growth. As I travel the province, people in regions and subregions and communities say: "the GVRD and the CRD and the Okanagan have all these problems of burgeoning growth. We want it!" So the other side of it is: how do we redirect into areas that want growth?
We are putting resources into it, and we will put more, but money won't buy consensus. The only way you'll achieve consensus on this issue is by getting people to understand that they have problems and that the provincial government is a partner with them in resolving this issue. I'm pleased about Vancouver Sun stories and any other stories that help us with that agenda. Quite frankly, I'm pleased that you feel so strongly about it, because it helps us achieve, as much as possible, a non-partisan solution.
A. Cowie: I agree that this isn't a political issue. Frankly, I don't care what the politics are; what it needs is some leadership. I think the leadership at the local level has been crying out for a long time for some provincial leadership on this particular issue. We need the province to take some strong actions. The minister hopes that he'll get the help of the Socreds. He might, from the Socreds who are in the House today, but over the last ten years the Socreds did absolutely nothing on this issue.
Interjections.
[ Page 8476 ]
A. Cowie: Nothing at all. They showed no leadership on this issue.
This issue has been creeping up for a long time. The mayor of Nanaimo is an NDP mayor, and I have a lot of respect for her. She's a good person. Here's what she says: "If we take no action to zone land to prevent urban sprawl, our projections show a doubling of the population by 2020 and a mega-city from Olympia in Washington State reaching to Squamish and the Sunshine Coast, densification from Vancouver out to Hope...." That may be a threat, but that's your NDP comrade speaking. If she's crying out for leadership, I would hope that we would get more action than what I heard this morning: "Please push me, I might be able to do something." It's not always a matter of money; it's a matter of leadership. So even though it isn't in the budget, I will look forward to some statements that show clear, decisive leadership in this particular area.
I would like to refer to a subject which was discussed yesterday, and that's this wishy-washy policy statement by the Islands Trust. I'm quite prepared to say that it's wishy-washy, and although I don't want to put words in his mouth, I think the minister agreed to some extent that it's a bit vague. One has to recognize that the Islands Trust area is right smack in the middle of the Georgia basin, and it's going to receive the greatest amount of pressure. It's a delightful, beautiful place to visit and a delightful place to stay. Something has to be done to identify more control or more vision for that area. I don't particularly like to use the word "control," but more vision. I would like to see the minister reiterate just a little bit about where the money and the leadership is to make sure that we resolve this in a hurry. We can't wait three or four years. We've got to do it in a more logical, managed and urgent manner.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I am very pleased that the member is as interested in this topic as I am. We continue to move the agenda. Hon. member, you should be aware that the local government services section of my ministry is extremely active, with a budget of nearly $260,000, which helps coordinate many of the activities you are talking about. Our planning section has a budget of about $370,000. In policy and research, the biggest project they are taking on -- growth management strategies -- has a budget of $700,000. That's just staff costs; that's not grants. As I already indicated to you this morning, we have $3 million for planning grants. We are directing where we think some of the requirements are, as I indicated on the regional planning strategies. This year, nearly half a million dollars will go to the key urban growth areas of this province. You should also know, in terms of the information I provided yesterday, that 70 to 80 restructures -- or amalgamations, as you like to put it -- are underway. This year we spent $4 million out of my ministry in that area to try to get some rationalization -- some sanity, quite frankly -- into some of these areas that need to be drawn in and better organized under a reorganized process.
We are heavily involved in the lower mainland regional district restructure programs. We are heavily involved in helping to coordinate air quality management for the lower mainland. Three or four regional districts have come together to recognize -- and have shown, on the issues I referred to earlier -- that the largest issues that loom for us today don't recognize the boundaries that we have. Four regional districts are working on air quality management. As I indicated yesterday, we are taking a major step forward. Three lower mainland regional districts are actually talking to each other about amalgamation to help us in greater planning.
As I see people buying in and being part of the solution, we will put more resources into the issue. We are spending multimillions of dollars on the issue that you feel keenly about -- and as you know, I feel keenly about -- but I do have to come back to that.... For instance, if we had introduced legislation in this House this year on regional planning and growth management strategies without consultation with local governments -- the ones that would have to carry it out, work through it, understand it, explain it to their citizens and make it work -- in my opinion, it would have been off the track within a few minutes. For me, it is a number one priority within the ministry. We are aiming the legislation for '94, and I welcome your participation and support.
[11:45]
We will get the results, but as your side often calls for when you think it's appropriate, for good consultation, not to move ahead on legislation too quickly, here's a case where I hope you will support -- which you usually do -- good consultation and good process leading to legislation that people understand and desire.
A. Cowie: I'll give other members an opportunity in a couple of minutes; that's only fair, so that we have true consultation and public input. I really would like to get into housing this morning, and I hope that we do get into it.
There is one subject that I would like to review a little, because it's a great concern to some of the businesses in my riding, and to businesses in Vancouver especially. As we know, property values on the west side of Vancouver don't relate very much to anything. They have just skyrocketed. It's a different plateau altogether. This has created a very large problem for small businesses who don't own these properties but pay the taxes. Windmill Toys is one such business. I go in there quite often, because I have two-and-half-year-old twin grandchildren, and we buy the odd toy and look around. Their taxes have gone up from $18,000 in 1987 to being projected to go over $52,000 in 1993. That's $1,000 a week that this small store in Kerrisdale, a one-storey commercial facility, would have to pay. Frankly, they just can't afford it; they would have to close down. It's just impossible. The city is going through a consultative process to try to deal with this and level it off. It's a major problem.
I was at an event for the British consul the night before last, and some taxpayers cornered me. I had to try to explain what it's all about. It's really just that the city has a budget which has to be divided in some fair way, and we do it according to property values. We
[ Page 8477 ]
have an independent Assessment Authority that does the assessments, and then the city sets the rate. We know that commercial properties have been paying a higher percentage. That has been accepted in the past, but maybe it has to change. It's not just a city responsibility; I believe that the minister, because he is the head of the ministry that the Assessment Authority reports to, has to take some leadership on this issue. I would like to know what the ministry is doing in order to deal with this quite unfair situation, where we are putting small businesses right out of business.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We have received communication from the city of Vancouver, as I indicated yesterday. They are asking for some changes for next year. The city has capped the 1993 taxes, using a section of the Charter that does not require provincial approval. We understand that the city has requested permanent authority to cap property taxes when necessary. I should tell you that it is under review by my ministry. Obviously it has just come in. But let me give you a tentative response, hon. member. We will make no commitment until we see a documented case; this may be produced by the city's commercial property tax review task force. The inevitable result of any tinkering or capping is that you usually create shifts in tax burdens. That's normal and probably inevitable. That shift will go to other taxpayers. So if you do one thing over here or cap over here, you create a problem over there. I understand that when the city capped for increases, there were some imbalances created. Coming from that region, the hon. member probably knows that better than I do.
We will want to see -- and I will so indicate to the city -- how the city will devise a fair and practical method, in terms of not creating too many shifts or imbalances, to try to level the playing field. Generally we are indicating that we recognize their problem as a genuine one and that we want them to continue to do some work on it in order to show how it could work. That's what I'll be indicating to the city of Vancouver as we work towards some sort of resolution or support for them in 1994.
A. Cowie: One of the important warnings that the minister gave is that any lowering of taxes on business properties will undoubtedly create a shift, unless one's very imaginative about how one does it. I think that's terribly important. I want to commend the minister. I was a bit harsh on the minister for not showing enough leadership fast enough, but I shall continue to push that, as he indicated he might even favour.
The report on the Provincial Commission on Housing Options was an excellent report. I notice the minister is already starting to implement a number of things. I hope the ministry has the guts to follow a lot of that through; again, it's going to take a lot of courage. But it shows that if the taxes are shifted, and they undoubtedly will be, onto some other use -- and I'm not so sure industrial land use can take it -- we all have to realize that it's going to shift it onto the residential population. That, in my riding in particular, is a very dangerous thing to do. It's all right if you do it, but I'm not going to promote it. But what we have to look at is the secret that's in this report. The secret is right here.
If you live in the city, you have to expect innovative increases in density that will help take up this shift, types of innovations that keep the neighbourhoods intact. I just want to tell you what I mean by that, because I don't want people to be worried about it. In neighbourhoods on the west side, there are very excellent organizations like the Dunbar ratepayers' association, who are not now a reactive organization, although they were at one time, I believe. They're looking at things positively and seeing what they can do. They realize that some of the growth that we talked about a minute ago is going to take place in their riding. They want it to be done in a way that will keep the integrity of the neighbourhoods and the streets. They are looking at ways of doing that through gradually including smaller units within larger sites.
I'm going to be careful in exactly how I describe these. I want to keep it very vague because, like the minister, I'd rather have it come from the community. But since that's already been expressed, we're talking about illegal suites. That's a real problem in the riding, because there are some 20,000 illegal suites. Sometimes people don't want to declare them, because that means they're going to have to register and pay some permits and maybe even some increased taxes for them. But they have to be done innovatively. The secret, as I say, is in this report, which pushes that type of thing, the gradual infill of smaller units and the allowing of some triplexes or quadraplexes where possible around commercial areas. It's a very dicey subject in an area that really has been resisting change.
I would like to hear the minister give me just an inkling of an idea of how he might think, when this shift takes place.... And it will, because we don't want to see these small businesses go down, so there will be some shifts, let's face it. In this situation, how does the minister see that shift taking place in an innovative way?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I've been in this House long enough to know not to hypothesize on what might happen, because my comments in Hansard could come back to haunt me. So let me say that I will let the city's task force work, I will see what they come up with, and I will point out in my letter back to them that there could very well be some shifts in tax burden. But I will be very interested to see how they will try to make whatever they put to me fair. You've already indicated that in your area you would, of course, be concerned about the residential impact. So let's see what they come up with.
Hon. member, let me move on very quickly, because I think my colleague from the third party wishes to join the discussion. You touched very quickly on the report of the Provincial Commission on Housing Options. Thank you for your support. It is an excellent document, and it has been well received. Thus far we have moved on 17 recommendations, which are now in place. If you want to go into details on those, I'm quite prepared to provide all the details with regard to where we're moving.
[ Page 8478 ]
In terms of some of the areas you're interested in, if you have looked at Bill 57 -- I'm sure you have -- which I have introduced but which I obviously can't debate at this point, I think you will find that it will give local government substantial new powers and tools to do the things you're talking about: comprehensive development zoning, bonus transfers of density and inclusionary zoning. As you know, comprehensive development zoning is customized zoning that allows the local government to sit down with a developer, for a win-win situation on both sides. You can get the kind of development you want. If the developer wants extra density, the city administration or the local government may want some affordable housing, amenities or parks. We will also be allowing for local government to lease land at below market value for affordable housing units; to allow established housing reserve funds for housing purposes; and to borrow for housing purposes, following a referendum. We will, of course, enforce standards of maintenance for rental housing.
That bill is probably the most substantial extension to the zoning toolbox of local government that we've seen in some time. I think it deals with six or seven recommendations in the report of the Provincial Commission on Housing Options. It really is my indicator to local government that we see them as a partner in these areas and that the province can't go it alone. We don't have the resources to continue to build umpteen new units. We're looking at local government being a partner and helping us in their processes and allowing development to proceed or giving them the ability to negotiate with developers for social purposes. I don't think I can go into more detail. I'm sure that the member is very aware of the full implications of Bill 57, and we'll get into them during debate on the bill.
L. Fox: I just want to go back to some of the issues that were being addressed a few questions back. I was actually quite pleased to hear the minister's statements with respect to what role the province should play in regional planning and in looking at the impacts of growth around the province.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Perhaps I have a different perspective on this, given that I'm not a planner. My perspective is more from a municipal politician's viewpoint. Having worked in grass-roots politics for a good number of years, I certainly understand that if the ministry decided to put in place any regional plan without the input of politicians at the grassroots -- and more importantly, of the community as a whole -- it would be a very devastating exercise, and the minister, I'm sure, would take the brunt of much complaint and protest. If we're going to achieve a regional planning mechanism that reflects not only what's in the best interest of the province but also of the respective jurisdictions and the people within those jurisdictions, the ministry must indeed be a facilitator of the process and not one that mandates any particular design or theory to the lower levels of politicians. I appreciate the minister's comments that that in fact is the role he sees his government and his ministry playing.
[12:00]
I think, however, that there is a role the minister can play. He's well aware, given his municipal experience and his experience in the role of critic, that it's very difficult sometimes for these grass-roots politicians to coordinate all the bodies at the provincial level -- Ministry of Highways, Ministry of Environment and all the other ministries that have a dramatic impact on whether or not a regional plan will work, as well as on the formation of that regional plan. In many cases it means a tremendous amount of dollars being spent by one ministry or another to facilitate a regional plan, given that in that planning we've got to consider highway networks and transportation routes, whether they be rail or road, and so on. Obviously there's a role the ministry can play in bringing all these things together, and perhaps that was what the round table was referring to more than that the minister should mandate a plan to deal with the growth in the Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo and Okanagan regions. So I appreciate the minister's comments on that, and I look forward to working in my role and trying to be constructive in my criticisms, rather than destructive. I think it's going to be a very important process.
Having said that, I want to get back to Happy Valley, which we talked about a little yesterday. I've had an opportunity to talk to some people -- or they had an opportunity to talk to me this morning -- about the process last evening. I know that some of the staff present were apparently at that meeting. It's my understanding that 175 to 200 people showed up at the public meeting last evening, in which an action plan was presented along with a letter to the minister with a copy to the mayor of Langford.
This is a bit unusual. I hadn't seen this kind of action plan drawn up by the ministry. It appears as though this is a fait accompli when you see specific dates and that everything must take place according to this action plan. It's a concern to the people of Happy Valley that in fact there is a hidden agenda here, and that these specific dates are set in place by the ministry, not by the restructuring committee. That has to be a number one concern. I would have hoped that in any restructuring the agenda would be driven by the restructuring committee and the people looking at the process. After the first few meetings, they may find that there isn't the support to go to a referendum. But this action plan would suggest that that isn't important. Perhaps the minister might reassure the Happy Valley residents that this isn't a fait accompli; that this action plan is only a suggestion to the restructuring committee from the ministry, and that the restructuring committee will have the autonomy to drive the agenda, not the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's interesting that the member brings this up this morning, because he is right, there was a meeting last night. I wasn't there. I sent good staff into the fray and they survived. Indeed, we have one with us today who was there, Mr. Paget.
[ Page 8479 ]
First, let me say that my intention to put forward a suggestion for an action plan was to fulfil my promise to the people in that region: after Langford had moved ahead and been established for awhile, we would then move to try and deal with their requirements, their needs and their future. I have indicated to the Capital Regional District that they are the elected body and will be carrying out the consultation and the process, obviously in conjunction with the residents and the interested current municipalities in the region.
My staff reported to me this morning that it was a good meeting. But as you know, hon. member, who gets there and how many are there from a certain viewpoint often can determine the perception of the results of a restructure meeting. You know to what I refer. As indicated to me, a variety of viewpoints were put forward. As I indicated yesterday, the intention of the meeting was to establish a restructuring committee. I understand that at the beginning of the meeting there was some concern about the views you are putting, and that the current electoral director for the area, Mr. Dalby, may have put forward some of his concerns. Quite frankly, I have had some concerns with Mr. Dalby's modus operandi in the past. Be that as it may, he is the electoral director and has a role to play.
The committee has been established. There is no fixed agenda. I suggested some dates to see if we could get a timetable and a framework. Because of my concern that I had made a promise to them that we would move this along, I wanted to give them some assurance that within that time frame my staff and I would be available to put considerable time into this issue. The CRD, in consultation with everybody, if they wish to change the agenda or time frame.... The world will not collapse if Happy Valley does not meet the time frame we suggested.
Staff tell me -- and I always give them this instruction -- that the emphasis on local self-determination is the pre-eminent objective. I hope that gives some comfort to the Happy Valley people. Whatever happens -- if there is a referendum -- one of things we have developed in the past is a multiple-choice ballot on which you could have the status quo or you could join somebody else. If status quo is what they want and that's the majority, that opportunity would be provided to them. The bottom line to you and to those residents is that I tried to give some leadership, and a time frame, and to indicate that staff and this ministry have considerable time for that area and that we want to honour the promise I made to them: we are trying to resolve their future, and they are the determining factor in finding that future.
L. Fox: I appreciate the minister's statement, but I want to clarify a few points for the record. It's my understanding that Happy Valley was deliberately left out of the Langford referendum a year ago, primarily because people didn't want to go into that referendum and be part of Langford. So it was decided by Langford not to include them in the vote. This is the information that I get.
There's one point that I want be sure to clarify here. I'm aware that volunteers put their names forward last evening for the restructuring committee. If this restructuring committee decides, after meeting for a month or two, that in fact it's not the wish of the people to go through with a referendum, do they have the autonomy to decide not to go to a referendum? This agenda would suggest that at the end of the day they have to put it to the people of Happy Valley for a vote. If the restructuring committee is going to do its job in all earnestness and respect the interests of the people of that particular area, then it should have options available to it that are not within this timetable. I hope the minister will answer that affirmatively.
Hon. R. Blencoe: There is no preconceived goal on my part or on the part of my ministry. Quite frankly, we wouldn't waste our time or our money on restructure votes or a referendum if we thought there was considerable opposition. If it isn't going to fly, then there's no point in doing it. We have enough areas of the province that are interested and want to move ahead and where we have a good chance of success. I hope that gives you and the residents some support.
In terms of background, let me say that it was my decision to leave out Happy Valley in the Langford vote. I take full responsibility. The regional director at the time, Mr. Dalby, was not happy with that, but all of my staff advice and my reading of the situation and talking to individuals and getting a fairly objective view indicated that the people there were split. There was no consensus about where they wanted to go, no clear indication of which community they wanted to join. My primary objective was to get the biggest unorganized area in Canada incorporated. We had horrendous problems out there, so I made a decision -- yes, a political decision to some degree -- to take out Happy Valley, because I was worried that the focus of the debate during that incorporation would be on Happy Valley rather than on the positive aspects of the incorporation of Langford. With respect, I think my decision was borne out, because we got the major area incorporated. We have a good council that's doing good work. As a matter of fact, I'm meeting with the Langford council on a number of other issues, including the Highlands.
So that's the background, but the bottom line is comfort for you and for those residents.
L. Fox: I'm sure that the council is a very adequate and good council. I have all the faith in the world in municipal politicians. I'm pleased that the minister has made those clarifications, and I'm sure the people of Happy Valley will be as well.
I want to briefly revisit yesterday's discussion around taxation on commercial businesses. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena outlined Vancouver's problem, and I talked very briefly about the Prince George problem, which is very similar. During the course of the debate the minister suggested that there had been somewhat of a resolution suggested in cooperation with the mayor of Prince George. I'm wondering if he is in a position to state what has been agreed to with that city to help mitigate some of the impacts of the assessment shift within that community.
[ Page 8480 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, I had a discussion with the mayor this morning. Their proposal is before me. We have approved the delay, and we will forgive late penalties on taxes. I believe Prince George wanted the option to allow those property holders to pay in increments if they felt they couldn't do it all at once, up until November. As you know, in the Municipal Act, of course, usually you kick in penalties. We're allowing the Prince George council to waive those penalties. My understanding -- and I don't have the briefing note, because it was so fresh this morning -- is that the maximum it will cost the city of Prince George is $26,000, if everybody wants to go that route. So you may wish to talk to the mayor today about the details of the plan. It seemed quite reasonable to me. We will be giving them the authority under section 288 of the Municipal Act.
[12:15]
L. Fox: As I understand it, the only concession that is going to be made to these individuals who are facing these horrendous increases is that they can pay it in instalments up to November and there won't be any interest charged over that period of time. After November, the interest would kick in, obviously. That is the way I understand it. I have to ask the minister why they were not given authority similar to Vancouver, where they could have looked at a rebate over and above a certain percentage. Perhaps that wasn't requested by Prince George. The minister may want to inform me as to why they weren't given the same opportunity as Vancouver, and whether or not Prince George requested it.
Hon. R. Blencoe: There are a multitude of questions within one question. In terms of Vancouver being granted the same request that Prince George asked of me, Vancouver did not ask for that, as far as I know. I wouldn't automatically go out and do something without them requesting it.
In terms of Prince George, the proposal I indicated to you this morning is all that they have asked me for thus far. They haven't asked for anything else. If they do, we'll take a look at it. In terms of Vancouver, though, they have moved ahead on their capping, using a section of their Charter that does not require provincial approval. As I indicated to you already, they are asking for the authority to cap property taxes when necessary. It will require some changes by the province if they want to do that.
Yesterday, you -- I think it was you, hon. member -- asked questions on this topic. It is a serious one. I'm not convinced it needs massive resources for massive review. We will talk to the UBCM, Richard Taylor and interested parties. As I indicated yesterday, I promised to take a serious look at the issue, review it and see what we can do to give a hand in the future. But we are reacting to requests by local governments -- Prince George for one and Vancouver for the future. If there are other suggestions, my ministry is always open to taking a look.
L. Fox: Well, there's much more to talk about on this issue, but I want clarification on two points, very quickly. Then the member for Saanich North and the Islands wishes to ask some questions.
The minister seemed to suggest that if the city of Prince George came to him and looked for a process similar to what the by-law of Vancouver has, he would consider it. I want him to tell me definitely whether or not that would be considered.
Secondly, in the process of review, given the constraints on the municipality -- I'm not sure about the Vancouver Charter because I haven't had a lot of experience with that -- where they have to charge one rate of taxation commercially, would variable tax rates be an alternative to the present system and allow municipalities to react to these shifts within the community?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Let me try to answer your question. Assessments, assessment legislation and taxation are complicated. Given that we perhaps have viewers out there who are fascinated by this topic, the member knows that you can institute a variable rate between classes of property. You know that. You've done it, I'm sure, as I did when I was chair of finance for the city of Victoria many movies ago.
The difficulty is in introducing variables within the class. That's the problem. What I've indicated to Vancouver -- I hear them; they're doing it for this year, but they want to do it permanently -- is that they should document their case. They've established a property tax review task force to look at the issue and make recommendations to me. But as I'm sure you're aware -- in Prince George or anywhere else -- if you tinker within the class you shift the tax burden somewhere else. So we need to take a look at what they're going to come forward with in Vancouver.
I have to say today that if the city of Prince George or any other community wishes to make some suggestions in terms of shifting within the class, it's open; we'll take a look at it. Obviously, my job is to take a look at variations and innovations that can help, but with a caveat, of course, that any tax-capping system will inevitably require shifting tax burdens. My colleague from the official opposition already indicated that in his riding that could very well mean a shifting on to residential properties. That creates some political pressures elsewhere, as the member is very aware of from his work at the UCBM -- he knows of these issues.
L. Fox: In fact, it doesn't have to. The variation could happen within that classification, so that you keep a total amount of tax dollars constant within that classification. By variable tax rates, you could look after the shift within that classification to reflect the total amount of dollars that should be collected within that classification. So there are the alternatives to maintain that tax ratio of 3-to-1 commercial or 4-to-1 industrial -- or whatever it should be and whatever the policies within your community agree that it should be.
But the real point that I want to get to is the first point. Should Prince George council decide that it wants to give back a rebate for a segment of the
[ Page 8481 ]
commercial properties -- similar to what Vancouver is doing -- will the minister honour that request?
Hon. R. Blencoe: As I answered an earlier question from my colleague in the official opposition, I'm not in the business of trying to second-guess the local council -- and I don't think you are, either. I haven't got a proposal for them. I have reacted to a proposal that Prince George City Council, in their duly elected role, have put before me. If they wish to put something else before me, we'll take a look at it. Vancouver has something before me; we're taking a look at it. I will be writing back to them with some caveats, and I think they knew I'd do that. They're going to establish a task force to try and ensure that there's a level playing field when they do this capping. As you know, ii could result in some inequities.
Your question is hypothetical to some degree, because I don't have the request from Prince George before me. You may wish to consult the mayor and the council and have some discussions with them. But I don't react to hypotheticals regarding what councils may wish to put before me.
L. Fox: I'm not dealing with hypotheticals. Section 288 is not specific as to what you can apply for; it's very open-ended. I'm looking for an opportunity, so that when I talk to the mayor I can tell him that the minister appears to be receptive to an agreement similar to the one that Vancouver has under section 288. My question is: if in my discussions with the mayor, he and the council agree that that's worthwhile pursuing, is the minister favourable to a similar arrangement to what he and his ministry have made for Vancouver under section 288? I'm not trying to deal with hypotheticals; I'm trying to deal with section 288 and whether or not that would be permissible.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Very quickly, before we adjourn for the weekend, this year Vancouver acted on their own under a section of their charter. The city of Prince George has put a proposal before me, which I have acted upon. I am not about to say today what I think about using section 288 in any different way, or suggest that what Vancouver is doing or not doing is appropriate for Prince George. I don't know if it is; it's up to them to determine. Quite frankly, I would be surprised if you would say today that you want to presuppose what city council will do. They may wish to look at 288 and say: "Well, maybe we need to review some other options." But I don't have that before me, and I don't want to presuppose or put anything hypothetical before the council. The council can read these discussions today, but I have acted on what they've asked for, and that's the way I usually act.
C. Tanner: I'm starting to think that I'm fated to stand up just as we close down every day. The same thing happened yesterday, and here we are today.
I'd merely like to bring to the minister's attention that I didn't finish the dialogue we were having yesterday concerning the Islands Trust and that I will be bringing it up later on in his estimates. Quite frankly, with three minutes to go, I don't think it's worth starting now. I assume the minister is going to adjourn.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, hon. member. We'll get back to your very useful discussions of the Islands Trust. On that note, I move the committee rise, report some progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. R. Blencoe: After a productive week, I think -- I was here for some of it, but was also doing business elsewhere -- I wish the members a good weekend with their families. On that note, I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:28 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]