1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1995
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 9
[ Page 13757 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
V. Anderson: Today I welcome, on behalf of the House, members from the Voice of Children, accompanied by representatives from the Canadian grandparents' and parents' association, particularly Amandah Sinclaire and Bob Young, and all of those who are with them here today. House, make them welcome.
Hon. D. Marzari: Lucie and Claude Bernier are celebrating their thirtieth wedding anniversary, and it is their first visit to B.C. from Montreal. They are accompanied by their daughter Anne-Marie Bernier, who works for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I ask the House to give them a wonderful, rousing welcome.
If I could make a second general announcement here today.... Nine years ago, on April 26, I was astounded to see one of the most magnificent baseball players I have ever witnessed in my life. That was Lois Boone, playing with the caucus baseball team against the press gallery. That happened to be her birthday. And here we are, nine years plus a day from that very date. I guess it's close enough to her birthday again today that I would like the House to wish Lois a happy birthday.
The Speaker: Before I recognize the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano, I just remind all the members that we allowed a little latitude on that acknowledgment. Normally we would have recognized the member by her constituency.
J. Dalton: I'm pleased to welcome a friend to the House today -- in fact, Anne Friend of West Vancouver, a very good friend of mine -- and her godson, Mike Kim. Would the House please make both of them welcome.
L. Stephens: In the gallery today are 37 elementary school children from Langley Central Fundamental Elementary in Langley, with their teacher, Mr. Hillson, and a significant number of parents. Would the House please make them welcome.
G. Janssen: In the gallery today from Vancouver is Robert Fenton, a member of the bar and also a member of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists. I remind all members of the motorcycle ride on May 4, when Mr. Fenton will be back to join us again.
T. Perry: With the support of the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, the Premier and some other members who may wish to speak, in a moment I'm going to ask members to join people in Israel and all over the world in a moment of silence to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the full discovery of the Holocaust in Europe.
The fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II is approaching. At this time of year the concentration camps were being liberated in Germany and surrounding countries, unveiling for the first time the complete horror and atrocity of what happened to six million Jewish people and many, many other people who were seen by the Nazis to be inferior. Nothing like that had ever been experienced in human history, and nothing had ever been witnessed in the same way or condemned so universally by the world. Sadly, some of the same crimes have continued. Right now in The Hague the first postwar war crimes trial is proceeding in respect of similar horrible atrocities committed in Bosnia, and we have seen similar crimes in Rwanda, Cambodia and elsewhere.
So I would ask all members, after members opposite have also had a chance to express their concern, to join with people around the world in remembering those events with a moment of silence.
V. Anderson: It's a privilege to join with the member opposite and others in the House to remember events that we must not forget. It will be a privilege to share with members of the Jewish community in a memorial service this evening. That we do it here in the House reminds us that this inhumanity that we as humans have brought upon each other can happen not only once but again and again.
Perhaps some here have lived through and can remember those actual events; but others who come after must have the opportunity to understand -- and, in a sense, relive -- the horror in order that we learn from it and that we, as a community of people around the world, learn to respect each other and never let these things happen again. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, they are happening again, so we must work harder. We cannot simply blame another generation; we must also accept our own responsibility. Also, I remember those who, on behalf of the Jewish community, gave up their lives trying to protect them in those dreadful circumstances.
Hon. M. Sihota presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Water Protection Act.
Hon. M. Sihota: The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks -- under the auspices of the former minister, who is currently the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and to whom I must extend my gratitude -- commenced in July 1994 the release of a discussion paper on stewardship of water in British Columbia. Today I am pleased to introduce legislation, a promise in the first phase of this review. I know that this legislation has been long awaited by British Columbians who have demanded that responsible action be taken to preserve and protect our water resources in this province.
The Water Protection Act, first and foremost, is consistent with this government's desire to protect the integrity of our salmon resource in British Columbia. Second, it prohibits removal of British Columbia's water in bulk supplies to locations outside this province. Third, the legislation prohibits large-scale diversions or transfers of water between major watersheds in the province of British Columbia. The legislation also confirms ownership of surface water and groundwater in the province, and grandparents existing bulk-water removal rights within clearly defined limits.
I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its passage.
[2:15]
Bill 9 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 13758 ]
CLOSURE OF VERNON DIALYSIS CLINIC
V. Anderson: Believe it or not, elderly dialysis patients from Vernon, who used to receive dialysis treatment close to their own homes, are now being bused three times a week to Kelowna to receive care. The minister was alerted over a month ago to staffing problems at the Vernon clinic. His response was to wait and to neglect the problem until it became this crisis. As a result, a much-needed facility has been closed.
An Hon. Member: What is your question?
V. Anderson: I'm delighted you want to know the question.
Will the minister admit his incompetence in not making plans to deal with this situation, and will he commit to reopening the Vernon clinic immediately?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The temporary need to ask dialysis patients in Vernon to travel to Kelowna for treatment is indeed unfortunate. It is caused by the decision of virtually all the nurses who were serving at the dialysis clinic in Vernon to seek other lines of work at the same time. We are training new people right now, and as soon as that process is completed, services in Vernon will be restored.
I might say also that it is a lot easier to do the retraining and the restoring of a service in Vernon than it will be to restore medicare after the savage cuts that the Liberals in Ottawa and this Liberal opposition foster.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
V. Anderson: There is a concern about in the public that each time we ask the minister a question, he gives a hypothetical response about something that might happen in the future. We're talking about something in the past that has already happened. Can he commit to when the Vernon clinic will be open? Tomorrow? The next day? How long will these elderly patients have to be bused out of their own community to Kelowna?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I guess the member opposite was too busy preparing his supplemental to listen to the first response. As soon as trained staff are available, the Vernon clinic will be reopened. There will be no unnecessary delay, and we will make sure that people in Vernon receive treatment close to their home.
There is nothing hypothetical about the cuts to medicare that the federal Liberals are imposing on this province and every other province -- nothing hypothetical. Within two years, health care transfer payments to this province will be down by $340 million under the federal Liberal scheme, and this Liberal opposition says they should have cut more. I say shame and explain that to the elders in Vernon.
A. Warnke: As a matter of fact, if the minister had actually paid attention to the federal Health minister, he would realize that the federal government has made it very clear that they're in favour of universality -- they have said that, and they deny it on that side.
ISSUING OF CARECARDS
My question for the other side is to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health claims that he has suddenly discovered health fraud, and he's really downplaying it by saying that there are fewer registrants in the Medical Services Plan than there is a population in B.C. Yet what that minister has failed to mention is that his ministry has issued one million more CareCards than there are British Columbians. Not only that, it has given more than 45,000 British Columbians four more CareCards. What we want to know from this minister is: why won't this minister take fast action to finally tighten up on the issuing of CareCards?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is accurate in one aspect of his questions. There are, indeed, additional CareCards issued when somebody comes to the Medical Services Commission and says: "I've lost a card. I need a card." Or when they change their name, a new card is issued. The result of that is that more cards have been issued than the number of actual registrants in the program, but there are fewer registrants in the Medical Services Plan than the population of British Columbia. We do not have a massive fraud issue; we do have concerns that we are continuing to address. In concert with my colleague the Minister of Social Services, I will be working on the introduction of picture ID to make sure that when people show up with a CareCard they are entitled to the benefits of universal health.
I might say, though, that one of the sources of this fraud....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, order. Would the hon. minister please take his seat.
Supplemental, hon member.
A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, I see that the flocci-nauci disease that was over there has finally travelled to over there, and I think that bunch over there better be careful -- it might catch up to them.
The fact is that the minister doesn't recognize that the fraudulent use of CareCards costs this province $150 million a year, and that is a very serious issue. He should know that, because if anything, that kind of squandering of wealth could cover a cardiac wait-list 20 times over. The auditor general has pointed out the abuse. Why is this minister shifting the blame for fraud onto patients and physicians? Why is that minister still continuing to ignore the root of the problem: his lack of control over CareCards?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's good to see where the Liberal research staff gets their facts on health care from: the Province. There is no evidence that fraud is anywhere near that figure of $150 million; it is quite a lot smaller than that. The real issue of fraud on medicare in this House....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. P. Ramsey: There is a real issue of fraud on medicare, hon. Speaker: the fraudulent position of this Liberal
[ Page 13759 ]
caucus. It's the fraudulent position that on the one hand we can support universal, accessible, comprehensive health care, and that on the other hand we can slash funding for it. That is fraudulent, and I call upon that caucus to come clean with the people of British Columbia and to reveal their fraud.
VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS
R. Neufeld: My question is to the minister responsible for gaming. All across the province municipalities are telling the government that they don't want any video lottery terminals legalized anywhere in their jurisdiction. Will the government now pull the plug on its plan to legalize VLTs and to put 5,000 of these machines in bars and pubs throughout the province, or is it going to accept the equally objectionable proposal by the casino and bingo industry to only allow them to corner the market on the monopoly of VLTs?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The real question is that the opposition parties -- combined -- need to tell us where they stand on these issues. Just the other day, Jacee Schaefer, campaign manager in the Liberal campaign in Abbotsford, said that the interests of the casino owners coincide with those of the Liberal Party. We want to know -- and the people of British Columbia want to know -- whether what's good for casinos is good for the Liberal Party, and they think that's good for the people of British Columbia.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
R. Neufeld: Well, I guess the minister's going to be really lucky if he gets any kind My understanding is that the reason vested gaming interests like Great Canadian Casino are arguing against the current VLT proposal is that they want all the machines for themselves. Why doesn't the minister simply acknowledge that British Columbians don't want VLTs anywhere in the province? And why doesn't he tell these people in the gaming industry that all bets are off, and that he has listened to the public and decided to reverse the plan to legalize VLTs?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I want the people of British Columbia to know that these are very important issues. I am new to this ministry, and I am considering these important issues. However, the most important gambling issue facing the people of British Columbia is that when that opposition ever gets into government, they would gamble away medicare in British Columbia. VLTs are a minor problem, and I will be dealing with that issue in the very near future.
IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON INTERPROVINCIAL CONTRACTS
M. de Jong: On April 11 of this year, the Premier responded to a question of mine concerning Conair Aviation and interjurisdictional trade barriers by providing his undertaking to contact the Northwest Territories government to ensure that Conair would have the opportunity to bid on aerial firefighting contracts. Can the Premier now confirm and report to the House what discussions he's had with the territorial officials, and confirm that he has secured an agreement from the territorial government that will allow Conair to bid on those contracts?
Hon. G. Clark: Recently, at the internal trade ministers' meeting just a couple of weeks ago in Calgary, at the Premier's instructions, I discussed with the Northwest Territories representative the unacceptable behaviour of that government in discriminating against a British Columbia firm who wished to do business and had done business with respect to firefighting in the Northwest Territories. They've taken the position, unfortunately, that the tenders had been let and granted to a Northwest Territories firm. I've discussed with them, for the future, that while I appreciate and respect their demand for economic development and jobs in their region, what Conair had suggested was a joint venture with a local company in the Northwest Territories that may well have achieved not only jobs in that region but also jobs in Canada, to our mutual advantage. They have given me at least a verbal undertaking that in any future consideration they would look to the joint-venture approach involving British Columbia companies, and not take a precipitate approach, as they did in this particular case.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
M. de Jong: The Premier offered his commitment to this House to secure a subsequent commitment from the territorial government. I don't know if that was a Sihotaism or a Harcourtism, or just a little white fib.
The Speaker: The question?
M. de Jong: In any event, that was the commitment. The Premier doesn't have to worry about hurting my feelings.
Interjections.
The Speaker: The question, hon. member.
M. de Jong: The issue here is the fact that as long as this government is incorporating interprovincial trade barriers...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
M. de Jong: ...into agreements like the Island Highway project, British Columbia companies will be subjected to the same discriminatory practices.
The Speaker: Would the hon. member please state the question.
M. de Jong: Will the Premier please confirm and acknowledge to this House that the policies of his government are resulting in discriminatory practices being levied against B.C. companies and B.C. workers, and will he commit to putting an end to those discriminatory policies?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I don't think the member is going to gain anything for a very good B.C. company like Conair -- which I have a great deal of respect for -- by showing disrespect for another member by accusing them of telling white lies.
An Hon. Member: Fibs.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Same thing. Look in the dictionary -- if you ever do.
[ Page 13760 ]
What I am saying very clearly is that my minister who deals with interprovincial trade barriers met face to face with the minister of the Northwest Territories, whom we have offered to work with in a variety of ways because of the small population resources they have. We have done it in a cooperative way, and we hope that they will now see the benefits of allowing Conair -- which is the best in the business in the world that we have been working with through B.C. Trade -- to get contracts in many other countries. So, hon. member, we would both be doing Conair a favour by showing respect for them, by showing respect for each other and working on this together, rather than trying to create cheap politics.
[2:30]
PRIVATIZATION OF HOUSING CO-OPS
D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services. The government's recent budget didn't say very much about privatization, but I wonder if the minister could answer a question about the possible privatization of housing co-ops. The minister knows that there are hundreds of housing cooperatives in the province providing affordable accommodation to thousands of British Columbians. But a proposal has come forward recently from a housing co-op in the district of Squamish called the Bracken Heights Housing Cooperative, and it raises an important question about the subdivision and privatization of housing cooperatives. Could the minister tell us whether or not she supports the privatization of housing co-ops, or is she willing to provide municipalities with the tools to deal with this problem so affordable housing can be maintained, and we can prevent this kind of abuse?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to thank the member for his question on behalf of his constituents. Not only that, but to recognize the importance for the whole province and, indeed, the significance for the country.... We have a loophole in existing legislation that this government has acted swiftly to close. In the next number of weeks, we will deal with the issue of cooperatives and ensure that there is no future ability to privatize them. We are acting to secure the public interest. In particular, with the member's individual cooperative, the Bracken Heights cooperative, we have acted to secure that asset on behalf of the public interest -- not only for public housing stock but to secure that for cooperatives and for the tenants themselves.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.
R. Neufeld: I congratulate and thank petition proponents Dawn Harder and Yvette Steck of Fort St. John for their diligent work in producing this petition. The petition lists the names of nearly 6,600 Fort St. John residents, who state: "We the people of Fort St. John have the right to be informed of the presence of a convicted child molester or pedophile being in our area so that we can protect our children." They say to the Attorney General: "If we the parents were warned of the presence of such abusers, perhaps we could be even more diligent in our efforts to safeguard our children. Please support us in Parliament to change the laws to start protecting the innocent instead of the guilty."
Almost a year ago we called for the establishment of a national sexual predator registry. This government should wait no longer for the federal Liberals to take action. This week, Prevention of Violence Against Women Week, is a time to take action against violence. Indeed, people are taking action to put an end to violence against women and an end to violence in our communities.
V. Anderson: I seek leave to present a petition.
Leave granted.
V. Anderson: I present a petition with 415 signatures: "Re: Government Intervention and Investigations Detrimental to Nurturing and Supporting Family Values." It stresses to the government that:
"All children have the right to be nurtured by their extended family. No child shall be adopted outside the extended family without the knowledge and cooperation of the extended family...No one shall, without justifiable cause, undermine the relationship between any child and his extended family."
M. de Jong: I seek leave to table a petition.
Leave granted.
M. de Jong: I commend the efforts of Evelyn Budzinski and Clarence Bonnet, who have compiled a petition comprising 2,220 constituents, whose petition reads:
"The petition of the undersigned, residents of the electoral district of Abbotsford and Matsqui of the province of British Columbia, states that: We, the undersigned, wish to register our profound opposition to changes in the Adoption Act which now permit homosexuals to adopt infants and children. We believe legally married couples are the natural choice to provide a permanent, secure atmosphere for adoptive infants and children. Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House reinstate the previous regulations governing the adoption of infants and children."
F. Gingell: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Gingell: I wish to introduce to the House two longtime residents of Tsawwassen, Mr. and Mrs. Bogress. I ask the House to please make them welcome.
G. Wilson: I seek leave to make a very brief response to the comments from the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. I realize that it would have been more appropriate at the time it was raised; however, in anticipation that there would be some response from the Reform Party, I did not rise and we passed that time. If the House would provide an opportunity, I think it is important that the Alliance go on record on this question.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: I think it is indeed most important that all British Columbians and Canadians rise today and support the comments that were brought forward by the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. If there ever was a test, I think it is today that the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. We
[ Page 13761 ]
must be vigilant in our responsibilities as elected officials, and for those who are currently wishing to be elected members, not to fall into the trap of rhetoric, especially the rhetoric that may lead us to simplistic solutions that would have us believe that somehow there is a very easy way to deal with questions of great difficulty.
It was in the work of the leader of Germany at the time of the war, Mr. Hitler, that many people took what they believed to be a path that was simplistic in its solutions. It led them into one of the worst crimes against humanity. I would say that in all of my time in politics -- and that has been some short ten years -- I have never been so fearful of the voice of the radical right wing as I am today. I think we all need to reflect on that.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply A for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education. For the House's advisement, should we complete the Ministry of Education estimates, I will be calling the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services estimates after that. In the main House I call continued second reading debate on Bill 11, Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995.
GROWTH STRATEGIES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading continued)
The Speaker: Hon. members, we will allow a moment or two before we begin debate for members to leave who intend to do so.
I call the House back to order. The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi on second reading of Bill 11.
D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to add a few words to second reading debate on Bill 11, which is the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995. I think this is a very important bill, and I commend the Minister of Municipal Affairs for introducing this bill to the House. It's not a bill that doesn't raise problems, doesn't raise issues, and it's not a perfect bill by any means. But I think it's a sign of the times when we are dealing finally, in 1995, with the important issue of growth management.
Growth management has become perhaps a bit of a buzzword in our modern times, and there are other buzzwords that we deal with. The reason they're buzzwords -- I refer to terms like sustainable development, for instance, which might appear to be an oxymoron to some, a contradiction in terms.... They've become buzzwords because they are overused, misused and misinterpreted at times. Growth management is a concept that some would like to portray as being anti-growth. Others would like to portray it as being pro-growth and pro-development. In truth, I don't think it's either.
I think it's important to recognize that in 1995 in British Columbia, it's time to come to terms with the need to manage growth -- not to stop growth, for growth is not an evil. Growth is not something that's negative. But the kind of growth and expansion in our economy that we've experienced in the last generation -- which is very different today than it was, let's say, in the 1950s and 1960s -- has to now be managed, lest British Columbia turn into a California of some kind and lest our major cities become modern versions of Los Angeles, where urban sprawl has really affected the environment, the standard of living, pollution, the cleanliness of our cities and the standard of living our young people can expect in the future. So I think we need to manage growth.
That's not a heretical term, although in a previous generation some would have equated this with state planning and socialism. I don't think that's the case today. I think the truth is that growth can and must be managed, especially in high-growth areas of British Columbia.
A generation ago British Columbia's population exceeded one million for the first time. Just a quarter of a century ago, British Columbia's population exceeded one million citizens. That was considered to be a significant milestone in the development of our province. Here we are, a quarter of a century later, and our population is pushing four million. It's soon to be four million British Columbians. That's phenomenal growth in the course of one generation, phenomenal growth in the course of one quarter of a century -- for the population of our province to have almost quadrupled.
That's tremendous growth, and so far we've been fortunate to be living in a place like British Columbia, where we've been able to accommodate the highest rate of in-migration from other parts of the country and the world. We've been able to manage that and still maintain an envied standard of living and environment. The government can take no credit. No government of the past 25 years can take credit for the natural beauty and the environment here in British Columbia.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: No government, of any political party, including the present government -- the hon. member for Skeena might be interested to know -- can take credit for the standard of living we enjoy and too often take for granted right here in our province.
But we've come to a time in the province when perhaps the word "planning" should not be equated with evil. I, for one, am concerned. I don't want to be governed in my life by planners. I believe in free will. I believe in the virtues of freedom of will and freedom of thought, and yet there is a need today in the province -- I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs recognizes this in this bill -- for us to have some coordination of planning, so that communities are not pitted against each other, so that there is a realistic opportunity on a regional basis to plan and provide for future generations, and so that we can manage our growth.
There are some economists today in our province, in our country, who are predicting that the next generation -- my children's generation -- is going to be experiencing a decline in its standard of living -- the standard of living that I enjoyed as a member of the so-called postwar baby-boom generation. I don't want to believe that. I don't want to subscribe to those theories that say we've reached a point in the development of western history and in the economic development of our society where the next generation is actually going to suffer a decline in its standard of living.
This would be the first generation in our modern history to not have experienced an increased standard of living in the west and to actually see a decline, and yet that is one of the spectres that haunts us. That's one of the fears that strikes all of us as British Columbians and Canadians as we face the
[ Page 13762 ]
prospect of unmanaged, uncontrolled growth. It's not because growth is an evil, by any means. We need growth. Our economy demands that we must have growth to turn over and bring forward new forces of energy and dynamism to help build our society and provide greater opportunities for employment and a livelihood for the next generation of British Columbians.
Like some European societies and some other societies such as Japan, perhaps we've arrived at a time when growth should not be considered a dirty word -- but neither should planning. We've reached the point where we can talk about growth management, a concept that's a bit of a buzzword. But what does it actually mean?
We have a number of examples in our province today. I can tell you that in the constituency I try hard to represent, West Vancouver-Garibaldi, there's a corridor, sometimes referred to as the Sea to Sky corridor, that stretches north from West Vancouver, from Horseshoe Bay past Lions Bay, Britannia Beach, Squamish and Whistler, right up to the Pemberton Valley. It's a high-growth area of the province where growth has been relatively uncontrolled in recent years, and the transportation arteries are having a difficult time accommodating that growth. Highway 99, called the Sea to Sky Highway, has a difficult time accommodating the tremendous traffic not only of locals who live in the area but of tourists visiting the region. This is one of the highest areas for visitors and motorists of any portion of British Columbia. Whistler alone generates about 10 percent of the tourism revenue of British Columbia.
[2:45]
We've had relatively uncontrolled growth in that corridor, and that has been unfortunate. Too often, we've seen communities like Squamish and Whistler unnecessarily pitted against each other in their interests, because there is no overall regional government that can take into account the sometimes competing needs that I think can be cooperatively planned.
I believe that Bill 11, the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, provides some tools to allow communities, municipalities, individuals and businesses -- all those who are interested in the continued development of an area like the Sea to Sky corridor -- to work together cooperatively. It's my fondest hope and dream that Bill 11 might be a step in the right direction toward that kind of planning. We need to have planning, and planning need not be considered a dirty word. Our children's generation depends upon that.
Growth itself is not the result of a lack of planning, and nor is it evil. We need to continue to have growth, but there are some areas where we might need to put up a bit of a stop sign. We might need to flash a yellow light and put up a bit of a halt before we plan any further growth, so that we can have the proper infrastructure in place to accommodate that growth. That might be transportation arteries, schools, hospitals or other basic services all of us take for granted when we think of the good life here in British Columbia -- the good life we all enjoy but too often take for granted.
How can we maintain it, sustain it and build upon it, unless we start developing the tools for local governments, in particular, to cooperate with each other? That raises questions about the role that senior levels of government -- the province in particular, but the federal government as well -- should play in the process of growth management.
I think we have to be careful. I think we have to be very cautious not to simply say: "We're providing tools to local government to do the job, but we're not going to give them the resources to use those tools." One of the concerns that the minister is undoubtedly aware of that comes forward from local governments is that we're not simply involved in a process of devolution here, where we're devolving authority. We're pushing down authority, not only from the federal government to the province but also from the province to local governments, and telling them to get their act together, but not giving them the resources that go along with the tools. That's a concern that I think the minister needs to address explicitly. I hope she'll comment on that when she closes debate on Bill 11; certainly in committee stage I know we'll be exploring that in some detail.
We need to be providing to municipal governments the tools to do the job, the tools to cooperate, but we have to finely balance the need to have municipal autonomy against the role of senior governments to direct change and growth management. The minister said something important in her comments in second reading about the fact that we need mechanisms for regional planning and a framework for cooperative action, but we also need to have dispute resolution mechanisms in place for when we get to the situation -- and, hopefully, these situations are rare -- where local governments within a region cannot agree on a strategy or a plan for growth or development. Those situations inevitably occur. We don't want to see communities pitted against each other, yet those situations do occur.
To the minister's credit, Bill 11 does provide some opportunities for dispute resolution. I suppose what that amounts to is a bit of a hammer over the heads of local governments, because they will know that if they cannot come to terms, come to accommodation or agree to cooperate on an aspect of growth management or development, the provincial government can enforce the dispute resolution mechanisms of this legislation and an agreement will be imposed. That threat, hopefully, will be enough of an incentive -- it's not a positive incentive; it could be regarded as a negative one -- for municipal governments to cooperate and to realize that they must cooperate. Otherwise they will face binding dispute resolution on that matter.
We are going to have to discuss that and how it's going to work in a little more detail during committee stage of this bill, because municipal governments will need to know how that's going to work and what the mechanisms are for dispute resolution to occur. Hopefully it will need to occur only rarely, because hopefully the goodwill of citizens within any region will look not only at the individual and specific needs of their own neighbourhoods and communities but also at the regional needs. That's what we need to foster in British Columbia: a spirit of the regional needs of the province and of the provincial needs as well.
I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast spoke to this quite eloquently earlier in this debate when he talked about the need for regions to come together. He actually talked about that symbolically in terms of this Legislative Assembly itself and how we're structured. Wouldn't it be refreshing, hon. Speaker, if we saw members in this House working together on a regional basis rather than on a party-line basis? Wouldn't we be able to provide a refreshing point of view to our constituents if we could see members of all parties working together for the regional needs of the portions of the province that they strive so hard to represent but sometimes are prevented from doing because of the artificial
[ Page 13763 ]
boundaries of party politics. I don't know if Bill 11 is going to solve those kinds of problems that are inherent in our parliamentary system....
H. Giesbrecht: It's not a problem in the northwest.
D. Mitchell: The member for Skeena says that it's not a problem in the northwest. Not yet, but who knows what will happen after the next election? It may be. When everyone thinks alike, the member should know that no one thinks at all.
We need to have people from all parties, all persuasions and all levels of government working together to develop growth strategies for British Columbia that will meet the needs of the province as a whole and the needs of individual neighbourhoods and communities. But we will also be looking at the regions of the province, whether they be the Okanagan, the lower mainland or Vancouver Island. There are regional interests; there are many industries that are affected on a regional basis.
When we say that there is a need for regional planning, I don't want to suggest for a moment that I don't have some concerns about the bill. I do. For one, I don't want to see my life and the life of my constituents governed completely by planners. I have nothing against planners as a class of people. I could say, and I probably should say, that some of my best friends might be planners, but I wouldn't want them to be ruling the day.
I think politicians ultimately bear the responsibility. In her comments on second reading, the minister actually spoke to this when she said that this was a matter of politics in the best sense of the word -- not politics in the sense that is sometimes portrayed through the filter of the media, which makes politics a dirty word, but politics in the sense of democratic representation through individuals who strive to represent constituents. So there are matters of politics that planners should not be able to intrude in.
We're talking here about politics at different levels of government. Yes, municipal governments are given the tools in Bill 11 to manage growth in their areas, but they must also be given the resources. I'll give you just one example of a concern that might be raised on this. It's the concern about rapid transit in the lower mainland of British Columbia, where recently the provincial government, the NDP government, has come forward with a plan to develop rapid transit on the north arm of the Fraser River, going out toward Maple Ridge and Mission. It may be an innovative plan, and I'm told that it's popular in that region of that province. But where did the plan come from? Did it come from the region? Is that a priority for the region -- the Greater Vancouver Regional District -- which itself has been working on its own plan for a livable region, and which has developed different priorities for rapid transit? This seems to be a plan that came from Victoria. So how can we develop plans, how can we be encouraging autonomy of municipalities and regions, when we still have planners here in Victoria that sometimes appear -- perhaps with political direction -- to be imposing plans on regions?
These are jurisdictional problems, these are political issues -- sometimes partisan issues -- that need to be resolved. Bill 11 doesn't and cannot solve those kinds of problems. When we have a government, perhaps for partisan reasons, perhaps by trying to prop up constituencies held by MLAs from one particular party, the governing party.... We can't help but believe that Bill 11 won't solve those kinds of problems by imposing solutions politically, rather than paying tribute to and using the principles of a bill like Bill 11, the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995.
I would like to conclude my comments by saying that I for one don't believe that growth is a dirty word. We must continue to have growth in the province of British Columbia. Our economy depends upon continued growth. British Columbia will only be able to continue the standard of living we enjoy today, and that we wish for our children's generation, with more economic growth. How we manage that growth and how we direct it will be the key to whether or not we are able to continue to have one of the most envied standards of living in the world. Without control, without management, we risk the kind of urban sprawl that we see in some of the worst examples of North American cities that have had no such legislation.
I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that I think she has brought in a bill that provides some important tools. This is an important piece of legislation. We don't want to see planners running amok. We don't want to see something like we've seen in the city of Vancouver, where under the former mayor of the city of Vancouver, the present leader of the Liberal opposition, we saw a huge bureaucracy built up that did not serve the interests of taxpayers in that region; that cost taxpayers in that region, whether they be homeowners or small business owners, huge amounts of taxes; where those homeowners and small business people were sometimes taxed out of their homes and out of their businesses. To what end? To build a huge bureaucracy that is a testimony to that former mayor of Vancouver but does little to really serve the needs of the people in the region.
That's not growth management. That is something else far more perverted than that. We don't wish that on people in the Greater Vancouver Regional District; we don't wish that on any British Columbians. What we do hope for is a lean system of planning, where municipalities can work together with one another on a cooperative basis without the buildup of huge bureaucracies, without creating new generations of planners but by creating generations of doers who will work together with their elected representatives at all levels of government to plan for the future of our children's generation. I look forward to the minister's comments when we conclude the second reading of Bill 11, and I look forward to having much more to say when we get to committee stage.
H. Giesbrecht: We have in the gallery today, from Fernwood school in Washington State, eight students and eight adults, with Miss Taylor, their teacher. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.
L. Krog: I think I can say with some confidence that this particular piece of legislation will be welcomed in my riding perhaps more than any other piece of legislation that might be introduced in this session. With perhaps one exception, the Regional District of Nanaimo's members, the mayors of the communities that I represent, and the representatives on the regional board, local planners and local community leaders, all support the need for this particular legislation.
My community, Parksville-Qualicum, is one of the highest growth areas in the province. The member for Okanagan
[ Page 13764 ]
West -- Kelowna -- and other areas of the province have seen rapid growth that has led to, if you will, the destruction of the very things that have brought people to those areas. Rampant growth up the Fraser Valley is another example.
I was fortunate to have been born in this province. I remember Kelowna when it was a nice, small community on the lake -- and Penticton likewise -- and the Fraser Valley was truly a valley of farms, and Parksville and Qualicum were tourist-oriented communities backed up by a very solid backbone of the forest industry. They were communities where people came to go to the beach and where they went to provincial parks. What we have now on Vancouver Island, up the Fraser Valley and in the communities of Kelowna and Penticton is rampant growth that, if the previous government hadn't abandoned the regional planning function back in the early eighties, would probably have resulted in far more livable and desirable communities today. Then it wouldn't be necessary for this government to bring forward the legislation that I compliment the minister for having the courage and wisdom to bring forward to this House.
I also want to compliment the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, particularly as he had an opportunity this morning to address his remarks when my daughter's class was here, and I think they heard a great deal of wisdom in his remarks. I also want to compliment the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. I don't agree with everything he said, but I think he brought a broader view to this topic.
Before people occupied this land, the animals and the birds that occupied this land didn't talk about artificial boundaries. They ranged where it was necessary for them to survive. The institution of boundaries, as we understand them, that designate the Cowichan Valley Regional District, the Nanaimo Regional District, the city of Nanaimo, the city of Parksville, the town of Qualicum Beach or the rural area of area F -- Coombs, Hilliers and Errington -- is artificial. But having created them, we tended in the past to treat them as if they were real boundaries, as if they had some real meaning in terms of where people lived, what they did and how they occupied and used the land. The truth is they don't.
What this act does is recognize the reality of how humanity occupies land and how it lives on it. That's the crucial thing to understand. When something happens in the area in which you live, just because it's inside Parksville, it does have an impact on the people in area F; it does have an impact on the people in Parksville. The quality of life, particularly in my constituency -- and I want to speak about my constituency today, obviously -- will only be diminished, unless legislation like this is passed -- this particular bill and further legislation that gives the tools to local people, to regional governments, to work in cooperation and coordination with others living in a substantially larger area than we tend to think of. Give them the opportunity to address the issues of transportation, green space and health care -- all of those things which play a role in what happens with growth in an area.
[3:00]
I was delighted to participate early on when the discussion paper came out -- I believe it was in November or December -- and a conference was held in Nanaimo of upper Island regional and municipal politicians. This was a wonderful process, an opportunity for people involved with the day-to-day nitty-gritty of growth in their areas to come together and look at the discussion paper, to consider the proposals and the opportunities being presented to them by the government in order for them to come to conclusions about what they wanted to see in a growth strategies act. I must say that I think this act represents the fruit of a very fine stretch of consultation among a number of people.
This act will perhaps preserve those very qualities in areas like my own -- like Kelowna and the Fraser Valley -- that have brought people to live there. It's not simply booming economies that bring people to an area; it's natural beauty, environment, the level of crime -- a whole series of things. But if politicians, representing people as they do -- and it is an honour and a privilege to do so -- don't have the tools of law to deal with that growth, what you end up with are communities that are not sustainable, that people do not wish to reside in, that are not pretty, that are not attractive and that will not fuel the kind of growth that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi talked about. They are communities that in the long haul will cease to be desirable for investment or for people to live in. What this act will do is give an opportunity to regional districts and to municipal governments to address those concerns -- to ensure that there are definitions between the communities, that there is sufficient green space, and that the desire of one community to emphasize industrial development will in fact be done in a coordinated way that takes into account the needs and concerns of the neighbouring communities and areas.
In my constituency, area F has no zoning or land use control, and what has happened is absolutely inevitable. You now have incredible strip development on the Alberni highway -- industrial development -- because there is no zoning. Business people, doing what comes naturally and trying to make the best dollar they can, are building out there. But it is destroying the rural lifestyle of that community. Meanwhile, the city of Parksville, which spent a great deal of money developing an industrial park, can't get business people to buy in there because they can move out to Coombs ridge and there's less regulation and less zoning -- or no zoning.
It is this legislation that will address that very problem. It will enable the citizens of my home community -- Coombs, B.C. -- to maintain that rural lifestyle. It will ensure that communities like Parksville will tend to grow up instead of go out, and that a city like Nanaimo will go up instead of going out.
I had the privilege to grow up in a small community, to commune with nature perhaps more than some of my urban colleagues. If there's anything I think my generation has brought to the world, it is the understanding that the ability to get into the wild area and touch the wilderness is crucial.
We in this Legislature have an opportunity -- the last opportunity, probably, in this province -- to sustain any kind of significant green space in those areas of the province which are clearly destined for further growth because of their climate or their position: Vancouver Island, the Fraser Valley, Powell River-Sunshine Coast, Kelowna, Penticton, Osoyoos. Those areas will continue to draw people, to some extent. But the kinds of communities that will be created over time will be that much better and more desirable communities in which to live, because this legislation will give an opportunity to regional districts to plan and coordinate carefully the growth and development in those areas, so they will remain places of high economic growth and development where people will want to live and raise their families.
[ Page 13765 ]
Without this legislation, I personally could look forward in my constituency to the further continuation of what has been known affectionately -- or unaffectionately -- on the Island as "Campbell Sooke," which is simply that long stretch of land from Campbell River down to Sooke being one massive urban sprawl. I won't make reference to any of the members in this chamber who represent areas in the province which I think exemplify that kind of urban sprawl, lest I receive their criticism later, but I think the hon. members know which areas I'm talking about.
Vancouver Island doesn't want that. Vancouver Island and Parksville-Qualicum support this legislation. They want to see something preserved; they don't want to see what's happened in the lower mainland. They want to ensure that communities remain viable and with some distinction, and that people live in areas where their growth is going up and not out, so their children will have the same kind of opportunity that I did to get out into the wild space and maybe to appreciate the planet and the environment a little more than others.
We can look south to the great state of California, and we know what uncontrolled growth does. We know that eventually it leads to economic stagnation and to communities that are not livable. That is not the vision this bill brings to British Columbia. This bill brings to British Columbia a vision of sustainable communities, of cooperation and coordination.
The member for West Vancouver-Capilano talked about planning. We don't want to give it all over to the planners, but the politicians obviously are going to be involved in this one. The planning and cooperation aspects of it are crucial. We have to start thinking not just of our own interests, either as citizens or as members of a larger community, but about the communities that surround us. In an idealistic way, in that sense I think this bill is one of the most forward-looking that this Legislature has seen. At the heart of this bill is the concept of cooperation, of thinking about your neighbours and expecting them to think about you. For that reason I am delighted to stand and offer my support for this bill, and to thank and compliment the Minister of Municipal Affairs for bringing it forward to the Legislature this session.
L. Hanson: I certainly see the motivation for Bill 11. The minister was obviously trying to cure some problems that we see happening in the various communities. One of the former speakers -- I don't remember which one -- mentioned the number of municipalities in some areas which are not huge geographically but where there certainly is a competition. I guess the famous not-in-my-back-yard syndrome that we talk about in zoning hearings and so on partially describes some of the things that happen in areas where those municipalities live very close together. There's no doubt that that is a concern.
I have some support for the fact the from time to time we have to remind our politicians, including the politicians in this room, that the responsibilities we have are more than just to represent the constituents who elected us. We also have a responsibility to do justice to British Columbia, if you will, in the various concerns that we raise. Something that we need to remind ourselves of, as well as some of the locally elected people, is that they are elected to look after their municipality and the responsibilities they have been given by that; but they are also responsible for being concerned about what happens in the area that they live in, even if it may not be within their boundaries.
Regional districts were formed because there was a need to recognize the need and let the input happen from those people who didn't necessarily live in an organized area. I personally live in an electoral area, and I have very good representation. But before regional districts, that was a difficulty.
I think I understand the minister's motivation for bringing forward this legislation, but I honestly don't think this legislation is going to work as well as I know the minister is enthusiastically thinking it will. The concern that I have is that there's absolutely no doubt that it takes away some of the autonomy of the municipal councils in their planning process. I don't think any of us in this room would argue against the fact that we do need some planning above and beyond the municipal boundaries. When it comes to things like transportation, you can't build a railroad track from one end and also from another end if the two ends don't meet. You have to have some kind of planning that makes for that cooperation, if you will, so that the tracks do meet when they're completed. Nobody would even argue with that.
We also recognize, in my own community.... We have long negotiated for a greater North Okanagan water system. That has finally become a reality, but it has become a reality because the municipal and regional district politicians who took part in that had an honest and sincere desire to rectify what they saw as a problem and handle the administration of water resources in a better manner than was done the past. They went ahead on their own, in a cooperative manner, and did that without the soft carrot, as the minister expressed it.
I have to say that when I look at the bill and analyze the soft carrot...
Interjection.
L. Hanson: ...or the heavy carrot -- I'm corrected by the minister -- it could be pretty effective if it were to be used. I suspect -- and I'm sure the minister knows this -- that the use of that heavy carrot could become a more contentious issue than the actual issue of the regional planning that we're talking about. That would be a real shame. Again, there's no question that every one of us -- and probably every regional district and municipality -- would support the need, in principle, for people to cooperate when they're planning a growth strategy for a given area of the province. I suspect that the heavy carrots may deter the success of this legislation.
I really see that there is a need for some kind of encouragement for municipalities -- such as we see in the greater Victoria area, which is such a confined area -- to cooperate in planning what happens within the greater area as opposed to the limited and narrow planning of their municipalities. The question I have -- I guess we will address that further when we come to the committee stage of the bill and look at all of the individual clauses -- is: will it actually work?
As the minister knows, there are all sorts of wonderful things that can be done if a group of people gather together with goodwill and good intentions to accomplish something. We all strive for that. I suspect that this bill will see some pretty bumpy roads before it finally becomes a workable process, and growth planning for a region becomes a reality, and all of the issues that are attached to that planning are resolved in a consultative and cooperative manner. I'm hopeful that that will be accomplished. I suspect that this bill may not work just exactly as is expected.
[3:15]
[ Page 13766 ]
In some of the areas, and I know we'll get into that when we get into the committee stage of the bill, the issue of the weighted vote that happens within regional districts.... Because this is not a money matter, I suspect that it will be an equal vote. We then have a situation where in some of our regional districts the dominant representation of population may not have an equal vote in the determination of what happens in the area. I think that's something that will cause a lot of concern; it may cause the odd bit of lack of cooperation as well.
While the carrots the minister mentioned earlier in the legislation will certainly give the minister the authority to impose certain things on that process, I suspect that.... If you were ever in the cattle business and tried to drive cattle, they do what's called "arching your back." If they arch their back, they've decided that they're not going to go in one particular direction, and no matter what kind of persuasion you use, it's very difficult to get that to happen.
But, like my colleague from Prince George-Omineca, I have no difficulty with the principles and what the minister is trying to accomplish. I suspect that it may not work as well as we would like, and there will certainly be some questions on the various sections of the bill when we get to committee stage. Hopefully, the minister will listen to some of what we would suggest are constructive suggestions that might improve the situation.
T. Perry: I'm going to have to wing it a little now, extemporaneously. I had sought the assistance of the library to help me to make a more erudite presentation, but time came upon me faster than I realized. I'll have to rely on memory.
An Hon. Member: Plain talk.
T. Perry: Plain talk.
This is really an historic occasion. I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs has accomplished something quite unprecedented in the time I've been interested in planning and environmental issues, which goes back to about the time I graduated from high school in 1968. I'm glad that you're in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, because you've been involved in B.C. public issues for pretty much all of that time. I remember that I first met you in 1969, I think.
We've seen waxing and waning enthusiasm for planning and environmental concerns in all of that time; most recently we've seen it in the last five years. On Monday I met some very, very bright high school students from Eric Hamber Secondary, which is in the district I represent. I introduced them from the gallery, and then met with them outside in the sun. I found that they were very upset about plans to limit their freedom to have a driver's licence without any restrictions at age 16. They wanted to immediately be able to drive everywhere and anywhere at night without parental supervision. They didn't seem concerned about the impact of all that driving on the environment, and I challenged them. I said: "You know, I'm shocked. Five years ago the students from your school would have been alarmed about the hole in the ozone, or global warming, or traffic and smog in the lower mainland, or cutting down trees, and they would have been demanding to know what I was doing about it." These students were worried about how fast they can get into their car and how much they can drive it.
That's a reflection of the cycles of public concern over environmental matters. During your political lifetime in B.C., Mr. Speaker, you've seen a lot of that. There was a reawakening of environmental consciousness in the late sixties. It peaked perhaps in 1970, when Earth Day was established just 25 years ago last weekend, and yet Earth Day passed this year with almost nobody noticing it. It faded and then peaked again in about 1980, perhaps, and then it faded away again. Then in about 1989-90 people like Dr. David Suzuki and others again stimulated a revolution of consciousness in Canada, and in B.C. in particular, and now it seems, sadly, to be largely fading away.
I thought back about that and asked the library to dig out something I had discovered. In that first big wave of environmental consciousness that I was involved in, in about 1968-69 when I was a student at UBC, somebody pointed out this document to me -- the Official Regional Plan of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board.
I'm sure the minister.... If I remember accurately, she may not yet have come to B.C. at that time; she'll correct me if I'm wrong. She must in her municipal days have heard faint echoes of this document. Those like you, Mr. Speaker, who have been around here for a long time will remember that an eminence grise of the opposition benches -- the former member for Vancouver East and minister for everything in the Barrett government, Bob Williams -- was associated with this board, and his mentor Victor Parker was a great planner involved with the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. If you look back to this document, the official plan, it says right in the preface:
"The Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board was established in 1949 by the lower mainland municipalities, on the conviction that each community and each individual through his council have a stake in the growth and development of the region as a whole. While there are many development problems that are best solved locally by each municipality, there are others, involving the process of urban development, major highways and transportation linkages, regional recreation facilities, pollution, broad land development policies, future industrial and agricultural land needs, and major utilities, that demand a coordinated regional approach if they are to be resolved effectively. It is within this framework that the official regional plan for the lower mainland has been prepared."
It cites a declaration of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, R.C. MacDonald, on June 21, 1949, which gave birth to the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. Darned if I can find, Mr. Speaker, the exact date of this document. I guess August 29, 1966, was the date of this document, and Social Credit were then in power, amazingly enough.
Those words are almost identical in spirit to what we see in this act. The section we'll come to in committee, section 942.11 under section 7 -- "Purpose of regional growth strategy" -- suggests that the regional growth strategy deal with some of the following matters:
"(a) avoiding urban sprawl...(b) settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and the efficient use of public transit; (c) the efficient movement of goods and people while making effective use of transportation and utility corridors; (d) protecting environmentally sensitive areas... (g) reducing and preventing air, land and water pollution...(j) protecting the quality and quantity of ground water and surface water...."
Well, they sound like motherhood ideas. They were apparently the vision of the Minister of Municipal Affairs in 1949. When I immigrated to Canada from Los Angeles in 1962,
[ Page 13767 ]
there was a sign in the old Vancouver International Airport warning that we would face smog pollution problems similar to those in the Los Angeles basin because of our geography. There is this official regional plan which shows urban dense concentrations at the bottom and beautiful, open green spaces at the top. I'm not sure if this is Sumas Mountain in the background in this photograph, but I know that it doesn't look too much like that in much of the Fraser Valley anymore.
In between those good periods of enlightenment we had the dark ages of retrenchment, recidivism back towards the unmitigated, completely unregulated, uncalculated, unthinking growth for growth's sake and boosterism for its own sake that Sinclair Lewis described in his novels like Babbitt, and that afflicted virtually every other urbanized community in North America. That led to the dissolution of regional planning powers when Bill Vander Zalm was Minister of Municipal Affairs back in 1986, or even earlier in the 1980s, and to some of the catastrophes we've seen in the outskirts of Vancouver -- the eastern suburbs; the Fraser Valley, where whole hillsides have been denuded, with large monster houses.
The private automobile has been seen as not only the basis for communication between people but the god, actually. I think it's a false god that we've worshipped, but let's admit that society has worshipped the automobile as if it were a god -- a burnished idol. Some people actually burnish them -- polish them as if they were idols in a church or in a pagan ritual.
We've lost our way to the point that we now have still-worsening air pollution problems, despite the best efforts of government, through AirCare, to mitigate them. There's only so much that a senior government like a federal or provincial government, or even a municipal government, can do. There's an important lesson that what is called for is a cultural shift -- what Dame Lady Barbara Ward called for back in the 1970s at the first United Nations conference on the environment in Stockholm: "Think globally and act locally; think globally, act regionally."
In planning the major expansions of our social and capital infrastructure such as the new university in the Fraser Valley, new health care facilities and new housing subdivisions, we must have that consciousness. We must respect the goals in division (1), section 942.11, under section 7 of this act. If we don't, our quality of life will be worse.
I'm convinced that although there have been improvements in the quality of life since I was first interested in these issues, in many respects the real quality of life in the lower mainland has deteriorated -- no ifs, ands or buts. In public security, in sense of safety, in air pollution, in the length of time it takes to get around from one place to another and in the respect for nature, I think it's been seriously downhill. There's more material wealth, yet there is often less spiritual wealth and less sustainability.
Although this act relies more on public intelligence, goodwill, vision and foresight than it does on the force of law -- although it can't compel people to do what is good for the earth and good for a sustainable society -- it can only encourage that. I hope that the process by which the Minister of Municipal Affairs has brought this bill to fruition -- a consensual process, working with the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and municipal leaders around the province -- will provide that faint glimmer of hope that people will finally take it seriously, and that should there be a change of the prevailing political philosophy in B.C. -- which I hope there won't be, but sooner or later, one day there will be -- this good, commonsense planning for our future won't go the way of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board.
[3:30]
For that reason, I hope that members of all parties will rethink their positions and support this bill. That might be Social Credit, who developed this wise plan in the days of W.A.C. Bennett, then tore it to shreds and literally destroyed it with their sharp claws. It might be the Libcreds, those modified Socreds who represent the same development/industry interests the Social Credit monolith used to represent. Despite their natural instincts to want to destroy the land, worship the false god of the car, pollute and ravage the land regardless of ecological sustainability, I hope that they too will rethink their position and support this bill. I hope the Reformcreds will also realize that this is common sense and that it relates to the direction the province must really go.
Finally, I hope that all the backbenchers from the government side, who are now talking among themselves, will also bestir themselves to vote for this bill and to support it as enthusiastically as I know they have during its development. I therefore really look forward to voting for it at second reading and to further debate in the committee stage.
A. Hagen: The name of this bill, the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, is one that perhaps strikes some concerns in a lot of citizens. Growth is something we have a hard time dealing with, so the very first thing I want to say in my comments on second reading of this bill is how important it is that the minister and our government have tackled this issue, and that it has been tackled in a way that involved such a wide representation of people in developing processes to deal with growth.
I recently had to go back to visit my mother, who lives in the little town of Sackville, New Brunswick. For the first time in about 30 years, I happened to travel by train across the northern reaches of New Brunswick and the Tantramar marshes, where there is space everywhere, and at that time of the year, snow was still everywhere as well. Then I flew back to British Columbia, over the Fraser Valley, the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Greater Vancouver area, over the small seven square miles that are my city, where even from 30,000 or whatever number of feet I was at as the plane was descending, you could see the brownness of the air and where the mountains stood clear and the rivers ran -- but not as clean as we would want them to run. It really is a contrast in our country in terms of what is happening in B.C. Many of the people who come here, including the minister, have come from other parts of the country. We are now faced with a province where exponential growth is taking place.
When I was first elected, we had a population of about 39,000 people in my city. It was actually a smaller population than had been there previously. In the eight and a half years that I have been a member, the population has grown to 46,000, and the projection is that the population will grow to 70,000 or 75,000 -- almost double what it was when I was elected -- somewhere in the 2015-to-2020 period. Citizens are quite honestly concerned about that growth, because they know it means changes for them.
This bill is important because it says this is our world, our reality, our environment, and we have to tackle the issues.
[ Page 13768 ]
And the only way we're going to tackle them is to recognize that it's in our best interests as communities, as cities, as municipalities and as regions to tackle this task. As I look around the House and see people from other parts of the province here, I know that similar situations are occurring, whether it's in the Okanagan or in the greater Victoria region or on the eastern coast of Vancouver Island.
This bill is really about what the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi called -- rightly, I think-- the best of our political processes. It is a bill about the political will to tackle things in ways that are consistent with our values. First of all, in this bill we're not bringing in some new supergovernment or new superinstitutions. We're saying that we're going to work with what exists. We're going to work with the democratically elected bodies that have the tools, in their municipal councils and in our regional governments, to deal with these issues.
We're going to provide as many tools as we can for collaboration and cooperation. But there are some strictures there. There is a need for regional planning. It needs to grow out of the plans of each individual community, and we need to look at the way in which what we do in individual communities affects our neighbours. We need to look also at the way in which what the province plans and can support serves our communities and regions.
So the bill provides for, if you like, a voluntary process for cross-community planning, but it says that once you've gone into that process, you've got to stick with it. You've got to put into it your visions and your ideas, and you've got to listen to the other folks who are on the other side of your boundary or in another region. You've got to work with those people to come up with plans and long-term visions that everybody can work with.
The bill also provides for the inevitable challenges that will occur when perhaps agreement can't be reached. Again, there are processes to encourage people to come to that agreement and to help them when they may be in difficulty.
For me in my community, and I think this is true for all of us -- what I have to say I think could be said for each member -- it's important that we start from the community itself. But even as we're looking at our own city and community planning processes, we know that we don't live in a vacuum, that we don't live on an island. In New Westminster, for example, the issue that is probably most important to us as far as the region is concerned is what our share of that growth should be. Given that we're such a physically very small community, is it reasonable for us to accommodate that amount of growth? Is that a reasonable request of us?
That debate is going on in our community right now with a revision of our official community plan, and it's a tough debate. It's one where people often resist even looking at ways in which we might have greater density and as good or better livability, perhaps having more people able to use public transit and able to get around to both to their jobs and their recreation, and not having to use a car. We have a job even looking at those issues.
But if we look to the region, I think for us the biggest issue is how we interconnect. People travel from community to community for their jobs; they don't just go from New Westminster or Coquitlam or North Vancouver to downtown Vancouver anymore. It's like a spider's web in terms of the movement of people. The regional planning that will allow for that kind of movement of people in an efficient way -- hopefully using public transit more than before -- is a challenge. There are real difficulties with this. As my colleague the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain said, in some way, perhaps we're going backwards.
I have just a few sobering thoughts to take to heart. The amount of developed land in the Georgia Basin area is two to three times the increase in population. In other words, we have a person coming in, but that person and that person's family is actually using an increasing amount of land rather than a more reasonable amount of land when it comes to where they put their house or apartment. The population in the greater Vancouver area has grown 21 percent in the last seven or eight years, but the cars travelling on our roads have grown by twice that number: 42 percent. We're losing the battle of public transit; transit use has declined in relation to our population. I cite these statistics because they force us to really look at the planning and growth strategy issues that face us at this time.
Along with my colleague to my left, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, I was very much involved in some regional planning processes in the mid-seventies. I look back on those processes as a source of optimism for this legislation. People did get engaged in what they wanted their communities to be and how they wanted them to develop, and their ideas were reflected in the community plans of the day. In fact, 20 years later we see a lot of the good results of that planning process.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I remember very clearly that the city of New Westminster wanted to reorient itself to its river, because the river was its historic heartland. It had been the heartland of the city from the days of the Royal Engineers and the sappers and Colonel Moody, who had laid out the city. They wanted the river to be a place for people; they wanted it to be a place where a planned community could emerge. I haven't talked to anybody who now lives close to the river and who walks its wonderful strip of park, which is part of the city's contribution to the environment, or who shops at the market and looks at the redevelopment of Columbia Street and doesn't like where they are. It's a dense community -- almost as dense as the West End of Vancouver -- but it's a livable community because it was planned. And that planning goes back 20 years.
When we think about planning for growth, we should look at where planning has taken place and how it has worked. We should use some of that visioning to assist us in our support for this legislation and our recognition that the collaborative and cooperative and opting-in approach that it demands is, in fact, something that works. It's hard work, and it takes a good bit of time before the effort is made manifest, but the nature of the work is productive. It does help us to manage growth, and it does help us to build livable communities.
[3:45]
Sometimes I get quite fearful about the kinds of cities and communities that are growing up in our region. Most of us have grown up in smaller and gentler communities. All of
[ Page 13769 ]
those pressures are part of our living in a modern society. If we look at the goals of the legislation -- in my mind, a very significant visioning part of the bill.... If we look at those goals, they are about:
1. Avoiding urban sprawl so that we're not using two or three times the amount of land that we should be using for the additional people who are there.
2. Maximizing the use of foot, bicycle and transit so we can get around in our communities without having to use our cars. I happen to be on a SkyTrain route, and I know the advantages that that has for me personally and for the environment.
3. Protecting environmentally sensitive areas. The lower mainland nature heritage announcements are a part of what's happening now. The Indian Arm announcement and other announcements are a part of protecting those sensitive environments, which are, again, regional heritages that all of us who live in the area and others can enjoy.
4. Reducing and preventing land, air and water pollution. I live on the banks of the Fraser River, one of the world's mightiest and most productive rivers. It's a river which we must continue to enhance so that the fish are always there, and so that it is a river that is as pristine as is possible for us to make it.
5. Fundamentally creating communities where families, whatever their nature and age range may be, can live.
This bill has been produced, developed, presented and now debated coming out of a very extensive consultation process. That process has provided us with a bill that is strong but that still raises questions, as members have noted, about how we're going to make it work. No legislation is, in and of itself, other than a tool and a vehicle for citizens in a democratic society to exercise their will. This bill acknowledges the right and the responsibility of citizens, first in their own communities and then across their regional and community boundaries, to develop the kinds of communities they want and desire.
Finally, I think it's important to note that the province is a key player at this table. I think the province needs to improve the way it works at these tables. I believe we've come a long way in that direction in some of the planning that's gone on for things like our parks, in some of the announcements that have been made around urban transit and transportation, and in issues to improve the quality of our air. But we need to be as committed, responsible and participatory a player in this process as all of the communities and regions that are encompassed by this planning act.
It is a bill that calls out the best in us. For that reason I think it stands as a very special document, and I join with others in commending the minister for the tremendous amount of work that she and her officials have done in very extensively going out and talking about principles, ideas, tools and structures that form the framework for this legislation. She's called it a process bill, and indeed it is something that all democratic societies need to have: good process legislation that is respectful of the rights and responsibilities of each of the municipalities and regions. It demands a lot of the province as well.
With that, I add my voice in support of the legislation, in anticipation that we will have vigorous debate. In my community we're going to be engaged in a process very soon that involves a historic piece of land and that is going to look to new uses: the Woodlands land where the Woodlands School is being closed. There are two pieces of advice that I've tried to convey to citizens as we talk about how we get into that discussion. Each of us has a responsibility to envision what we would like to see for that land. What are our ideas? We should be as broad-ranging and as creative as possible.
The other part of that is that we have an obligation to listen to others and to their ideas. This is not a stakeholder game or a stakeholder table. This is a community table where all of us have a stake. All of us have a role and responsibility to try to come together to arrive at what we collectively can envision as the best decision for an individual piece of land, a community or a region. That's the best of our democratic traditions. It is non-partisan. It is community- and grass-roots-based. It does respect those who are elected and those who contribute to the ideas of elected people who must make decisions. All of us at all levels -- including, I might add, because of the river in my riding, the federal government -- must be participants in that.
I look forward to the ways in which this legislation helps us to be good citizens and good planners, and to deal with one of the toughest issues that faces us these days: growth.
Hon. D. Marzari: It's been one of the delights of bringing this bill to the House, hon. Speaker, to be able to see friends of the bill in the gallery from time to time.
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, minister. We need to get permission before we can do that.
Leave granted.
Hon. D. Marzari: I'd like to introduce to the House Councillor Laura Acton from the council of Victoria, who is here today.
C. Serwa: It's certainly a pleasure to rise and speak with respect to the philosophy and principles of Bill 11, Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act. I'm not going to be quite as kind as a number of members here have been to the minister with this particular legislation. I hope you'll bear with me and see that my belief is that the stick is not as appropriate as the carrot. I think that the minister has taken the party line and that it is a partisan type of bill.
Now, that doesn't minimize the concern we all have with respect to growth. I've heard a great many words spoken here. Some of them have been wise, some have been well thought out, and some have been sincere. Others have not been anywhere near that quality of input into this particular legislation.
The legislation that we're looking at is primarily focused on high-density urban areas. Again, British Columbia collectively is being looked at as the southern part of Vancouver Island, with a high density population, or perhaps the lower Fraser Valley, or the Greater Vancouver Regional District, with its concerns. This particular piece of legislation is focusing, and most of the conversation here has been with respect to that. I have to advise you that the province doesn't end at the Greater Vancouver Regional District; there's a great deal of the province that goes beyond that. Like the member from Okanagan-Penticton, I also come from a very rapidly growing area which has unique environmental challenges because of a fairly main and deep valley running virtually at right angles to
[ Page 13770 ]
the westerly flow of air, so that air quality is a particular concern.
I guess the number of concerns I have with this bill start with the statement: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." I don't believe the provincial government has a monopoly on devising growth strategies, and I'm concerned with the type of stick that is brought forward with respect to this bill. We've listened to a lot of the words of the minister talking about positive aspects, and there are positive aspects of addressing the concerns.
One of the strange statements I heard was from the member from Saanich who stood up and said: "Rapid growth indicates lack of planning." What latitude or what scope of logical thinking that can produce a statement like that evades me completely. Rapid growth is a result of a particular attractiveness either of a jurisdiction -- the province of British Columbia, for example -- or of the quality of a regional district like the Okanagan, within the province of British Columbia. It has nothing to do with poor planning. In my particular situation in the central Okanagan, a number of projects that were strongly promoted, with the idea of providing the type of growth capacity for population, have not been approved simply because the infrastructure was not there, would not be there for quite a number of years and perhaps, financially, could not be there. So the growth strategy was contained.
When I listen to a number of the speakers, it is as if we have no planners anywhere in the province who are doing an effective job. If I were a planner, whether in the Regional District of Central Okanagan or in Kelowna, I would be very concerned with what I'm hearing at the present time on this particular piece of legislation. There has been a great deal of planning. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi went on to talk about uncontrolled development on the Sea to Sky corridor to Whistler. I would suggest that every bit of development is in fact controlled: zoning is required; building permits are required. The development has been controlled. It may not fit with the member's version of what should transpire, but I would suggest that everyone has a different objective for what should or should not happen. Nevertheless, the planning and the zoning authorities, the municipal authorities or the regional district authorities, have input and control into that particular planning process. If the Minister of Municipal Affairs disagrees with that process, so be it; but nevertheless, this is a local issue and the planners and the local politicians have seized their responsibility and acted on their responsibility within the best of their ability.
The contradiction here too comes out.... Hon. Speaker, I listened to your words when you spoke as the member for Nanaimo with respect to planners, saying that we can utilize the planners more widely, that it's not going to constitute a different form of bureaucracy, and that we're not going to have more planners involved in the whole process -- more red tape. I suggest that if you sincerely believe that, then you're under a misapprehension of what will actually transpire.
The member from Saanich said that what we need, really, is less in the way of bureaucrats; yes, they should be doing this, but we need less bureaucrats, fewer planners, etc. -- again with the implication that the present planners are sitting at their desks, twiddling their thumbs, doing nothing with respect to their mandate of responsibility. I assure you, hon. Speaker, I believe that they are undertaking their planning responsibilities genuinely and sincerely, with respect to the regional districts, with respect to the municipalities and with respect to the regions. You have to be mindful of that.
The thought of this particular legislation, that within a region.... You could look at the Thompson-Okanagan region, where we share different watersheds. We share the Columbia watershed and we share the Fraser watershed. We don't share the same airflow situation. We're not a lower mainland type of situation. So when you look at the type of coordination that you're going to try to accomplish there, the shoe simply doesn't fit, and that's why the bill will not succeed.
[4:00]
I've heard a lot of sincerely concerned debate with respect to population growth. I think that if we're looking at something we're going to have to look at population growth, because that is the foundation of all of the problems. The minister has spoken about air quality concerns and water quality concerns; we're all concerned about that apolitical type of issue. But we do have the Ministry of Environment, whose mandate is to look after those particular concerns.
But what are we doing? We have the increasing growth of our own population. The other population growth, because of the attractiveness of the evergreen province -- the nicest province in Canada.... We have Canadian-wide migration, especially from jurisdictions such as Ontario, under the current NDP government there. They are moving in droves to British Columbia to evade that, only to be caught with a similar NDP government here in British Columbia. Nevertheless, the qualities of this particular province will attract Canadians.
The federal government is a partner in attracting more people to Canada, and in promoting immigration. We're certainly attracting people from Asia-Pacific and from other parts of the world, again because of the quality of this province and the opportunities in this province. We recognize that we're an aging population. Unless we encourage more new people to come in, after the baby-boomers are on the pension there are going to be fewer and fewer people working in order to keep them in the manner in which they would like to become accustomed to. So we need this growth.
We're at a bit of a crossroads and a contradiction: we're going to develop a strategy to control growth, yet we recognize that we need growth and that from growth many good things happen. There's an inherent contradiction in this particular piece of legislation -- a contradiction between the effort and responsibility of the provincial government to encourage and attract business and industry and new people so we can have a dynamic, viable economy and provide all of the good things that government is supposed to provide to the citizens of this province, while at the same time we're going to a strategy to control growth.
I suggest that unless we look again at that fundamental, basic component of population increase, we're not going to succeed in this or any other strategy. As long as we keep producing more people and attracting more people, we're
[ Page 13771 ]
going to have greater and greater problems. It's not solely the population increase but the population increase coupled with the needs, wants and expectations of that population that is the problem.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain indicated his particular concerns. He was talking about large industry and exploiting the province, I believe. He didn't use quite those words, but the intention was the same: we're taking advantage and creating environmental negatives. Whether it's a multinational corporation or a corporation within our boundaries, they're providing goods and services and jobs for people.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Okay, housing. The whole point of the effort is that it's the needs, wants and expectations of that growing population. It's not simply the drain of energy or material goods or water resources or pollution of the air; it's such things as wage increases without an increase in productivity that are putting more and more pressure on our environment. Controlling growth doesn't change that. There are many, many concerns that are being represented in this particular room.
Just a moment. I have a notice with a request, so I'll sit down temporarily and honour the request.
Deputy Speaker: You have us all wondering. I recognize the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.
T. Perry: I thank the hon. member effusively for yielding.
Deputy Speaker: What are you asking, member?
T. Perry: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
T. Perry: There are in the gallery a number of students enjoying -- almost participating in -- this scintillating debate. They come from Templeton Secondary School in the riding of the hon. Minister of Social Services, I believe. I would invite all of the other members to make them feel as welcome as I feel they are welcome.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member, and I thank the member for Okanagan West for allowing that.
C. Serwa: There was some mention of the Gro Harlem Brundtland report in this philosophical debate that we're having at the present time. It was words with respect to sustainable development. We obviously have a finite environment, and we obviously have finite resources, and it doesn't matter whether we're talking about our jurisdiction or Canada or the global environment as a whole. I think Will Rogers said it best, in a folksy sort of way, a long time ago, when he was suggesting good investments. His advice was: "Buy land. The good Lord has stopped making land, but he's still making a lot of people." That's one of the realities that prevails.
When we talk about sustainable development, we're going to have to understand that we will -- not probably will, but will -- reduce the quantity of living. It is a false pretence to say that each succeeding generation will have greater incomes and live a better lifestyle than the present one. We're probably living at one of the peak times in Western societies right now, certainly in this country. But as we increase the world population and our domestic population, we're going to increase pressure on those finite resources. It really means that we will lose the quantity of living that we're enjoying at the present time. But it does not mean that we will lose or reduce the quality of life, and there is a significant difference. One depends on cash flow and the other depends on the quality of the environment and a different attitude with respect to a population. I'd suggest that there is as much or perhaps more frustration, even though we are a very affluent society at the present time. But we have lost in that affluence a great deal of the quality of life. So we have to focus on the two issues and start understanding some of the basic benefits of perhaps reducing our consumption and reducing the types of pressures that we're putting on society. Whether you're looking at the effects of rapid growth or steady growth, the fact is that we will simply split and divide the resources so that we will reduce the quantity of living. And if we're not careful, we could reduce the quality of life for British Columbians. That's why this debate on this bill is so meaningful and important.
I have spoken about the concerns that we all share with population, and that's something that no legislature, no jurisdiction such as Canada or, it seems, any international body at the present time can get their act together and understand. Some have said in this debate that the problem is the food supply. It appears to be not the quantity of food but the consumption and distribution of food at the present time. I think that increasing technology will assure us that we have an abundant food supply to support more and more people.
What we do not have is the capacity, for example, for air resources to support freeing up more carbon that is being locked up in natural oil reserves, in coal or in our forest supply. If we free more and more of it into the atmosphere we're going to create greater and greater problems with the greenhouse effect. Again, that's part and parcel of the needs, wants and expectations of that growing population.
It seems to me that we're looking at something elemental. It's playing with the symptoms but not attacking the fundamental problem. Perhaps our jurisdiction can't, but we should certainly be a partner in exploring the big picture and addressing it. Otherwise, whether it's in health care or in growth management and strategies, it's an exercise in frustration and futility. The effort is a noble one; from the debate there obviously has been a great deal of concern put in with respect.
At their convention, the New Democrats came up with a slogan: "Main Street, not Howe Street." Either they didn't know, they didn't realize or they didn't care that both refer to Vancouver. That's what I think this primary bill refers to: those densely populated urban areas of Vancouver. In effect, it's involving the provincial government: big government planning into the everyday aspect of everyone's lives in British Columbia.
You can't have it both ways. We listened to the debate on the Columbia River Basin, and here the government is very proud because they've listened to the people in the areas affected by this historical injustice. When we finish on that bill I'm going to enjoy debating that a little further. On the other hand we have government, which has the ability, with a big stick, to force compliance and to control people's lives within
[ Page 13772 ]
British Columbia: control where they live, how they live, where they move to and what happens. I think that's very, very wrong. The individual independent jurisdictions have that responsibility and that right, and we as free people in a free society in Canada can maintain that right. This is not Russia, where that right obviously did not exist, where the government there moved people at their will, and where huge populations were moved for the convenience or for the will of the government.
Wherever the people want to live, whether it's in Abbotsford, Kelowna or Terrace.... In that aspect it's dreadful legislation. I think it's an attack on the integrity of communities in British Columbia. It's an attack on regional districts and the planning and the independent decisions of what they will do.
I read in the legislation, for example, that some of the highlights of the act provide legislative authority for regional districts to voluntarily develop and adopt a regional growth strategy. That sounds innocuous enough, except that when you go through the legislation you find that if there is any difference of opinion, the government has the ability to step in. I would suggest that this current government will probably mandate the direction of what happens in a most skilful manner.
Another highlight is the point with respect to urban sprawl. We all have concern with urban sprawl, but I'm going to tell you that the agricultural land act is greatly responsible for a significant amount of the urban sprawl. Within our city of Kelowna there are large tracts of agricultural land. So what happens is that you get sort of a jump-type of development. You get nodes of development here, nodes of development there, and there's a very, very high cost of servicing that type of development with infrastructure. That is caused by the inability of the communities to be masters of their own destiny with the agricultural land within a municipality. So that is causing urban sprawl.
Urban sprawl is also caused by the belief -- perhaps by the Canadian dream -- that we can own our own home on our own lot. Are we going to do now what had to be done in places like Japan or in many areas in Europe where they have high-density populations: relegate people to living in condominiums, apartments or high-density areas? If you're going to prevent urban sprawl, it sounds like you're going to do that. Is that something the public will accept? I don't think they'll accept it at the present time. Perhaps over a period of time, when we are faced with a massive problem, we will see increasingly high density.
I don't think the provincial government has any right to dictate the social or housing structure facing people in British Columbia. That decision should be made, rightfully so, by society. Big government doesn't have any ability to make the right decisions. But the people will make the right decisions, and it's not our similarity that is our strength; it is our diversity. That is the important thing, and I don't think the legislation takes that into consideration.
The minister has indicated that there is a great deal of support from the UBCM, from planners, from ministry staff and even from local politicians. I can perhaps understand that from ministry staff in Municipal Affairs; I can certainly understand that from staff within municipalities and regional districts. It's an opportunity to expand into a new area, and it will become another bureaucracy. If the potential is there -- if you create the situation -- that void will be filled very strongly, and they will be a very effective organization. So I think that there's certainly an opportunity for planners as a growth industry, in spite of the growth limitation strategy.
[4:15]
As for local politicians, I often wonder why they're supportive and, in fact, if they are supportive, regardless of the UBCM. Most of the local politicians that I've met are sincerely concerned individuals who have accepted the mandate of their responsibility genuinely and to the best of their ability, and have entered into all sorts of discussions with respect to the types of growth challenges facing their community. They jealously guard that right to make those decisions. That does not mean that they focus simply on their jurisdiction; it may be the municipality, it may be the regional district, or it may be a larger region. In the Okanagan we're concerned because we share a large watershed, we share the same air mass, for example, and we're captured. If something happens in Vernon or Penticton it affects Kelowna, and vice versa. So we are already talking to each other with our respective concerns.
In the normal development of hierarchies since very primitive societies -- and certainly today in modern society and government or in business -- we have a series of hierarchies. So at some levels, if there is a difference we go to the next stage up to strive to resolve that particular difference. That is where the Ministry of Municipal Affairs comes into play with regional districts or municipalities that have differences but have things in common. The organization in this structure is all there. I'm not quite certain what this bill does to encourage or enforce it, other than giving the minister a much larger stick than was ever present in the legislation with respect to the Municipal Act. If that's the reason we have a big stick in this, and the rest of it is simply to hide the big stick with centralist planning, then I would be even more concerned with the legislation. There may be faults with the present structure, but I can assure you there will be faults in the system that is proposed. I think the mandatory aspect of it will be one of those faults.
I can't speak for the lower mainland, but I certainly can speak for the interior, as a fairly long-term, almost old-timer in the central Okanagan. We're very, very competitive in the interior. We are competitive in sports. We're competitive in our communities. And we will remain that way, regardless of the type of concerns you have and have brought in, unless there is a will to work together. Unless there is a good will to work together, no type of duress will create that goodwill. It's something that has to be seen and acknowledged.
The encouragement is noble and necessary, and I agree with that. I disagree with the big-stick principle, that if you don't, because it's always out there.... And at the end of my talk, I'm going to make some suggestions on things that the government in fact can do that would encourage the type of growth and development and spreading out. Regardless of what we plan or say or do -- let's say that in the Greater Vancouver Regional District we're confronted with a massive problem in all areas: air quality, water and transportation as well -- no amount of infrastructure that we can put in there will tend to mitigate or even control the type of pressures that we're looking at from the population expansion proposed for the Greater Vancouver Regional District over the next few years.
I, for one, don't believe that legislation will provide an instant cure for anything. I think that as the problem increases
[ Page 13773 ]
there's a natural control, and the pendulum swings. The recognition hits more people, and then the timing is right to take the right steps.
I will never minimize proactive planning, but I suggest that many things change in the course of plans. I've gone through the frustration of long-term plans, certainly with the development of Big White Mountain. You look at a long-term plan, and you revise it annually. Most of our communities have plans and growth strategies in place, but they are revised almost annually in any event. In the city of Kelowna, for example, there must be tens -- if not more -- of long-term strategies and plans that are put away. As the community shape or regional shape changes, then different plans come into effect. I don't think rigid strategies for growth planning are the be-all and the end-all or even desirable.
I could go on a long time in those particular areas, but I'd like to talk about some positive things that I believe the government really should get involved in and should be doing: providing opportunities and incentives for the alleviation of the horrendous pressures that are in certain areas.
It's really my belief that in communities like Vancouver that have everything going for them.... If you're a manufacturer there, or whatever your enterprise is, you've got a large population base and a large supply of labour available, whether it's for agriculture, business purposes, government services or whatever. So they have everything going for them. The transportation costs are cheap. The salt water is right there; the shipping and the container ships come right into the port. So whether you're importing or you're exporting, it's a desirable place to be and to have business.
But what I don't understand is this: if you're concerned with the type of problems that exist there, then why don't you encourage that type of growth to take place in other communities throughout British Columbia? If you go to places in Europe, for example -- let's look at Austria -- almost every village and city has a particular industry which is the central hub of that village. And there are cottage industries -- it might be a hat industry -- which spin off of that. A solid economy is built up in that particular community, and transportation appears to be adjusted, because it is not a major problem. The government has encouraged, maybe, a steel industry or whatever so that it is widespread throughout the country.
It provides stability to those small communities that have the infrastructure in place, have the capacity and are looking desperately -- and we know many of our communities are resource-based -- for opportunities in other fields. It doesn't matter whether it's a native community in a remote area of the province or other communities in remote areas, there is a need. There is a need for significant growth and development in the way of manufacturing industry to lessen the dependence on our resource-extraction industries. Obviously, those concerned about forestry, CORE and the environment are all saying loudly and clearly that this is what we must do.
I would suggest taking a positive step by encouraging that. There are a variety of ways. It may be through taxation; it may be through loan guarantees; it may be through some sort of a transportation equalization opportunity. There are things that government could do to provide the right environment to encourage what I would like to see in the province.
When I recognized that a significant amount of the budget spent by the government of B.C. is spent on wages -- let's say 80 to 85 percent -- and a significant amount of that wage package is spent right here in Victoria, and when I look at the enormous potential of an item called fibre optics, I see no reason why all of the ministries of government have to be segregated or cloistered here in Victoria. Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is an example. We could move the hard-rock section of the ministry to a place like Nelson. Perhaps we could look at moving the coal section to one of the smaller communities where northeast coal is.
Deputy Speaker: Member, I regret to advise you your time is up.
C. Serwa: I'm sorry. I was.... But thank you very much, hon. Speaker.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we could have had a referendum.
I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton.
J. Beattie: It is a pleasure for me to rise today and speak to Bill 11 and to follow the member for Okanagan West, who is in the adjoining constituency to mine.
Before I get into my specific comments, there were many points the member made, and I have to say that he certainly covered a lot of territory. In fact, he was all over the map in some ways, ending up on fibre optics. I suppose if you were to extrapolate his speech and put it on a map, you'd realize why we do need some planning, some regional planning and specific planning to focus the growth of our ideas.
He did speak a bit about local government, and he talked about the Okanagan -- although he seemed to feel that the Okanagan somehow escaped definition within this act, that this act was specifically designed for Vancouver Island, lower Vancouver Island and the lower mainland. But I have to say to the member that two very, very key politicians in his area -- the mayor of the largest community in his constituency, as well as the chair of the regional district -- have embraced this initiative of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. They endorse it 100 percent, and, in fact, are already embarking upon a planning process under the guidelines of this act to get ahead of the field and take advantage of some of the stronger aspects of this initiative.
I think that this bill is one which works in very close partnership with much of the legislative agenda of this government over the past four years. I've missed much of the debate today, but I personally believe that there is a need to be cohesive and to have a vision of the province which takes care of its people, takes care of its economy and, at the end of the day, takes care of how the people plan their communities and go about living in those communities. So when you consider the fact that this government has initiated some significant moves to regionalize health care, for example.... The hon. member for Okanagan West talked about the decentralization of ministries, something which this government is doing with health care. When you consider the restructuring of the forest economy to try to maintain forest sector jobs through remanufacturing and silviculture in the regions, and when you consider the fact that this government is trying to give all citizens the opportunity for post-secondary education
[ Page 13774 ]
throughout the province, this bill is a great partner to those initiatives, because it says: "You will have the infrastructure in education, in health care and in forestry, and we want you to have a sustainable economy and a sustainable education system in your regions. Now let's talk about how you're going to plan your communities, and let's get down to seriously developing a vision throughout the province."
I think that's what this bill attempts to do. It says that there are specific needs -- this government, in fact, has said this throughout its mandate -- which have to be met within the communities and should be addressed by local citizens and politicians. But at the end of the day, there has to be a global approach in which local governments can feel that they are part of a larger, provincewide undertaking.
When I personally think about the question of planning and what planning means, I think that in a real sense we do attribute some of the more unfortunate aspects of our society; i.e., heavy crime in the centre of our large communities, sprawl in some areas around the lower mainland, where there is a real loss of the sense of community.... As a result, people are not familiar with one another and the type of activities that go on. The crime and the kind of detached nature of these suburban areas, which give us a great deal of fear, come out of a sense that there is something not good going on there, that there's something unhealthy happening.
Traffic is another issue where we feel that somehow, if only somebody had taken the time ten or 15 years ago to consider what the ramifications of some kinds of development would be, we wouldn't be stuck in this traffic jam right now, and we wouldn't be burning all these fossil fuels. In a great sense, I think people attribute many of the problems they see in their daily lives -- the distance that they have to travel to school -- to a lack of planning, a lack of vision. As a result, they feel they're out of control. It's a terrible feeling, I think, to feel that your community is growing in a kind of cancerous way, without a sense of having control over that development.
[4:30]
So there is the philosophy and, I think, the reality: the philosophy being that we do need growth to have a healthy economy, but the reality being that there will be growth and it's not something we can stop. It's not something that is really within our hands to control, as the member for Okanagan East has stated. But the need to have growth and the uncontrollable part of the growth is the contradiction that, as a society, we have to deal with. Growth will happen, and in a sense we need that growth to have an economy which is growing and which hence provides the things we want.
There are no simple solutions to these problems, unfortunately. I do know that the people I speak to want to feel that there's some plan, that their local areas are growing in a way which has a sense of direction and vision; but we know that there's no easy solution. I'm quite impressed by the fact that the minister has gone through so many steps to draft this legislation and bring it to the stage that it is at right now.
In fact, in speaking just this morning with the chair of the regional district, he made reference to one specific part of the act, part 4, which is in reference to the consultation that the regional growth strategy team will have with the provincial government. He said this came about as a result of the minister's consultation, and he commended her for having taken the time to make sure that she got it right. Indeed, I think she has got it right, because this bill is a balanced piece of legislation that walks the line between saying to communities and regional districts: "Take the initiative. Put into your strategy whatever you feel is required and try to follow some guidelines. But if there are specific regional issues, by all means incorporate them...." That's the one side of that freedom to initiate this procedure yourself; on the other side is the recognition that as a responsible central government in this province, we cannot allow high-growth regions -- and I categorize the Okanagan as being one of those regions.... We cannot stand by and see a lack of a cohesive plan or initiative that addresses problems which are really getting out of hand. I want to commend the minister once again, before I begin talking about the Okanagan.
In the Okanagan, we have a pretty unique situation, I think, in that it's a long valley which is trapped by some quite significant mountain ranges; hence the growth is quite specifically directed along the valley bottoms. It has three regional districts, which create a specific political mood in each of the regions -- north, central and south -- and it is also the third fastest-growing area in the province. The Okanagan is, I think, an area which is going to benefit quite significantly from this legislation. As I've said, the Regional District of Central Okanagan, which includes Kelowna and much of that high-population area, is already moving with 100 percent support of this bill.
In the last number of years the government has been wrestling with the method by which we can be most effective in helping the Okanagan come to grips with its geographical situation and its rapid growth. Early on in our mandate, we cooperated -- we are still cooperating, in fact -- with funding and manpower, or people power, to help the regional districts in the Okanagan establish a planning process which would meet the needs of that area.
We know that in an Okanagan area or the lower mainland, there is always a sense of what it means to have your own political autonomy. It means different things to different people. To a regional district or municipality, the authority to issue building permits and to have local zoning means that they can stimulate their economy as they see fit, and that they can have control over their growth in a way that they may think is the most proper way. The problem, of course, as the member from Okanagan West said, lies in the fact that it's a competitive environment when it comes to growth. Indeed, it would be nice if we were to share the growing economy that is happening in Kelowna with the rest of the Okanagan. But people giving up their dollars that come with the building of residential homes doesn't come easily. Despite the best intentions of many politicians -- and, in fact, of many people who worked on a community level with citizens' coalitions and so on -- to try to coordinate growth in the Okanagan, there just hasn't been the political will to structure an organization that has the authority to act on behalf of all the people of the Okanagan, and it's unfortunate.
At this point the local regional districts have divided up their responsibilities; they've said, "Go about it as you will," and are proceeding at different paces. I think their attempts to plan will succeed, in the sense that there still is the initiative to want to continue, and indeed they will. But if at the end of the day there isn't the cooperation of the three regional districts to work together and deal with the problems that transcend their borders -- we're talking about the flow of water, the flow of air and the protection of the watersheds -- and they're unable
[ Page 13775 ]
to deal with those issues, I feel very comfortable with the fact that the province can insist that there be a regional growth strategy. When I read the act I see that the minister says that an area may embark upon this growth strategy, but at the end of the day she or the next minister will have the opportunity to be more direct in insisting that there be a regional growth strategy. These three regional districts are a current problem in the Okanagan.
Another current problem in the Okanagan is that of the agricultural land reserve and the strengthening of the agricultural industry in the Okanagan. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone would want to undo what the agricultural land reserve has done, which is to help regional districts and municipalities plan their communities and also to support the strong local economy -- the agricultural industry. I think that having this bill, which directs the communities to plan their communities around the legislation of the agricultural land reserve, is a very practical thing. We've made the solid commitment as a government that we will stand by to maintain the agricultural land reserve in the future. That's another problem this bill addresses.
Another important problem which has arisen in the last number of years is the amount of residential development in the forests around the communities. Last year, as you know, there was a very serious fire, the Garnet fire. There was an enormous amount of money spent on fighting that fire, and the Ministry of Forests has requested an independent assessment by Price Waterhouse, which I'm sure will be released very shortly. But the whole question of interface of communities with forests in the Okanagan is a problem. Of course, in the Okanagan we have a long history of fires which have not destroyed many homes, but in the future, because of this growth into the mountains -- in fact, it's one of the few areas where development can take place, because of the agricultural land -- we're going to see a need to plan the type of development that makes sure that the infrastructure is there to deal with the problems caused by fires as they arise.
So (k) of the "Purpose of regional growth strategy" section in the act states: "...settlement patterns that minimize the risks associated with natural hazards." It reflects specifically on this question of interface of residential development into the forests.
I know that I will repeat much of what has been covered today if I carry on too much longer, so I won't repeat many of these things. I see that this is not a heavy-handed bill. It's one that will definitely encourage my regional districts to work towards a concerted effort to consolidate their plans.
Another strong aspect of this, which hadn't been done in the many communities of the lower mainland or in the Okanagan, was that various OCPs -- official community plans -- were passed, and the cumulative impact of these OCPs had never been looked at. This regional growth strategy mechanism, working with the regional districts and in conjunction with the agencies of the provincial government, will help to coordinate regional plans and help to indicate where an official community plan may have a detrimental effect upon the regional growth strategy. Hence, these things can be coordinated. I'm pleased to see that this type of thing is here not only to improve the lives of the politicians who have to deal with enormous growth problems but to improve the lives of individuals who want to maintain a high standard of living and a high quality of life.
So without any further words, I'll just say that I support this bill, and I look forward to the debate in third reading when we can talk about the nuts and bolts of it.
M. Farnworth: Bill 11 is probably one of the most important bills that this government will introduce during this current term. I think all of us got involved in politics to help our communities and do things in our communities. I know that in my own case, through seven years on city council and now here in Victoria, that has been my main goal: to try and accomplish things that I feel need to be done.
A lot of the debate has centred around the words "change" and "community" and "growth" and "managing growth" and the different approaches that could be taken. We've heard from a colleague, the member for Okanagan West, who expressed a view that is diametrically opposed to the majority of the views expressed in this House, but it's a view that was once very prevalent in this province: do what you want to do. He summed it up by saying: "We're competitive in the Okanagan in everything. If I want to go out and build an ugly strip mall, I'll do that, and if down the road someone else builds an ugly strip mall, I can build an uglier one." That approach has been the reason, in large measure, that we have had the urban sprawl we have had in this province, and it's the reason that we've made the efforts we have over the years to deal with growth.
[4:45]
We can no longer ignore, as the hon. member for Okanagan West would have us do, the realities of a population that is increasing by some 40,000 people a year, as they flock here from all parts of Canada and all parts of the world to take advantage of the economy and job opportunities. We can no longer ignore that for too long development has taken place without planning for infrastructure and the implementation of transit systems, sewage systems and water systems. Each community has operated as its own independent fiefdom. If they talked to each other and agreed on some things, that was fine; but if they didn't talk to each other and didn't agree, then somehow the problem would go away or not exist. But it does exist. One only has to see the problems in the lower mainland, the Okanagan and southern Vancouver Island to realize the challenges we face.
Bill 11 deals with that. It takes the existing structures that are in place -- the municipalities, the regional districts and the province -- then it takes the best they have to offer and brings them together in a format that says to them they have to cooperate. They have to work together; they can't work in isolation.
At the same time, we don't want to see the creation of a massive bureaucracy, where the ideas that are generated at the local level through community groups and local councils are swept away or lost in a morass. So we have Bill 11, which has carrots to make people work and to bring communities together through such things as arbitration, when they can't settle disputes, and peer-panel settlements to resolve differences. There will be all sorts of differences: whether this or that road project should go ahead, or which transit line we should use. But the objectives are to get communities thinking more and more as one region, with a common set of objectives and a common set of strategies that are put in place to deal with local problems and resolve community differences. This legislation does that.
[ Page 13776 ]
We can no longer afford to put policies in place that conflict with objectives such as the Agricultural Land Commission, and section 18 of this act deals with that. When the member for Okanagan West remarked that the Agricultural Land Commission is responsible for urban sprawl, I couldn't help but think how archaic and outmoded that is, how out of date and out of touch. The thing that the people in the lower mainland and the Okanagan hold dear is the quality of life -- that access to wilderness and green space, access to locally grown produce, for example, which can only be grown on areas that are within the agricultural land reserve, because they're the only places where it's economic to do so.
At the same time, we have people who are demanding green space. We can't have the community saying on one hand that it wants to take land out of the agricultural land reserve because it doesn't fit in with what the people want to do as a community, and at the same time tell people it doesn't matter, because it does matter. It was that chipping away at our agricultural land base, where land is flat and easy to develop, that created urban sprawl in the beginning. It was that approach that took place too often in the bad old days, as we could call them, or the unenlightened days, whereby friends of council quite often wielded too much influence. It was not done in terms of anything that was wrong, because that was the accepted practice of the day. It was done in a context of saying it was okay in the community and that the people could deal with this small parcel of land, which wouldn't have an impact on the greater region in which that community functioned. But it did, and it does, and so the agricultural land reserve was created.
Regional districts had planning authority to help coordinate this, but that was removed by the previous government. We started to slip back instead into the old days of every community for itself, and that was fostered through such things as the Partners in Enterprise program, where communities were encouraged not to take into account what was best for the region or the local community, but to go out to compete against each other in this sort of dash to the bottom. I remember the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time -- Bill Ritchie was his name -- standing up and saying at the UBCM convention: "Communities shouldn't ask for things such as cement sidewalks, for example. They should be prepared to go with gravel sidewalks, or if they can get by without full-size sewer mains, to do that." There was this attitude that nothing related to each other, and they ignored that.
Well, this government is addressing that problem. We realize that if we are to continue to grow, to provide opportunities for people, then we have to have planning which recognizes that every community has a place -- within, for example, the lower mainland region -- but that not every community can be an urbanized, high-density area.
Areas such as Richmond and Delta, with huge banks of farmland, have a role to play. Areas of land for food production and areas such as Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam, for example, where there is no farmland but land is available to accommodate the influx of people, provided that planning is coordinated between communities and coordinated with the province, so that as population density increases, the province is there to put in place and help finance the transportation improvements that are required, and it's done within a framework -- the framework outlined in this bill, which, as the hon. minister said, has got some big carrots in it.... I was always told by my mother that carrots were good for your vision. And the carrots in this bill create a vastly improved vision to deal with growth than what has existed in the past.
When we hear that this bill impinges on the power of local communities, that it impinges on the rights of the individual to make changes.... I understand what the hon. member is doing. I understand what he is saying and where he is coming from. I would like to say quite often: no more change in Port Coquitlam. I would like to have stopped it probably back in the summer of 1971, when there was a lot more green space -- a big green area between Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam and Port Moody.
But that can't happen. The world changes and times change, and people come in and move. But what I want to do, and what I want to accomplish, is for us to be able to preserve and protect those things that made Port Coquitlam, for example, such a great place in the summer of 1971.
We can put in place measures so that communities can work and protect areas such as Colony Farm, the Coquitlam River valley and agricultural lands; so that 15 and 25 years from now somebody else can look back and say that the things they valued, growing up, are still there, despite all the change that's taken place -- because we had the ability, as a region, to identify priorities, to resolve disputes, which enabled decisions to be made regarding land, where people would live and what systems would be put in place regarding transit. So while change takes place, there will always be some things that don't have to change.
I think that's one of the most important ideas that distinguishes this government from the previous government and its current incarnation. When we look at this piece of legislation, I think we see a landmark. For the first time we are saying to communities: "We really have to take a stand; we really have to come to grips with this concept called growth, because it's not going to go away." We either do it now while we have the time and the opportunity and the political will, or it will be too late. That is why I urge all members of this House to support Bill 11, the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. M. Sihota: I want to speak briefly with regard to this legislation, which I think is perhaps one of the most significant pieces of legislation brought forward by this administration during the course of its existence. I don't say that with any degree of hyperbole; I actually mean that in terms of the significance of this legislation.
I want to put it in the context of the vision that this government brings to public office in British Columbia. I think that vision is best captured by the fact that we in British Columbia have the highest financial credit rating of any government in Canada. We have the best job creation record of any government in Canada. In fact, fully 40 percent of all the new jobs created in Canada since 1981 have been created right here in British Columbia. At the same time, we also have the highest environmental rating of any province in Canada. That was evidenced by the recent report of the World Wildlife Fund when it gave British Columbia an A minus rating.
The vision that this government brings to office is one which says that economic development and environmental protection go hand in hand. They're not opposites; rather, they complement one another. As part of our vision, we believe that jobs and environment are things which are not pitted against one another but which complement one another. In
[ Page 13777 ]
the development of our land use strategies outside of urban corridors; in doubling the number of parks and wilderness areas in British Columbia; in terms of dealing with CORE and the land use planning process; in dealing with forest renewal; in providing jobs and economic stability to resource communities in British Columbia through the Forest Practices Code, which changes the way in which we manage our forests; and in the forest land reserve.... What we've demonstrated in this province is that it is possible to construct an environment where jobs are created to protect the environment, and also an environment which is conducive to job creation in British Columbia. That is a marked difference from previous governments in this province, who pitted environmentalists against workers, and a marked difference from the values demonstrated by administrations outside of B.C., and a marked difference, quite frankly, between the Liberals and the Reformers and the political party that I happen to have the privilege of representing.
I also wanted to say that one of the reasons British Columbia enjoys the remarkable economic prosperity that it does is the amenities that we have to offer to British Columbians: our parks, our natural splendour, our rivers and our clean air. This is particularly true for a community like Vancouver, where we have seen incredible growth in the economy of the lower mainland -- about 30,000 jobs a year being created. People are moving there because of the amenities that the city of Vancouver has to offer, and that is creating the kind of robust economy that I know allows the Minister of Finance to do the good work that she's doing in terms of balancing the budget and dealing with the debt management plan of this administration.
We also have to recognize that the environment which attracts investment to the lower mainland is very much under stress. It's under stress because of urban growth, urban sprawl; because of problems relating to pollution in the air and contamination of our water systems. Therefore government has to initiate a process of urban growth management in the urban areas of British Columbia, much as it has done in resource communities in British Columbia through the CORE land use planning process.
[5:00]
Other members have spoken about the Okanagan and the lower mainland. I want to speak in particular with regard to the greater Victoria area. In the greater Victoria area, and particularly in the Western Communities that I represent, there is a wonderful opportunity for us to utilize this legislation to preserve Metchosin for what it is -- a green community -- and to ensure that there is sustained, planned and logical growth in a community like Colwood. We have the benefit, because of the decisions this administration has made, of having a wonderful, green backdrop to the greater Victoria area. The Gowlland Range, Tod Inlet, the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail, Glencoe Cove and Panama Hill are all examples of initiatives that this administration has taken to ensure that Victoria, for generations to come, has a green backdrop. A park that is sort of the equivalent to Stanley Park is going to be developed in the Gowlland Range-Tod Inlet area -- the largest acquisition of green space in the history of British Columbia -- in order to protect the integrity of green spaces here in Victoria.
Around that, we have to develop some systems to ensure that urban growth occurs in a planned and methodical way. We try to do that in this area. We try to do it through the infrastructure programs we've brought forward to allow for sewers and sewerage development, and by bringing in the Island Highway improvements in the Western Communities, so as to direct growth into the Western Communities, where there is a non-agricultural base in terms of the land base, and to try to bring about urban nodal development in those areas. So we've provided the infrastructure that's necessary. We've gone further, by establishing Royal Roads university to establish the intellectual infrastructure, and we provided an international tourist attraction in terms of the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail. So those infrastructures -- green and intellectual -- have been established by this administration.
Now, to complete the planning puzzle for that area, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to her credit, and this administration -- in furtherance of that vision of complementing economic development and environmental policies -- have brought forward the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995.
That legislation gives communities like Colwood the ability to plan. I hope that in the years ahead they will plan to create a community which takes advantage of the green attributes we have in that area -- to be able to say to people: "Look, invest in Colwood. Take advantage of the intellectual existence of Royal Roads." Let's try to make it our objective to attract green industries and the development of green industries in Colwood. Let's be able to market ourselves to those industries and the people employed by those industries -- to be able to say: "Well, look. You can have the opportunity to live in a community like Metchosin or the Highlands and have that high-quality life in those areas, and at the same time to reside next to a university like Royal Roads in a planned community like Colwood." The potential here is enormous in terms of the kind of economic diversification that we can bring to the Western Communities, as a consequence of Colwood being the centre for the development for green industries, predicated on the access to Royal Roads and the green spaces in the area.
This legislation therefore furthers that vision of complements among environment, jobs and sensible urban planning. It is long overdue in an area in which environment is under stress, here in the southern portion of Vancouver Island. It gives us the opportunity now to plan our communities in a way so as to protect the integrity of the lifestyle that we've come to enjoy, so that future generations may have access to the same type of quality of life.
That is why I say at the outset, without a hint of exaggeration, that in my view this is the most significant piece of legislation this government has brought forward in terms of urban planning. It ought not to go without comment. And it ought not to go without the support not only of all of the members in this chamber but of those municipalities that have questioned it in the greater Victoria area.
F. Gingell: What one often wonders when one hears the debate of these bills -- what members in the opposition can accomplish -- because the government members stand up and pour praise upon themselves.... We've just heard the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks tell the world how wonderful this government has been. He brings into his discussion the suggestion, which I hadn't realized from this growth strategies bill, that it really is the forefront of an economic plan. I don't think that's what it is, so I was kind of
[ Page 13778 ]
surprised. I believe that it is what the member for New Westminster said: this bill is a tool; it's an opportunity. It creates a framework around which communities and regions can do the things that we've all been talking about for many, many years, and that we're all, at this point -- other than the member for Okanagan West -- saying hasn't been happening.
So how good a tool is this? Is there any way that we can make it better? I was interested.... The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain said that he came here in 1962, and the quality of air has gone down dramatically. Well, I came here in 1952, and I believe that the quality of the air in the lower mainland airshed has improved dramatically. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't take any actions that we can, and I strongly support the concept of AirCare and of us getting non-polluting, low-emission vehicles. But I remember in 1952 being stuck on the corner of Cambie and Broadway, and not being able to see my hand in front of my face. The bus system had broken down; the cars were on the sidewalks. The air was stifling, it was yellow, and it was all because we were burning wood to heat our homes. I think that probably, on an ambient basis, the air quality in the lower mainland may well have improved.
One of the problems that we had is that we're not clearly setting out the goals that we're trying to get to. We can deal with issues like air quality, water quality, the safety of our streets, and the availability of public transit systems to people in our communities. I think the first thing we should do is to take stock and find out exactly where we stand. Oregon has done this in their Oregon Benchmarks, which not only looks at economic progress but at a whole series of criteria or measures on social issues and on health issues. They also look at a series of issues in the quality of community life, which is really the object of the exercise.
What does this bill lack? I'd like to suggest to the minister that what the bill lacks is a requirement for regional districts, or whatever the body is that is doing the planning, to take stock, to determine exactly what their current status is on a whole series of criteria that measure these matters -- we start setting some goals, and we start measuring them on periodic bases to see if what we're doing is getting us closer to the goals of better water, better air, better public transit, better lifestyles, better preservation of agricultural land and open green spaces, and on a specific basis to see if the money that we're spending and the actions that we're taking are moving us in the direction that we, and the communities and the regions, have determined that we should be going.
There have been a lot of interesting things said. I agree, basically, with the concept. I think that the time is long, long past when we keep talking about trying to improve the livability and the quality of life in our communities. But let's go about it in sensible way. Let's go about it in a manner that will encourage specific measurement, so that we can see if we are going in the right direction. With those few words, I don't think I can add anything further to all the other words that have been said about this bill, and I shall certainly be voting in support of it.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
J. Sawicki: As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- and responsible for the Georgia Basin initiative, -- I am very pleased to take my place in the debate on this very important legislation that returns regional planning to British Columbia.
I remember it very well, because that was an election promise that our now Premier made, and I know it was a personal commitment of the minister. It has taken her two years of consultation and cooperative efforts, but the legislation is here, and when it's passed, it will change the way we plan for growth in this province, particularly within those high-growth areas like the lower mainland, the east coast of Vancouver Island and the Okanagan. It will change the way various orders of government -- local, regional and provincial -- relate to each other on issues of common concern. For the first time, it brings the province to the table in terms of settlement planning, so that local government can have some confidence in the provincial commitment to implementation once a regional growth strategy is agreed upon. But it also clearly sets out provincial interests in urban growth planning, so that local governments can clearly know what the expectations are in terms of regional issues that need to be addressed and social, economic and environmental sustainability goals that need to be met.
I think most people reading this bill -- I hope that that includes many of the opposition members in this House -- will come to the conclusion that it makes a lot of sense. It's inclusive, it's interactive and it's flexible. I want to say that that's not by accident but through the vision, the perseverance and the patience of the minister herself. She's been there. She went through the lower mainland regional planning process. She was on the Vancouver council. She has seen regional planning approaches rise and she has seen them fall.
She didn't take the easy way out and just restore regional planning as it was in 1983, because she knew it wouldn't work. The old regional planning process did have some flaws, and issues have changed since then. In fact, the absence of provincial leadership by the previous administration on these issues has ensured that those issues have intensified since then. She also knew from her own experience that the old relationship between local governments, regional governments and the provincial government just didn't work. As someone who has also served on a municipal council and sat on the Greater Vancouver Regional District, I really want to commend the minister for her vision, her diligence and her plain hard work in the time it has taken to bring this legislation to the House.
[5:15]
As parliamentary secretary responsible for the Georgia Basin initiative -- which includes, by the way, two of the three high-growth areas that are targeted by this legislation -- as I travel throughout the basin, through the communities represented by the member for Comox Valley, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, the member for North Island, the member for New Westminster -- and, yes, I've even scheduled a visit to Howe Sound, in the riding of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who spoke earlier on this bill -- I too hear a lot of people express their concerns of what their region is going to look like ten, 20 or 30 years from now. Will there still be green space and clean air and clean water? Will there be affordable housing, social amenities and jobs close to where they live? In fact, in a recent survey in the lower mainland, one-half of the residents felt that population growth was negatively affecting their quality of life, and 95 percent of them -- now that's consensus, right? -- wanted to see all governments work closer together to do more long-range planning. This legislation responds to that concern in a progressive but very realistic and practical way.
[ Page 13779 ]
I want to talk a little about how it does that. I should warn hon. members and you, hon. Speaker, that given my strong commitment to these kinds of issues and my excitement about this legislation -- and the fact that the minister has asked me to be the designated speaker on this bill -- that I could go on for a little while, but I will try not to use my whole two hours.
I think it is important, because this kind of legislation does touch on every issue that we deal with in this House. How we build our communities will determine what kind of legacy we leave for our children, just as much as the 12 percent that we're also committed to achieving in protected areas will. My comments will focus mainly on the communities within the Georgia Basin, partly because that's where I live -- in fact, that's where over half the members in this House live -- but also partly because it's the region where this legislation will really be put to the test. It's this region that has some of the greatest challenges. If this legislation can make it here, it can make it anywhere in British Columbia.
I might also refer from time to time to our neighbours across the border, not because I'm wandering off topic but because urban growth issues don't respect international boundaries. Like fish and birds, air and water pollution don't need passports to come across the 49th parallel. The major population centres of Seattle, Tacoma and Olympia are also part of the bioregion in which we live. We need to find better ways to work together to deal with the impact of rapid growth that we share and to pursue the alternative approaches that will lead to a more sustainable future in the basin.
I'm sure that we would all agree: we live in one of the most beautiful areas in the world. We have spectacular scenery, mild climate, and unparalleled recreational, economic and cultural opportunities; but we are also one of the fastest-growing regions in North America. The Georgia Basin includes about 3 percent of the land area of the province, but it includes two-thirds of the population and almost three-quarters of the labour force. Our population has doubled in the last 30 years, and whether we like it or not it is predicted to double again in the next 30 years. That growth is what is straining our region's ability to provide essentials like housing, employment, transportation, and sewer and water infrastructure. It's that rapid growth that is also threatening some of the very attributes and sensitive environment that make this region such a great place to live.
The issue is not only how much we are growing but how we are growing. Here I often rely on that ancient philosopher, Pogo, who said: "We have seen the enemy and it is us" -- U-S, urban sprawl. In the last decade, the amount of land that has been taken up by urban development was two to three times the amount of the actual increase in population. The use of the private vehicle has increased even more quickly. Between 1985 and 1992 the population of greater Vancouver grew by 21 percent, and the total number of vehicle trips grew by 42 percent. I suspect that that relationship holds true for some of the smaller communities in the basin, and it's probably even higher in areas like Abbotsford, Maple Ridge or Port Coquitlam. So the quest for mobility within our rapidly growing areas is consuming millions of dollars annually in airport expansions, increasing ferry services, rapid transit, highways and street improvements.
[Interruption.]
J. Sawicki: I'll wait, hon. Speaker, until the competition of the bells ceases.
Deputy Speaker: One of the ghosts of the House, I think.
J. Sawicki: These trends and many others that I could mention emphasize the urgency to provide new planning tools and practical mechanisms to meet the challenges of urban growth, not only within the basin but within other communities throughout the province.
To be quite candid, our growth patterns are unsustainable. We know that. It is demonstrated every Friday afternoon as outdoor recreationists head for the hills along the 401 in an attempt to get as far away from cities as possible. It is demonstrated in increasing regularity on our streets at night when ordinary citizens feel less and less safe. It is one of the social costs we are paying and will continue to pay because we're not planning our communities to be livable.
We know in our hearts that no-growth is not an option. But neither is moving farther away from the urban core in ever-increasing numbers to enjoy the open space, the cleaner air and the lower house prices of the suburbs. All of us have to live somewhere. But the reality is that if all of the five million people in the Georgia Basin-Puget Sound area were to live on one-hectare lots, we wouldn't have any resource lands or wilderness lands to escape to on the weekends. That's the challenge we face -- to recognize the economic, social and environmental costs of urban sprawl, and to commit to alternative ways to build more sustainable communities. That's one of the most important features of Bill 11 that we're debating today. After years of neglect and lack of leadership at the provincial level -- and, quite frankly, paralysis at the local regional level -- in dealing effectively with these broad issues, this legislation spells out the urban sustainability principles upon which regional growth strategy planning will happen in this province.
Without getting into the specifics of the bill, because of course, hon. Speaker, that would only be appropriate in committee stage, I just want to briefly remind hon. members about section 942.11 in section 7 of this act, which urges municipalities and regional districts that are embarking upon their planning process, to, among other things, avoid urban sprawl, protect environmentally sensitive areas, provide adequate, affordable and appropriate housing, and create and link urban and rural open space. There are a number of other goals there as well. We know that when we build compact communities that avoid urban sprawl, we can protect the foodlands, the farmlands and the wetlands that would otherwise be lost. When we build complete communities that balance jobs and housing, that locate those places where people work close to where they live, to where they shop, to where they play, we not only reduce the need for commuting but we can actually recreate that sense of neighbourhood and sense of community that so many people feel we are losing.
Too often the cities and downtowns are considered to be part of the problem. We need to understand that they are actually part of the solution. This act recognizes that, and it recognizes that if we plan growth properly, then we can capture its many benefits and avoid or minimize many of its costs. But we have to make sure that the cities and towns we build are desirable places to live. Wildlife needs habitat; so too does the human species. Like wildlife, we tend to move elsewhere if the habitat doesn't meet our needs or if we don't like it. Urban communities are good, but they have to be livable communities or people will move elsewhere -- into the countryside, to create the urban sprawl and all of the negative and very expensive impacts that we are now facing.
[ Page 13780 ]
I think it's also important to put this legislation in the context of other initiatives this government has taken. To date, many of our initiatives and efforts have been focused on the lands out there. I also think that most fair-minded British Columbians who are concerned about protection of ecologically sensitive areas and better management of resource lands will agree that we've made tremendous progress in this regard in the past three and a half years: the protected-areas strategy, the announcement of major new parks, the end of the valley conflicts, the CORE process, significant tightening up of environmental protection legislation, strengthening of the agricultural land reserve act and, of course, the very significant pieces of legislation related to forest management, the Forest Practices Code, the forest renewal plan and the forest land reserve.
The growth strategies act complements these initiatives, but it focuses on the flip side of the coin -- on the expanding urban communities rather than the shrinking resource lands. Here I think of the recent announcement that the Premier and the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks made on the Lower Mainland Nature Legacy -- a critical link between those urban lands and the wilderness areas. I welcomed, as I know my colleague the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain and all of the residents who live in our communities did, the announcement last week that a new provincial park would be established at Indian Arm. I think we are all awaiting other announcements in the coming weeks that will fulfil the commitment to triple the amount of green space in the lower mainland. That significance cannot be overstated. I know the Premier compared the announcement at the time to the foresight that was used to establish Stanley Park, and I really do believe it will be a key to maintaining the livability within our region.
[5:30]
While I am establishing this broader context of Bill 11, I want to come back to the point I made earlier. The challenge of planning for a doubling of population within this region is not one that we face alone. We share it with other communities within the bioregion, and that means we need to develop good working relationships and cooperation with our neighbours to the south. Through the Georgia Basin initiative, and working with the assistance of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and the office of the Premier, I want to say that the process is already underway to promote this dialogue between our two portions of the basin.
In 1992 the Premier and the Governor of Washington State signed the environmental cooperation agreement to protect, preserve and enhance our shared marine environments, and British Columbia and Washington State are presently enacting the recommendations that came out of that joint marine science panel. Last September our Premier and the Governor followed that up with the signing of a growth management agreement that sets the stage for cross-border consultation and cooperation on managing growth. They also signed the agreement on a transportation accord, another linkage that I think becomes clear to all of us.
These things are related to the legislation before us, because the Georgia Basin initiative provides the vision for and promotes the public dialogue on growth management issues within our portion of the basin. The growth strategies act provides some of the essential tools, and both of them, along with the other initiatives I mentioned, are part of this government's broader commitment to social, economic and environmental sustainability; the continued health of our communities; and, of course, the efficient use not only of land but of services and taxpayers' dollars.
When it is adopted, this legislation will provide the nuts and bolts that will give substance to the concept of what a sustainable community is. What could it look like? What could it feel like? It will also make it possible for municipalities and regional districts to progress from planning to integrated action.
I want to stress -- and yes, I might even repeat -- some of the points that the minister made this morning about what this bill really does and how it will really work. The growth strategies act provides the kind of clear provincial leadership that's been missing since 1983, through general planning goals to reflect our commitment to a sustainable future, through the participation of senior staff from key ministries on intergovernmental advisory committees that will be established for each regional district embarking upon a growth strategy planning process, and through implementation agreements between the province and the regions to ensure that once agreements are met, we can implement them.
While the province will inform the planning process, it will be locally driven, despite the concerns of members such as the member for Okanagan West. It will be voluntarily initiated by regional districts and directed towards those issues that are the priorities of the regional districts and the municipalities. The legislation also ensures ongoing consultation with the public who live in these communities and will be affected by the decisions that are made.
If the municipalities and regional districts cannot sort this out, this bill provides, for the first time, a dispute-resolving mechanism that respects local autonomy but ensures some closure on this planning process. Any of us here in this House who represent ridings within the Greater Vancouver Regional District know how important that feature of this legislation will be, because that's where the rubber hits the road, so to speak. That's where it all comes together realistically and practically and in a straightforward fashion.
When the minister began her consultation process on how she could update the settlement planning process in this province, she was searching for a win-win solution: a solution that would respect local autonomy yet recognize that the province has a provincial interest. It would bring provincial ministries to the same table. That would result in more realistic planning, better decisions, reduced costs for regional services, and real progress toward sustainability in B.C. That was our goal.
When I look at this end product -- and perhaps because I'm parliamentary secretary I know how many drafts this legislation went through -- I want to commend her on the tremendous success of achieving her goal. In fact, I believe that she has been so successful in achieving that delicate balance that I am quite puzzled that the opposition members can find anything substantive to criticize.
Here I want to touch on some of the points that opposition members have raised in this second reading debate. I will touch on them lightly and keep my eye on the clock. I know that in his comments on this debate the member for Saanich and the Islands mentioned this strange idea of a community
[ Page 13781 ]
charter. I say strange, because quite frankly I served on a municipal council and sat on the GVRD alongside the Leader of the Opposition, and we quite often agreed about what the issues were and how they should be tackled. I don't know how he came up with this idea of a community charter. I know I haven't changed my views, but I guess he has changed his. In talking about a community charter, I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition has really thought out the implications of such a measure.
I know the member also mentioned that we could just go for amalgamation and perhaps this would help to meet some of the issues these communities face. To a certain degree, I think he is right; the amalgamation that is happening out in the lower Fraser Valley will increase the ability to plan for these broader regional issues. I would also say that even if you amalgamated all of the 12 south Island communities into three, you'd still need some sort of regional growth planning process. None of our communities, whether small or whether amalgamated into something large, exists as an island. What happens in one region affects another.
One of the members from the Reform Party focused on the concern that municipalities would lose their autonomy through this legislation. I know I've already touched on that, but I can't help but repeat it. This minister not only consulted with local governments once or twice but probably three or four times. I heard her say time and time again to them: "This is your legislation. You helped me write it." Any minister who can get the degree of support and consensus that this minister has reached on this legislation, from very independently minded and certainly not always philosophically aligned local government councils from across this province, deserves an awful lot of credit and certainly deserves support from all members of this House.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast focused on global population and limits to growth. He talked a lot about a need for this visionary approach based on comprehensive resource inventory. The member for Delta South as well just mentioned the need to have benchmarks and to understand our trends and be able to monitor where we're going and whether we're actually changing directions.
I can say that I don't really disagree with some of the points that were made. In fact, that's why I've made an effort during my comments to put this legislation into the broader context and to talk about things like the Georgia Basin initiative. Those who suggest that we can limit growth are also suggesting that our children don't have the opportunity to live in the communities that they grew up in. They're also suggesting that our brothers or aunts -- or whomever -- from other parts of Canada don't have the option to come and live here. I think that in a democratic society, those issues will not take us in a solid and progressive public policy direction.
I think I will end my comments, but before I do, I want to end them on a personal note. As a citizen activist, I was always frustrated because governments didn't do something about these things. Then, as a council member, I was frustrated because even though I was successful in doing a lot of things in the community of Burnaby, there were limits to how far we could go without the cooperation of neighbouring communities and other orders of government. Now I am here in this provincial Legislature, a member of the provincial government that has taken massive initiatives forward to address a lot of these issues. But now, more than ever, I recognize that none of us -- no level of government or non-government agency or the private sector -- can tackle these issues alone. This legislation doesn't pretend to do that. In fact, it goes in just the opposite direction. Its foundation is recognizing that only the cooperation and partnership of all of us will be able to bring about positive change and move us forward in building more sustainable communities.
Finally, I can't help but mention this final point: the opposition likes to heckle the government and say that we don't keep our promises. I remember that as a candidate, the Premier talked about a vision for the future of the Georgia Basin. I remember that the now Minister of Finance actually tabled a private member's bill calling for a more integrated approach to tackling growth issues within the region. In 1992 this Premier asked the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to engage in a consultative process to provide advice to government on how to manage growth in the Georgia Basin. They did that and submitted their report to the Premier. That report contained 17 recommendations, one of which was to urge the government to immediately undertake a process to consider new models for planning for sustainability in the basin. They called on government to require urban containment, compact community development and provincial guidelines for urban settlement in the basin. I'm probably the one most familiar with the work of the round table, because as parliamentary secretary responsible for the Georgia Basin initiative, I use its report as a touchstone as to whether I'm carrying out the mandate and assignment that the Premier asked me to do.
[5:45]
With the introduction of this comprehensive legislation, I am pleased to say that of the 17 recommendations that the round table report made to our government, our government has acted on or is in the process of acting on 100 percent of them. That's what I call following through on your commitments.
Finally, I want to once again congratulate the minister and her staff and local governments and their staff, as well as everyone else who has worked so hard to give birth to this piece of legislation. I believe it is supported by the vast majority of local government politicians. It moves us forward into building more sustainable communities.
I would like to say to those opposition members that you're too suspicious on this one. The minister has done her homework; you can trust us. I would urge them all to join me in supporting and voting for second reading of Bill 11.
Deputy Speaker: The minister closes debate.
Hon. D. Marzari: It has been a pleasure to sit here for the day and witness this very intelligent, sensitive and thoughtful debate around Bill 11 and to be the minister who brought this bill to the House. All comments were welcomed. I especially welcomed the comments and questions that came from the opposition, the third party and other members. They will be answered more fully in committee stage of this debate. These questions and these comments were all useful. They inform the debate and the interpretation of this bill when it becomes an act and we engage in regional growth management throughout this province over the next decades. This debate will inform that process, I'm sure, on a day-to-day basis.
[ Page 13782 ]
The member for Okanagan West suggested that there would be nothing in this bill for those communities that are no-growth areas of our province. He almost set up a dichotomy between urban and rural communities, claiming that this was a downtown bill and a downtown planning mechanism that would ultimately remove freedom from individuals throughout this land. This is not so. Through the consultative process, I found that many of the best ideas and the most thoughtful suggestions came from those communities that presently are not necessarily high-growth and communities where municipalities may be experiencing rapid expansion of their perimeters, but where the regions themselves were not undergoing the major stresses and strains that rip apart the CRD, challenge the ability of locally elected politicians in the GVRD and force regional districts in the Okanagan to tear their hair out.
In fact, I found that in the rural areas very solid administrative suggestions were very often made around governance and around the way things could be done better, which I brought to this bill that will definitely help the urban regions of our province. Ultimately, when and if the rural regions are under the severe stress that we are under in the lower mainland, the south Island and the Okanagan, I think that the provisions they have added to this bill will be very helpful to them.
This loss of individual freedom that the member for Okanagan West referred to -- that we shouldn't be pushed around by planners, and we shouldn't be told where to live and how to live -- is definitely a relic of the long-distant past. Think about the loss of freedom that we experience when we or our children can't find affordable housing. Think about the loss of freedom when the centres and the downtown cores of our communities, no matter how large or how small, are threatened by urban sprawl. Think about the loss of freedom as agricultural land might be eaten up by single-family residential lots or by an increasing number of five-acre parcels which basically eat away at the fabric of agricultural land. Think about the loss of freedom when we basically are telling our children to cross five freeways to get to school or the loss of freedom when we aren't allowed to build schools to service local communities. Think about the unaffordability of our basic infrastructure in our communities right now: half a billion dollars for the Lulu and Annacis plants, for example, in the Greater Vancouver Regional District; half a billion dollars for secondary treatment because of the growth that we have experienced and because planning simply wasn't in place to be able to visualize what it was going to cost down the road for the growth that we have already experienced in the lower mainland and projected for the next few years. We have to worry about that and take a more sophisticated approach to what planning is and, in fact, what freedoms it will bring to us if we care about planning for our communities and seeing a few years ahead and a few more thousand people ahead.
Concern is also expressed about the massive proliferation of bureaucracy. To that, I can only say that this bill promises no grand proliferation of bureaucracy. It works with and for the strengths of local government as we have developed that government in this province over many, many years. It provides facilitation to communities that wish to engage in regional growth management, and it provides dispute resolution to the exercise if municipalities break down in their discussions with each other.
Basically what the bill talks to, and I think what we all have to remember as we go towards committee stage, is commitment. The member from north Okanagan said: "This isn't going to be easy, and let's not pretend it will be." I can only say that I agree wholeheartedly with that. Commitment is not something which necessarily falls off trees and waits to be picked up. Commitment is something that we all have to work with and work towards. The local municipalities of this province that helped to build this bill and write the provisions of this bill have expressed their commitment. To a large extent, the regional districts of this province have expressed their commitment. The provincial government -- through both the provisions in this bill that bring it to the table early in the consulting and planning process, and keep the provincial government at the table throughout the planning process -- is committed.
The Premier of the province came to a March 2 meeting of high-growth communities in this province and put it on the line that the province will be there for communities and for their growth strategies as they unfold -- not in the form of a community charter that will promise a little bit over here and a little bit over there, and divide and conquer communities throughout this province, not in the form of a piece of paper that will simply say: "Yes, we'll pay attention to you and maybe shift your governance around a bit every so often." No, it's in the form of an active contract written with each region as they develop the growth management strategy, an active contract that will promise that every ministry and every Crown agency of this province will come together to properly serve the interests of the growth management plans that are constructed through the next few years, as regions come to grips with the problems that face them.
So I speak to you, hon. Speaker, and to this House about basic provincial commitment, and about the consultation and the cooperation that has gone on to bring us this far. Since regional planning was abandoned in 1983, many of us have learned lessons that we dare not repeat again, and this bill brings together the pieces that were shredded at that point, puts them back on the table and, in a spirit of goodwill, advances them.
I can only hope then, in the last few words of this closing address on second reading of Bill 11, that the spirit of cooperation that has brought the bill this far continues to permeate the rest of the discussion and, in fact, the implementation of this bill in our communities and our province.
Deputy Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 11.
Motion approved.
Bill 11, Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Deputy Speaker: Members, before we entertain the motion of adjournment, I must advise you.... I am sure you have seen Orders of the Day and recognize that instead of four private members' statements, we have three. By the rules of
[ Page 13783 ]
the House, of course, the members' statements must be handed in at a given time. With unanimous consent of the House, however, we can accept the fourth statement that has been submitted. Shall consent be given?
Leave granted.
Deputy Speaker: We will now have a fourth statement tomorrow.
Hon. D. Marzari moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:43 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 22: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).
L. Fox: It's a pleasure for me to enter back into the debates of these estimates. Before I get into a statement that I want to put on record, I just want to deal a little bit with capital expenditures.
Yesterday the minister talked about a vacuum that was created in the mid-eighties when we didn't respond to the needs.... Just for the record, I want to put a few statistics on record from the B.C. Education Indicators Resource, produced by the Ministry of Education, Province of British Columbia. For the minister's quick reference, it's on page 25. There are a couple of things here that I wanted to point out.
First, the student enrolment in the province of British Columbia in 1982 was approximately 485,000. It took until 1990 for it to surpass that number. In the interim it dropped by as much as almost 18,000 students in 1987. During those years, we will find that even though there was a decrease in student enrolment, in British Columbia capital spending per student exceeded capital spending per student in the rest of Canada, with the exception of 1988, when it dropped to $525 per student and the national spending was $542.
[2:45]
In many respects this is a good table to use, because as a student population changes, so does the capital spending per student, so it actually keeps a pretty constant measurement. I just want to put that on the record and show the rest of Canada that if B.C. was guilty of not building sufficient spaces and meeting the need of educational capital during those years, I guess so was the rest of Canada, only we weren't quite as bad, because we spent a little more than they did. However, a statistic that was interesting to me was something that I hadn't been aware of -- a decrease in student enrolment throughout the years until 1990. It took until 1990 to achieve the level of student enrolment that we had in 1992.
With that being stated for the record, hon. Chair, and with some indulgence from you and the minister, I'd like to put on record some comments that I have with respect to education. Some of them will attempt to address the minister's opening statements. I didn't have an opportunity to address them immediately thereafter because of the structure here, where the third party follows the official opposition. One of the comments that concerned me during the minister's opening statement was the perception in that opening statement that all was well and good within our educational system, and that any movement to change would indeed be a step backward. Specifically, the minister talked about the charter school system, and other movements like that, as creating a two-tier system. When we review the statistics and look at what has happened, particularly in our secondary schools, we will see that the actual dropout rate from grade 7 to grade 11 has decreased, but not that significantly. But where we see a real problem is in grade 12, where, in actual fact, we've seen an increase of dropouts from 8 percent to 8.8 percent over the course of the last number of years -- I forget the exact number of years. Before that, we see the dropout rate....
We first see the difficulty that our students have in achieving a post-secondary chair, then we see the statistics of first-year dropouts in our post-secondary education. Beyond that, we see people who have gone through and successfully achieved their certificate in whatever discipline they chose in their post-secondary education, and their failure to be able to find work or careers is borne out by the statistics around student loans. We see student loan defaults have increased from $22.9 million in 1991 to $75 million at this point in time. All of this tells me that, indeed, the educational system needs change. How do we do that?
We see different levels of discussion in different communities, where parents, teachers, students, the community, the business community and so on are discussing how we can modify our school district in order to bring some more traditional educational values and processes back into it. How can we stop the shift from educational values to social and health values so that we can equip our children with a decent level of literacy so they can be successful in achieving the next step in life once they've gone beyond grade 12? How can we reverse the apparent trend that we oftentimes lower the level of instruction to the lowest common denominator? Oftentimes the goals appear to be to keep children in school for 12 years rather than achieving a high level of education at the end of 12 years. How can we provide choices within our educational system so that I, as an individual, don't have to short my family on other daily needs in order to opt in to a private school? How can I, as a parent, have input on a daily basis into the curriculum? I will get more specifically into the career and personal planning curriculum.
Those are some of the challenges that we have to meet if we're going to keep the public system whole. It seems to me that we're all going to have to be flexible in terms of our positions, because ultimately it's not the politician who will judge the educational system. Ultimately, it will be the student that will judge the educational system when he or she does not have the tools to be successful in life. They not only judge it, but if they're not given those tools, they basically become
[ Page 13784 ]
wards of the state and dependent on our social network. So there's a massive challenge for us to face in the future.
I suggest that one of the ways that can be achieved is through traditional school initiatives at the request of parents and teachers. School boards should become flexible enough to recognize that if they're going to maintain the student body, if they're going to maintain the numbers that will give them some economies of scale in their respective schools, particularly in the rural parts of the province, they're going to have to be flexible in terms of meeting the needs of the students and those respective parents.
I submit to the hon. minister that we first have to achieve a process with some direction from the ministry that encourages boards to look at a traditional model school in a favourable light and not be defensive in terms of trying to protect the system. If we do have choices within the public system, we will truly have a one-tier educational system for the first time in a long time. But, as I said earlier, we do not have that at present.
Many who can afford it and desire it, and many who cannot afford it, make personal sacrifices and choices to send their child to a private school, which they believe will best fit their goals. If you look at the success rate of private schools -- and I will admit there is a level within that success rate; we have to look at the kinds of children who go to the school -- in terms of how well students do once they leave that school system, there is a very high percentage of success.
I wanted to put those things on the record. I feel very strongly that we have to embrace change; we have to embrace choices; we have to understand that we have to be receptive to the taxpayers' wishes, while holding the provincial reins of responsibility to deliver this product.
On the charter school side, I see charter schools as being a process not unlike a vote after a bargaining between two sides, where you have to go back and ratify and get the support of your respective body. I see it as being an exceptional use rather than an everyday use, because if we embrace the traditional school system, then there would be very little need to ever have a charter school system. But it is a lever which allows parents and teachers.... And many times these initiatives are jointly combined. It's not just the parents, and it's not just the special interest groups; many times it's a joint effort between teachers and parents who are wanting to create this change. So I see it as being an exceptional use rather than an everyday use.
There are 1,674 schools in the province of British Columbia at the present time. So it's imperative that we have a structure which can coordinate efforts such as bussing and all those other issues while it relies on some independency to the schools. It's imperative that we retain, as much as possible, the public system. It's imperative that we hold tight reins, in terms of what the core educational program will be, and then allow some flexibility for schools and school districts to meet the local needs and demands.
So those are some of the issues that are near to me and dear to me, and I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to get some of those things off my chest. Perhaps I'll sit down -- the minister may want to respond to some of the things I've said -- and then I'll get into the curriculum issue.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Those who use statistics should be prepared to live and die by those statistics, and they should therefore understand them very carefully before they make use of them. The figures plotted here, that you have made reference to with respect to capital expenditure, are debt servicing. It is not the actual capital envelope. It is the....
Interjection.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Read the fine print; any car dealer ought to know that you should read the fine print. The fine print says that these are capital servicing costs plus minor capital. The actual capital investment in schools -- the capital envelope -- in 1983-84 was $24.3 million for the entire province; for 1984-85, $48.9 million; 1985-86, $53.9 million; 1986-87, $74.4 million; and 1987-88, $101.1 million. The average over those five years is in the order of $55 million or so for actual capital envelopes committed.
Hence, if you look at these, of course the curve is rather flat over that period of time because the total level of indebtedness was staying approximately the same. It's only when you look to the last few years, where you pick up 1992-93, that you start to see the capital payments go up because the debt servicing is going up because the total amount of capital dedicated to new construction has increased.
With respect to your comments that you are implying from my comments that somehow all is well in the system, no, not at all. I quoted some of the same stats that you did with respect to the dropout rate and the so-called graduation rate -- the number of young men and women who enter grade 12 and then graduate from grade 12 with their Dogwood -- and that number has been going down over the past ten years.
That relates to the information I gave yesterday with respect to doing a job as a society to keep young men and women in school in body but not keeping them there in spirit and in mind -- hence, the massive changes that I am introducing into the system this fall, the shift to applied academics, the shift to Skills Now, injection of current technology, new curriculum in all the core subjects rolled out over the next three years, tremendous investments in in-service training for teachers, other moves with respect to making the curriculum and to making school more relevant for young men and women, the reinvigoration of the apprenticeship programs, pre-apprenticeship programs and apprenticeship scholarships. All those steps are being taken in view of the fact that I believe that the situation in our schools is not all well and that we have major changes to make. Those reforms are coming this fall....
L. Fox: There's that word again.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, we sometimes have to slip into generic use of otherwise good words like reform.
Some of your comments, though, with respect to.... For example, I think I heard you ask how you as a parent can have input into the curriculum on a daily basis. It's very, very difficult to have a provincial curriculum if several hundred thousand, or perhaps a million, parents have input into that curriculum every day. That's not a workable situation.
[3:00]
What we do is consult. We consult very widely. We consult with parent advisory councils. We consult with the Confederation of Parent' Advisory Councils. Very impor-
[ Page 13785 ]
tantly, we consult with school boards, because, after all, all parents elect those school boards. We consult with the trustees extensively. We consult with the educational experts that the boards hire -- the superintendents, principals and vice-principals. We consult with the professionals -- the BCTF. There is a great deal of consultation. In fact, from the draft policies put out, we received some 16,000 submissions that were looked at in the process of finalizing.
You've also made reference to choice. Indeed, I agree with choice, and there is a lot of choice available within the system. We have baccalaureate schools, for example. We have schools that follow the traditional or fundamental model. We have schools that have a fine arts emphasis; Langley has such a school. We have schools that specialize in technology; the Abbotsford district has a fine example of that, as do several other districts. We have schools that obviously have an emphasis on athletics in their programs and try to draw young men and women in on that basis. There is a great deal of choice.
We're also constantly reaching out to parents through the parent advisory councils and the community interaction days. I have spoken on innumerable occasions, some would say, about trying to encourage even more parental participation in the system. I speak to the professionals, the trustees and the superintendents about each of them doing their part in making sure that we don't just talk about parents being welcome but that we walk the walk -- that when they come in the door, we make them feel welcome, we make them feel comfortable, we make them feel important and we listen to them. On all of those points, we can continue to see some improvements.
I would dispute your statement that private schools have a higher success rate. That is not so, to the best of my knowledge. Also keep in mind, private schools have an ability to exclude that we in the public system do not. If a young man or woman is simply not working out, is a severe behaviour problem: out the door.
We in the public system can't do that, nor should we do that. We must deal with that young man or woman and with the family in order to try to turn the child around in order that when the young person leaves the K-to-12 system, they have a better chance of fitting into society.
The promise of charter schools that some would make, in order to address some of their perceived problems in education, I think is totally false. I think it is a slippery slope -- either the voucher system or the charter school system -- towards a distinctly two-tier education system. It is a system where some groups of parents see that through more extensive control and participation, they can deliver one level of education to the children in that school, and they feel the public schools in that area can be satisfied with a lesser level of education. That, to me, is not acceptable.
We must strive on improving the performance of each and every one of our schools: improving the parental involvement, keeping the standards and quality high, keeping the accountability high and keeping the relevance high. If we do all of that, we are going to see in the coming years, I believe, a great improvement in our graduation rates -- and a corresponding, of course, drop in our dropout rates.
L. Fox: First, I want to get back to the capital spending. I've reread it, once my eyes got focused, and I cannot find anything in there that indicates what the minister suggested.
It says: "The indicator examines capital spending per student over time, for B.C. and Canada. Capital spending provides students with the physical resources required for an education, such as land, school buildings, school board buildings, school buses and equipment." One more statement says: "During the period of fiscal restraint from the mid-1980s, capital spending per student fell below the Canadian average. By 1989, capital spending in B.C. was $556 per student, the same as the national average." I don't understand the minister saying that that equates to debt only. It seems to me very clear that it equates to per student capital spending.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If the hon. member would look on page 24, at the bottom paragraph on the left-hand side -- I know you're not used to being on the left, but keep it on the left-hand side -- you'll see a few lines there: "In 1992-93 about 84 percent of capital spending was made up of the cost of servicing the debts incurred." That's what it is: servicing the debt. The rest, the other 16 percent, was used mostly to buy relatively small items such as desks and computers or to repair or replace facilities which were damaged, worn out, unsafe or otherwise ineffective -- in other words, minor capital. As an example, some 16 percent of the spending in one of those years was minor capital, which is expended for the most part entirely in the year it is allocated. But 84 percent of the number consists of the debt-servicing cost, which is included in the budget of the Ministry of Education as the capital item.
The actual amounts spent in building new schools or replacing schools per year were the numbers that I gave you the last time I spoke-up. They dropped to as low as $24.3 million for the entire province, compared to our budget last year of just under $500 million, for example.
L. Fox: I'm not going to debate it, but perhaps the minister might take some advice. There used to be a plain language policy that I thought this government was so.... It certainly doesn't read as the minister is trying to explain to me, and I've read a few balance sheets in my day. However, I'll do some more work on that issue.
I want to get back to a couple of comments that the minister made. First of all, the traditional school thing. You know, if the minister was correct in his assumptions that he made in answering me, we wouldn't have a situation where we have a school board in Burnaby, for instance, that won't allow and won't accommodate a parent-teacher initiative to put in a traditional school. We have other districts throughout the province that are not accommodating that initiative, for whatever reasons, and I'm not here to debate their decisions. I'm just making that as a statement.
It seems to me that at the end of the day, the frustration of those parents and those teachers will create an impetus for change. They will drive it toward the development of the charter school. That's the point I was trying to make earlier. We have to accommodate that change within the existing structure if we're going to hold that structure whole.
I also want to touch on the private school issue very briefly. It is well understood by myself, having experienced a number of years within a school district where the private system grew substantially, how students are chosen and on what basis they're accepted and other.... And there are different values in different schools and different abilities in different schools. Oftentimes we see a private school that does not have the tools to deal with the disabled, the physically
[ Page 13786 ]
handicapped or any of those other impediments. So I agree with you, and I don't have a problem with what you say. All I'm suggesting is that Nechako, with a little less than 3,200 students in those two communities and that school district today, has around 500 in the private system. One-sixth of the population there is going to private schools. That, to me, points to a very real concern. In fact we're not meeting the needs, if we want to keep the public system whole.
With those few comments, I'll just leave it at that. I don't want to take too much of your time, but there are a number of concerns that I -- after reading this Career and Personal Planning -- would like to address. The first question I have is: what kind of input or control does the school board have over the resource materials identified in this course? Do they have the ability to edit or to take parts out? Do they have a process of approval? Just what kind of process is available there?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Just to go back for a moment on the previous point about the attraction to private schools of some people and some of the reasons why that happens, I acknowledge your points. Provincewide, about 8 percent of children are in private schools, most of them of a religious nature; 92 percent continue to participate in the public system. I think that's a great success, and we want to see that we keep the public system so good, so responsive and with such value for the taxpayer's dollar that we will see that figure rise, if anything. I would encourage all districts, all professional organizations and all educators to work very closely with their communities and the parents to see that that happens.
With respect to your question about resources, on the typical page in one of the integrated learning resources, it's only the column over on -- and I apologize to the member -- the extreme left that is mandated. That is the prescribed learning outcome that must be followed; that's by law. Then you have the suggested instruction, and it is just that -- suggestions as to how a teacher might approach....
[3:15]
That would be an example. On the far left, you've got the prescribed learning outcome with suggested instructional strategies, the suggested assessment strategies and then the recommended learning resources that have been evaluated by the province, through our learning resources process, and have been approved and added to our list of approved resources. They do not need to use those; they are available. Every school district has some of its own resources that it either develops or approves, from whatever source. The teacher has access to the district's learning resources as well, and there are individual teachers who go out and with the limited funds provided to them, shop about to buy their resources for their own classroom.
None of the instructional strategies, the assessment strategies, the recommended learning outcomes are mandated by the centre. We're only saying: "Here are some suggestions and here are a lot of high-quality resources that we have on hand."
So there's no chance of any misunderstanding, any resource material that comes into the classroom -- whether it's from the province, approved by the district, or purchased by a teacher -- must be approved by either the district or the province.
L. Fox: I think what has drawn a lot of concern of a lot of parents, and a number of letters that I've got.... It's not unlike the debate we had when I was on the school board, back when they first started to initiate what was originally called sex education, in that it's the values of the program, the values of the presentations and the material used. Marry that with the values of the respective instructor, and then we have some very real concerns by parents that values other than the ones they teach at home are going to be taught.
I know the minister told me and the committee yesterday that students will have the ability to opt out. But I also think the minister would agree that the peer pressure placed on a student when it's apparent they've opted out of an initiative is very significant, and sometimes makes it very difficult for the student to opt out of a particular program. Or the converse, in many cases, to opt in to something less than the norm within that respective facility. I'm not sure that's a lot of comfort to a lot of parents, but I can tell you what would be from what I've discussed.
Number one, if there was an open process -- far more open than we've seen in the three pilot projects today -- according to the people from those regions, where there was a significant amount of the materials placed forward so that parents would understand what we mean, for instance, by B.C. life skills. What do we mean by abstinence? What kind of material is going along with that? There's a lot of concern around what their definition of "abstinence" is, particularly when we look at some of the initiatives and publications on the health side. There's a lot of concern by parents that those kinds of values are going to be placed in the classroom. I think we've got to understand that we have to have a better informed parent group so they can make those decisions.
We see a number of issues in that whole area. I know it's extremely difficult to get parents involved. Oftentimes it's half a dozen parents in a school of 250 students who are really proactively involved in the day-to-day running of the school. It's not because the school doesn't encourage parents, but many times it's single parents who are working, and other times both parents are working. There are many limitations today to parental involvement outside of the school's problems. I guess it isn't going to be an easy process, but in terms of this kind of new initiative, I think we could have a lot of parental input.
Mr. Owen, one of your officials -- I'm not sure what his title is -- is handling some of the pilots. He was just in Kitimat. In fact, the parents thought they would have a three-hour breakdown of this particular program, but he left a little after an hour because he had to run to catch a flight. Nobody faulted him; it's just that there wasn't sufficient time to really go through it. I really believe that if we're going to have success in any initiative like this, we've got to give the public ample time to consume it, to see the available resource material and to make some suggestions in terms of how we move forward. So with those few comments, if the minister would give us some kind of commitment, then I could relax on the rest of the concerns because I would know they would be addressed locally by the parents involved.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In our exchange yesterday, I was pointing out that we are very sensitive to the issue of parental involvement, particularly on the so-called sensitive content. We are quite open to in-servicing with respect to parents. We're interested in doing that. They have gone on, and they will continue to go on. If there is a parent group in your district that would like to have a further in-service on it, we'd
[ Page 13787 ]
like to know about that to see whether we can accommodate them. Bringing the parents along in this process of new curriculum is vitally important. As you have correctly said, it's difficult to get a high percentage of parents who are active on an ongoing basis. Even when the BCCPAC and the DPACs try their best, they are often fortunate to get 5 percent involvement; in many instances, it's less than that.
The nature of the material is personal planning, personal development and healthy living; those are elements of the content. Keep in mind that we're instructing teachers to inform parents of the objective of the curriculum before addressing them and to obtain the support of the school administration and appropriate in-service training before beginning instruction.
We're putting out lots of flags to educators to advise them to prepare themselves and make sure that their administrators understand they are prepared. We are also reaching out to parents. We can also work through the BCCPAC with respect to keeping them informed, such that there is yet one more route to parents. With respect to that, we're developing an orientation package for career and personal planning, or CPP, for parents.
You had mentioned abstinence, for example. One specific resource is a video called "Abstinence: Deciding to Wait." It features three scenarios depicting couples involved in sexual decision-making and the consequences of these decisions. The hosts discuss some of the consequences of sexual intimacy, and how abstinence can be an option. That is but one story: saying to young people that they should think about this, and that maybe the best sex at this point is no sex. I certainly have no problem advising the young people in our schools about that.
On the other hand, we musn't simply put our heads in the sand and think that by saying this, we will see a drop to zero in sexual activity. It's unfortunately happening at an ever-earlier stage, and I guess there isn't sufficient information or instruction being given to young people outside the school. After all, it is primarily the responsibility of the family, the church and other cultural organizations to convey to young people and to inculcate in them the responsibilities they must have. It's such a dangerous world out there, not just with respect to sexually transmitted diseases but obviously with respect to substance abuse of a wide variety.
The reality, regardless of what has happened in schools in an effort to inform children, young men and women and parents, is that we have seen an inexorable decrease in the age at which our young people are commencing sexual activity and an increase in frequency, if you will, right through grade 12. That's the reality. Families must be at the centre; they must be the place where this problem is solved. The school is on the periphery of this. The schools can do a bit with respect to informing children and trying to influence their behaviour, but we all know that the influence is their peer group. If it isn't all the parents of all the peer group, and all the community structures and all our other community organizations having some influence on the peer group, we won't influence the activities of the individual young men and women.
I don't want to downplay the role of the school in this area -- we have a vital role to play. On the other hand, I must say that regardless of what we do in the school by ourselves, we can't solve the problems.
L. Fox: I didn't intend to debate any values of any particular segment of this course. My major concern was that families of different values should have different opportunities to make sure they know what's happening in the classroom, so that they don't find themselves debating their own values with their students when the students come home. And this happens on a pretty regular basis, even today.
[3:30]
As long as there is ample opportunity for parents, if they wish, to have an opportunity to view the resource material being used during that instruction, and perhaps to request an opportunity to meet with the teacher so that they can understand the values that are being put forward in that particular course, then there would be a whole lot less concern out there about what it is that we're talking about when we're talking about career and personal planning.
If the minister could give us that kind of assurance, then people would have an opportunity to address at their local school districts many of the concerns that have been identified to me.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The integrated resource package advises teachers strongly that they must do that. They must inform the parents. But let's also keep in mind that parents have a responsibility -- each and every parent -- to keep themselves informed. All parents have the ability to walk into their school at any time, to approach their teacher at any time through a parent-teacher conference. They certainly have the ability, as well, to walk into any school board, to talk to any trustee, to walk into any school board meeting and raise all of these concerns. The full IRP and learning outcomes are there for them to look at -- to become comfortable with, or to indicate to the teacher that they want their son or daughter excluded from a certain portion of it.
L. Fox: Just one final observation. First, the classrooms are not as open as we would all like them to be, especially around these kinds of issues. Often the material is almost guarded -- for many different reasons. The minister suggests that they would advise the teacher, that the teacher is advised. The problem, as you stated the other day, is that the teacher has total autonomy within his or her classroom, and there is some reason for that, surely. But I am suggesting, in initiating this course, that we have at each school a process prior to initiation where it's well publicized that you have the opportunity to come in and go through the reference material and discuss your issues with the teacher if you want to, so that you can feel comfortable about what your child is being exposed to and then make your decisions on whether or not your child should leave that particular portion of the career training program. That's all I'm asking.
The other question that I would ask -- because I had difficulties achieving this; in fact, thanks to the minister for giving it to me the other day -- is whether it is available in all school districts at the present time. I've had a number of people phone me and say they haven't been able to access it to find out what it's about.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The IRP for CPP -- if we want to throw all of these acronyms on the table at the same time -- have only gone out to the school districts this week. They were delivered into the hands of the school board chairs last
[ Page 13788 ]
week. All the superintendents saw them last week, but the delivery of them to all districts and into all schools is only occurring this week.
We're sending a letter out to all superintendents to emphasize and reinforce the message with respect to parental involvement -- of informing parents of the content of it. As I pointed out yesterday, you can look at the introduction, on page 9, for the advice to teachers, boards and administrators as to how they should go about this. We will also emphasize to the supers that in-servicing for parents separate from teachers is desirable, and we will make every effort that we can to support that.
L. Stephens: Earlier today we were talking about choices in the school system. I would like to draw the minister's attention to an article by Susan Balcom in the Vancouver Sun today. I will just read the headline, which states: "Indians Would 'Learn Their History' at Separate City High School." I wonder if the minister would like to comment on this. Included in the article is the statement that: "A feasibility study, paid for by the Ministry of Education's aboriginal education branch, is now underway and will be presented to trustees in June." I wonder if the minister would comment on the mandate of this feasibility study and what the cost of the study is.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The cost was $25,000 and it is a feasibility study. Aboriginal leaders came forward with an idea, and I believe members of the Vancouver School Board and various administrators are supportive of it. Perhaps one approach to resolving some of the difficulties that aboriginal students have in the school system would be to have a choice available to aboriginal students -- and, incidentally, to non-aboriginal students -- to attend a school of their choice. The idea, I think, had its origins both on the administration side and in the aboriginal community.
I do not know the details of the feasibility study; it's an initiative of the Vancouver School Board. I do understand that there are similar approaches in other jurisdictions and that they have met with some level of success in keeping aboriginal students in the system longer and improving their performance. I am certainly willing to contemplate anything we can do in this way that is constructive and that has the full approval and participation of aboriginal groups and aboriginal leaders. I am looking forward to seeing the results of that feasibility study.
L. Stephens: It just seems a little at opposite ends to what the Ministry of Education has said about schools of choice. This particular school seems to be focused on one particular race of people as opposed to a particular group of learners. If you want to continue on this path, the argument could be made for a Japanese school -- or a pick-whatever-you-like. If the minister is saying that the enhanced and the different educational opportunities presented and provided to enhance student learning are the objectives of our public schools, and that this particular one would indeed be the focus, then I would like to ask the minister why further schools of choice around particular and different learning styles would not be supported by this government. The minister has already indicated that he does not believe in what he calls a two-tier system. There's a suggestion made, certainly by our party, that those educational opportunities should exist for different kinds of learners -- not different races of people but different needs of learners -- and that that should be available in our publicly funded, public education system. For the minister to authorize a feasibility study around this particular initiative would seem at odds with the ministry's and the minister's objections to added choices to enhance student learning in the province. Could the minister please comment?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have, in addition to all the other choices in the public system that I've mentioned, alternative schools. Some of these are storefront schools, where young men and women who do not function well within the very large high schools we have can perhaps quite often thrive, using Pathfinder as a computer-delivered instruction program, once they go into the alternative schools. These are publicly funded, publicly administered schools that are teaching the approved curriculum of the province.
If Vancouver wishes to look into perhaps collapsing some alternative schools and opening this one, if they do not exclude non-aboriginal students and if the aboriginal people who are wrestling with a very real, very significant problem for their society, for their culture, are supportive of this, then as a choice for young aboriginal men and women -- and as part of making an effort to help them succeed -- if the feasibility study demonstrates that such an alternative school is a good idea, I would be willing to try it within the public system.
L. Stephens: I'm very encouraged to hear the minister speak in this manner, because that indeed is what our party believes. The question I have for the minister is this: does this choice extend to a group of students, particularly those learning-disabled students who are perhaps attention deficit disorder or fetal alcohol syndrome students? Would this opportunity -- this choice -- extend to those groups of learners, whatever race or religion they may be? Would this choice extend to that group to have a freestanding structure to address their educational needs? As has been indicated, the minister accepts an aboriginal school.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If the member opposite is trying to lead me into the quagmire of charter schools, then I will have to tell her that I do not see this as a forerunner to a charter school, or anything like a charter school. Rather, I see that it is an alternative school that meets the needs of a particular group of students who are -- from the viewpoint of their society -- not participating fully in the existing schools and come to those existing schools with a particular set of learning background difficulties that cause them to not do as well as we would like them to. I think that this may be a good opportunity to have an alternative school. I won't draw any final conclusions until I see the results of the feasibility study. This is nothing new to the system, as we have alternative schools all around the province.
L. Stephens: We do indeed have alternative schools and alternative educational programs around the province; however, there is nothing quite like this particular proposal, which is what is so interesting and fascinating about it. In this particular instance, it is restricted to a race of people.
The issue of having enhanced educational opportunities for particular kinds of learners is the one that I am interested in. That could be the forerunner to charter schools, and many
[ Page 13789 ]
charter schools are formed in order to address the kinds of issues that I've been speaking of -- the fact that there are groups of learners who, for whatever reasons, have difficulty learning in a particular classroom. There are programs and teaching methods specifically geared to these learners, and that is the reason that these schools of choice are chosen, and how they come about.
The reasons some of them are contract or charter schools are that the community at large has an opportunity to participate and the accountability of a contract with this particular group and either the school board or the ministry allows the monitoring and assessment of how well these schools are doing. I'm sure the minister is aware of all the ramifications and details around that. So the accountability issue, the flexibility issue and the responsibility issue of these schools are what is so attractive to a large number of parents and community members at large.
[3:45]
Where the minister and I agree wholeheartedly on the need to have choices in the public school system -- in any publicly funded public school system.... I see no reason why we cannot have a contract school within a publicly funded public education system. It would do everything that is now done in the choices and programs that are delivered at this point in time through the education system, with an added legal contract that says that this is in fact what will happen in this school, that these are the desired outcomes and that this is how the participation will take place.
One other issue around parent involvement in the public school system that we talked about earlier concerned a recommendation from the Ontario royal commission. It talked about mandating that each school establish a school community council with the membership drawn from parents, students, teachers, representatives from local religions and ethnic communities, service clubs and organizations, the business sector, municipal government and service providers, both government and non-government. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on whether he views a broad community involvement in the direction of individual community schools as desirable.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think we go some way in that direction through both the elected trustees and the parent advisory councils. The community school is better still. The involvement of as many groups in the establishment of a community school is, again, better still. I've tried to, and I think I've succeeded, signal that to the system by providing the additional funds targeted to, or granted on behalf of, schools who belong to the community schools' association.
With respect to some of your earlier comments alluding to why we don't want contract schools or charter schools, in the instance of an alternative school, we're looking at a situation where a disadvantaged group is struggling with various ideas. One idea that has come forward to help a disadvantaged group is a kind of alternate school that is not based solely on race. I've made it clear that it must be open to enrolment by non-aboriginal children. It would not be acceptable to me to have a straight racial component added to it. So where we can help a disadvantaged group through an alternative school, I'm willing to look at it and at least go as far as we've gone by helping to fund a feasibility study.
But most charter schools I am familiar with.... What has happened in some of the American states and elsewhere is that it can become a thinly disguised elitist system quite easily and quite quickly, where one school takes children from the regular system and moves them above into an elite sphere, instead of attempting to bring a disadvantaged group up. That is what I do not accept about the contract school or the charter school. I want to see the standards for all children raised, and if we have pockets of disadvantaged children, I want to put additional resources in there to try to raise them to at least the average level.
L. Stephens: The emergence of contract schools came about precisely for the reason that the minister was stating about the ability of some schools to become elitist. The contract schools clearly lay out what terms and conditions the schools operate under. That way, there is control over guarding against special interest groups, picking and choosing or exclusion -- those kinds of issues. Those are very carefully controlled in a contract school or a charter school. They have been very successful in a number of areas around the world -- New Zealand, in particular. The U.S. has had some difficulties. They have embraced a very broad concept and have gotten quite entrepreneurial -- straying, in my view, from the strictly educational component of what these contract schools should be about.
Involving parents in the system and providing choices for learners and teachers is what we should be striving for. Around the issue of providing choices at the school level, I wonder if the minister could talk a bit about site-based management as opposed to site-based decision-making, which I'm sure the minister knows is not the same thing. A number of school districts around the province practise site-based decision-making, and some practise site-based management. My preference is for site-based management. I wonder if the minister would talk a bit about that and give us his view on whether or not he finds site-based management to be an effective tool to enable individual neighbourhood schools to manage their resources in a more efficient and effective manner.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Generally, I think that if you take decision-making close to the point where the service is being delivered, and if it's done properly and carefully, you can get the best product out of it. I believe you can also save on some central office costs by devolving some of the authority down to the school level, and then we could see the central office admin costs drop as a percentage of the budget.
I don't want to give a blanket answer, however, because one hazard that I perceive with respect to site-based decision-making, economic decisions and budget-building is that quite often you can have a great deal of variation from school to school. Where you have very strong administrators who have very, very good management capabilities in addition to pedagogical capabilities, you will have a barn-burner of a school. The children in that area would, no doubt, benefit from it.
Conversely, not all our administrators, although we might want them to be, are the best managers, the best budget managers or the best decision-makers with respect to overall budgets. In those instances, we would see some students hurt in the process.
[ Page 13790 ]
I would like to see us move in that direction. We should contain and reduce central office capital costs, but we should also make sure that the level of expertise required to participate successfully -- from the students' view -- in site-based decision-making is in place before we move dramatically in that direction.
L. Stephens: I agree with the minister that it is possible for those kinds of things to happen in the administration of local schools, but I would suggest that one of the other issues that need to be tackled in the public education system is that of providing those school administrators with the kind of management training and techniques they need to be effective managers of individual schools.
I know the minister is aware that in Ontario they have such a training program for administrators. I view that as being a useful tool and certainly one that could be, and very likely would be, cost effective and efficient. It would lead to the kinds of efficiency that the minister speaks of at the board level and the administrative level, let alone at the school level. It would also facilitate, perhaps, some additional programming availability in the local schools.
I would like to suggest that the minister look at implementing or studying its feasibility. There's a desirability there, I think, to provide professional development or management training to individual school administrators in order for them to have the skills that are necessary to do the kinds of things that school principals are responsible for.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We must keep in mind in this debate that the administrators of whom we are speaking are not employees of the ministry, of course. The advice that I can give can go out to trustees -- that they put in place the appropriate training and the appropriate selection methods to permit more site-based management.
We must also keep in mind that some elements of site-based management drive up costs. If you have certain supplies and services being contracted for at each school, then you have further decentralized purchasing and driven up some costs accordingly. There's probably a happy medium in there somewhere between some things devolving to site management, others remaining at the central board level, and yet others coming to the central purchasing level in Victoria.
L. Stephens: Indeed, there are a number of issues around this whole school-based management question that need to be looked at, and that is what I would encourage the minister to do. Perhaps he could fund a feasibility study to look at this particular problem as well.
While we are sort of on the subject of administration, the early retirement incentive plans that are in place around the province in a number of districts, and some contracts, state that senior administrators are eligible to receive one additional year of full salary and benefits as paid leave. I wonder if the minister has some thoughts on some directives to school boards to look at future contracts and some guidelines around what they may be for senior administrators.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Some of this subject must be taken up during the estimates of the Minister of Finance, who has the responsibility for these salary decisions through PSEC. But through PSEC we have frozen those. And it's not just the direct pay; it's all of the perks, all the contractual obligations, the evergreen contracts that are out there, the memberships in clubs, perhaps, and the cars -- a wide variety of perks that, frankly, the public does not find it acceptable. The public does not find acceptable that we have individual school boards that employ more people who earn over $100,000 than the entire provincial government. It's not appropriate; the public doesn't support it.
[4:00]
I have indicated as bluntly as I can to boards that this has come to an end. The executive compensation review is underway, and that is of all, total, compensation -- all the things that are hidden in the contracts and everywhere else. All of that is under review by PSEC. Again, I would urge the member to take up some of these issues a little further with the Minister of Finance.
L. Stephens: In regard to the Public School Employers' Association that is the bargaining agent for the provincial government now, could the minister explain what is happening in the negotiation process and where we are in establishing what will follow, and whether or not the school districts and the government and the BCPSEA have indeed reached an agreement where they are now able to move forward to a first contract?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The employers' association is not a bargaining representative of the government; rather, it is a bargaining representative of the trustees themselves. To my knowledge, they have perhaps concluded the portion of negotiations on dividing matters into the provincial jurisdiction and what will go to local tables, because it was the economic issues that had to come to the provincial table.
I do not know whether or not bargaining sessions have occurred beyond that point. I can obtain that information and provide it to the member.
L. Stephens: Any information the minister may have as to the status of the bargaining process would be appreciated.
I'd like to talk a little bit about the specific district grants for the 1995-96 funding and about what the educators' salary adjustment amounts would be for the 1995-96 budget.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In going to the new education funding system, we started at a base of the average cost of an educator, and that was based on the district which had the lowest average cost of an educator. That became the base for that specific item, against which all boards were then compared. One district someplace in the province -- offhand, I cannot tell you which one -- had a zero in the spot for educator salary adjustment. They were the base district. Then, depending on the particular grid in place and the particular mix of qualifications and seniority, each district received an additional amount for educator pay, by straight mathematics. That is the number on the sheet called the educator salary adjustment.
L. Stephens: What is that number for the 1995-96 budget estimates that we're doing now?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: For the province in total, all 75 districts, that number is $117,088,978.
[ Page 13791 ]
L. Stephens: Last year's was $93,614,994. Anyone that is very quick with math: what is the percentage increase, please, from last year?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Being an engineer, I'm a very quick math study: zero.
L. Stephens: Could the minister please explain zero?
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: When I said zero as my answer to the last question, we have stated in the budget that there is no increase budgeted for educator salaries. The difference between that line last year and next year has to do with the movement of teachers through the grid, or the acquisition of additional qualifications, or the retirement of teachers from the top of the grid and the hiring of new teachers at some point in the grid. The actual grids across the province haven't moved. We have assumed a zero educator salary adjustment.
L. Stephens: I understand that, but in this budget there have been increases for contract increases and other kinds of increases to do with salaries and benefits. I have assumed, and perhaps wrongly, that this number is what reflects those contract increases along with what the minister has said, so there is an increase over this year from last year. What I would like to know is: what is the percent amount allocated in this year's budget for those contract obligations of school boards for teachers' salaries and benefits?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If you look at the number that I have given as the educator salary adjustment, the $117 million, I will try to explain that again.
When we changed the funding system, I recognized actual educators' salaries in each district rather than funding districts in accordance with the provincial average educator's salary. When it was done the previous way, it meant that those districts that had a lower-than-average grid got a little extra money that they could use someplace, and those that had a slightly higher grid got less money, which then meant that some of their programs suffered a bit.
Inasmuch as we were going to provincewide bargaining, trying to lead to a standard grid, I decided to take that away and go to funding on the basis of actual educators' salaries. In the entire province, among 75 districts, we then selected the district that had the lowest average educator costs. In that particular spot, in the educator salary adjustment, there was a zero for that district. Then, based on the actual grid in each district and the movement of teachers with seniority or with qualifications or with historical contracts that were still playing out, each district had its number in there based on the actual salaries for that district. The total of those through all 75 districts was the $117 million.
L. Stephens: I'm going to have to come and have a sitdown with someone in your ministry and go through those, because I still want to know what amount, in percentage terms and dollar terms, was built into the 1995-96 budget to allow boards to pay those contracted obligations. Do I need to do that or do we have the answer today?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I can probably give the member a fairly accurate answer, and if you need more detail....
The automatic increments that occurred from last year to this year, which were covered off within the budget, would total about $9 million provincewide. That covers the seniority where somebody is now on year eight instead of year seven. Hence the board has to pay that much more -- or if a teacher has received a master's degree, and they go up to that level. If you add those up across the province, it's about $9 million. We budgeted zero as the impact of wage increases across the province -- zero.
L. Stephens: So the boards that are faced with these increases and in effect get zero in their funding are going to be taking it out of other programs and other administration costs. If the minister is saying that he has provided zero funding, how are the boards going to deal with making sure that they do in fact meet their payroll obligations?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I apologize for not being clear to the member. Typically, with bargained outcomes, the entire salary grids rise each year. In the past those increments have been as high as 7 percent some years. In the last go-round of bargaining, they were typically between 1 and 2 percent as a lift on the entire grid.
This year we have budgeted a zero lift, so the grids stay, as far as we are concerned, exactly where they are, as far as we're concerned. But within each district we recognize the actual movement from place to place on the grid, which boards have a contractual obligation to meet. The total of those contractual obligations is about $9 million, and that is built into the funding for each and every board.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
L. Stephens: There's almost a built-in inflation rate or built-in lift number. What was the percentage? What's that $9 million? How does that translate in percentage terms?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I guess the best way of approaching it is that the total salary bill is in the order of $2.5 billion, and $9 million was provided to recognize the contractual obligations that boards had within their existing collective agreements. Roughly speaking, if you look at it that way, I believe it's something in the order of 0.4 percent, which recognizes existing contracts.
L. Stephens: With regard to the targeted grants around the special education programs, particularly moderately handicapped and severely handicapped, there was a job training component in 1994-95. Is there still a job training component of these two classifications in the special education programs in this year's budget?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There's been no change in that direction. Keep in mind as well that the funds targeted for special ed.... I have set a floor under which a board cannot drop, based on the counts they provide. However, most boards spend above that floor. Furthermore, there are no subtargets, so boards can make independent decisions as to moving money around within the special needs money. If they have chosen to add some additional job experience, they can do so, and other boards as well are able to access some Skills Now money through the contracts they've signed with us.
[4:15]
[ Page 13792 ]
L. Stephens: As the minister knows, a lot of parents in the schools are concerned over the targeted grants and whether or not the targeted funds actually get spent in the targeted areas. The gifted program is one of them; ESL is another. In many cases, the boards are finding it difficult to provide adequate service in those areas as well. I wonder if the minister is looking at trying to find another formula to address some of these issues around gifted programs, ESL programs and all of those other targeted grant envelopes, if you like, with a view to trying to make them a little more available to the schools to be used in a way that was intended.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is a review going on with respect to special needs, as I indicated earlier. A new policy will be coming out shortly. There's a funding review going on. I've done the first of two steps with respect to changing the distribution model being used. There is also an ESL review going on which could also have some impact on funding, but it is not contemplated to create any subtargets within the overall targeted amount for special needs. I wish that we had more, because district after district has indicated to me that the number of students they have in the so-called low-cost, high-incidence category is above the artificial 4 percent cap that is set, and I believe them. But there is a limit to the taxpayers' ability to fund, and we feel that the amount that we will be dedicating to special needs this year, which will be a minimum of $379.1 million, is as much as we can afford this year.
L. Stephens: Does the minister have any idea what that breaks down to per special needs student?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I don't have the specific numbers with me, but I can provide them. They range from -- accept these, please, as my best recollection -- around $400 or $500 per identified gifted student to around $900 for an aboriginal student. For the severe behaviour problems, we have a number in the $5,000 range up to the low $40,000 figure per student for the severely handicapped, fully dependent student with a personal attendant required.
L. Stephens: I'd like to talk a bit about ESL at the moment. I'm sure the minister is aware that the BCTF did a research report on this issue, and they identified a number of areas that were quite serious in the schools, in their view. One of the things they said is that there exists a gap between needs and the provision of services. I think everyone agrees that we can do better than we are doing in the ESL area. I wonder if the minister could talk a bit about what he sees some of the problems are that we face, what he feels we should be doing about them and where the moneys that are expended in this year's budget would benefit ESL students.
This is outside of the study that's already being done. I accept the fact that the minister is saying that there is a study around ESL, and that's great. We'll all be interested to see it and study it when it is available. In the meantime, the difficulties around ESL are well documented. I'd just like the minister to recap what is in the estimates for this year around the ESL programming, the difficulties that he sees and what he feels he could do and should do about it in this coming year.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The draft report will be arriving on my desk shortly, which will address training issues and the value that we're receiving for the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars to determine the funding adequacy, as well. At the time I'm able to release that report, I'll make certain that you get a copy of it.
This year just under $68 million will be allocated to ESL to cover about 95,000 students. You can see from that that it's something in the order of $700 or $800 per student. It doesn't quite work out on a per student basis. There's a certain amount to establish the program and then a per student amount above that, roughly speaking between $700 and $800.
Is it enough? Again, no. Throughout our special needs we could certainly apply more funds. I've mentioned the high-incidence, low-cost category. It could be far above 4 percent, and it is in some districts. As for the size of our classes -- certainly it would be nice to have something smaller -- for each one-child reduction in the size of our class, we're looking at a very, very substantial amount of money that's required to pay for it. It's the same with our capital program. I could probably spend $1 billion wisely. We don't have it.
I recognize that in the system virtually every district calls out for more money. I say directly back to all of them: "Yes, I know you want more money; no, you're not going to get more money; we're all going to have to get by with what the taxpayer can afford." It is only through that, if you will, fairly hard-nosed attitude that we have been able to balance the budget and in fact put out a surplus of $114 million this year.
If the members opposite would like to stand in their place and urge us to spend more money in education and more money in capital, I would be delighted to sit down now and hear them make that plea.
L. Stephens: I would love to stand in my place and urge the minister, specifically his government, to make some better choices around providing the services that people in British Columbia expect. Some of those choices that have been made by this government do not reflect the services that the residents of this province deserve and expect. Education is certainly one of those areas.
As far as funding goes, I spoke earlier about being creative. One of the minister's own members suggested that perhaps this would be an area the government should look at. I had forgotten about that, but I will support the argument of the member for Nelson-Creston that school boards -- I fully agree, and I hope the minister does, too -- that do not spend the amount of money they are allocated on their capital projects are allowed to keep it to provide services for their community.
I'm sure the minister is aware that if you receive a budget and you don't spend it, you have to give it back. It's not difficult to understand why the budgets always get spent. If the goal is to encourage districts to be efficient, effective and economical, it would seem to me that you would give them the incentives to perform in that capacity, which is not the case now.
I would encourage the minister to look at that particular policy as well with regard to capital spending around project managers and to consider again some projects if, in fact, those would prove helpful to determine whether or not a project manager would be efficient, effective and economical in the construction of schools in this province. Those are two things the minister may want to consider.
[ Page 13793 ]
As for the ESL questions around assessment and around special needs students in general, there is a very long time line in cases -- around 18 months is the average, I'm told -- before a student is assessed for learning disabilities in the schools. I would suggest that that is too long a time line. If we talk about identifying them and making sure that all our students have the necessary opportunities to be successful, I would think that one the first tools we use would be that assessment. So I would like to hear the minister's ideas on what we can do to provide this assessment without adding costs and, again, around looking at some creative and unique ways that perhaps have been tried in other areas in order to provide the students with those assessments so that they receive the kinds of educational opportunities they need for their particular learning development.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to the capital items and potential savings, and the fact that Victoria scooped some back, it is interesting to note that the member opposite says we should allow the boards to keep that money. But then we have to ask the question: what about those projects that, because of site conditions or some other problem uncovered during the process of construction, need more money? That means more borrowing in order to accommodate.
If we have budgeted a school at whatever it is -- $18.2 million -- and that is what is in the original specific project approval, if by any chance the actual contract comes in at $17.5 million, then I want the district to manage that school and bring it in at $17.5 million, and I want $700,000 back -- and the same with the allocation for a site acquisition. I want the money back. Believe me, some other district will be looking for additional money, because their tenders will have come in over the estimated amount or the cost of land acquisition will come in over. I want to be able to at least attempt to balance that.
I know that we're not successful in it. I know that the ones that tend to run over are far more than the others. Nonetheless, if we have any board or project that comes in under, it is proper policy to have that money come back. After all, Victoria was the one that provided it in the first instance.
[4:30]
With respect to the services to children, the testing for children to determine any kind of disability and the assessments, of course I support that. If the number is as high as 18 months, that's unfortunate. We would like to have it determined much sooner. We would like to be able to bring in the additional services. But the member opposite seems to be of the view that we can always provide additional services at no extra costs, and that's not possible. We cannot provide more services to special needs children and more specially trained teachers who can carry out the assessments faster and then, presumably, be able to deliver the additional service to the child who has the identified learning disability, let's say. We cannot at the same time be increasing the services in our health care system; we cannot be increasing the services with respect to child apprehensions; we cannot be increasing the services through the justice system; we cannot be increasing the policing of communities and the courtrooms -- and somehow magically do it all without extra money.
So every time the member or her leader stands up and castigates us for spending money, for increasing debt and for expansion of FTEs, they should think about that before standing up and demanding that there be more FTEs to handle special needs children, more FTEs to handle child apprehensions, more FTEs in our health care system -- more, more, more, more while spending less, less, less less! You can't have it both ways, hon. member.
L. Stephens: In regard to the capital funding projects, there are other areas and other industries where you do have to come in on time, and this is one of the reasons that I would encourage the minister to look at project managers. That is what their function is: to make sure the project is on time and on budget. That could be an area where you could have efficient, effective and economic use of taxpayers' money.
Systemic change in the bureaucracy is another area that the minister could have a look at: whether or not the systems in place allow for the efficient, effective and economic delivery of services; whether or not students are being well served, in particular, in the education system; and whether the system frustrates individuals who are looking to do the very best they can.
Around the issue of "you can't have more for less money," I would suggest that the minister look at the programs, practices, policies and procedures of government and find out whether or not they are being delivered in a way that is efficient, effective and economic.
Until I hear the ministry talk about the kinds of system analyses that have been done and see some documentation that this has happened and that this government is moving down a path that does indeed look at being more efficient, effective and economic, then I would suggest that much of what we have seen around this whole issue on the government side is pure smoke and mirrors.
Now, as we continue on and hopefully finish soon, there are a few more questions. One is around French immersion teaching, which we haven't talked much about. This is pertaining to textbooks and professional development. In the new curriculum plans, I understand the minister is going to be duplicating the resource packages in French for use in French immersion. Am I correct? And will there be adequate professional development around French immersion?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There will be French versions of all of the IRPs; that is a federal law. There is approximately a ten-week period required to produce the interpreted documents.
I must go back for a moment, however, to some of the member's other comments with respect to project management, such that you understand that when we go the project management route, if the wheels come off the project -- if it just simply does not work -- and another contractor has to come in to pull it back together again, the costs are borne by the taxpayer.
K. Jones: Why is that?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: That's the way it is.
L. Stephens: By the school board.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: But the school board gets its money from the taxpayer....
K. Jones: Why would the wheels come off?
[ Page 13794 ]
Interjections.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: That's the way that it is. If we have a general contractor and things go wrong, it's the general contractor's fault, and it is a bank or bonding agent someplace that pays, not the taxpayer. So, generally speaking, we want to see that we have general contractors and an open tendering process. In situations such as the situation in Burton in the member for Nelson-Creston's riding, he has presented a persuasive case for a possible exception policy, and I will contemplate that.
L. Stephens: The French immersion teachers are also looking at the issue that's been raised with some school boards by the teachers' association: that the disbursement of the federal funds for French immersion education is a local responsibility. The problem is that school boards do not seem to be held accountable by the ministry for the disbursement of those funds. Is the minister aware that this is happening in some school districts, and is there any way he can remedy this situation?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm not aware of that specific issue, so I'll take that question on notice and get you a written answer on it.
L. Stephens: A quick question about skills training and career prep. There's a question around insuring students against accidents at the worksite or during travel to and fro. I wonder if the minister has come up with any policy or if there are any decisions around ensuring that students are legally covered for accidents during travel to and from the worksite.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are a few points on which decisions must yet be made. We're in consultation with WCB on some of those issues. Final decisions will probably be made within a month. The insurance issue of travel from a place of school to a place of work placement is one of those issues.
With respect to your previous question on the funds for French immersion, I have just obtained an answer. The federal portion of funds for French immersion get smixed in with the block and are sent to the district within the block. Hence, inasmuch as it is not one of the targeted areas, it can spend that money as the board decides. If the member opposite thinks I should target it, she should probably mention that right now.
L. Stephens: A question around French immersion would probably be: are the ministry and this government going to comply with section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms around the issue of French language instruction?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: French immersion is not at all connected with section 23. Of course, French immersion is for anglophones or children who are not deemed to be francophones. If you're inquiring with respect to the Programme Cadre, which is delivered to francophone children, it may be related to the section 23 consideration. Perhaps you could clarify your question for me.
L. Stephens: Section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that French-speaking children are entitled to instruction in their language in the provinces. From my understanding, British Columbia is the only province in Canada that does not have an organized French school board and French school districts. I know that the federal government had conversations with the provincial government around this issue a year or so ago. I wonder if there has been anything recent around this issue and what the government's position is.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There was a whole series of very extensive discussions with the Francophone Parents' Association, where we offered a number of different models that we felt might meet the requirement of the test under section 23. We offered a variety of choices, which the francophone parents turned down. They have proceeded to reactivate their court case.
We have that situation under consultation. We are contemplating what the alternatives might be. I would be most interested in knowing the views of the member opposite on whether she thinks that there should be a separate governing system for francophones in the province.
L. Stephens: Perhaps in another year, when roles are reversed and I'm doing the answering, the minister will have the opportunity to ask that question. But today I ask the questions and the minister answers, if he so wishes.
The independent schools have a few concerns around some of their funding issues, specifically group one and group two -- whether or not the funding will be maintained at the present level they now enjoy, and whether or not the interministry protocols around health services would be part of a program for the independent schools. Apparently now they are only available if part of the public system government.... They are only entitled to a percentage of what is put into the public system. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The responsibility for matters of health has been moved away, as it should have been years ago, from Education and over to the Ministry of Health. You would have to raise that issue with the Health minister during his estimates.
L. Stephens: I am aware that it is a health issue as well, but there are interministerial protocols around shared services that come into the education system, and health is one of those. It is a question of who pays -- whether the money for health services like public health nurses in private and independent schools are paid by the Ministry of Health or by the Ministry of Education. I wonder if the protocols for who is going to share, how the sharing arrangement is going to be or if there is going to be a sharing arrangement for providing public health nurse services to independent schools have been finalized.
[4:45]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We may have to get back to you with a more detailed answer, but a decision was taken in the course of budget deliberations to move education completely out of that particular aspect of funding. We do not even provide health-related funding to the public system. That whole responsibility has been passed over to Health, and you may be able to get the answer through Health.
[ Page 13795 ]
L. Stephens: I will take this issue up with the Minister of Health during his estimates.
One final area that I have is around the issue of criminal record checks. This is something that I had intended to take up with the Attorney General; however, those estimates were concurrent and the opportunity wasn't there. I think there are some issues around this particular subject that the Minister of Education can speak to. Teachers' associations, principals' and vice-principals' associations and the BCSTA have all submitted recommendations around this proposal, and there seem to be a few areas where they all agree. One of them is cost compliance: who pays and who doesn't pay. I wonder if the minister can shed some light on what is happening with the proposal to have criminal record checks in the public education system.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The issue has been raised interministerially with the Attorney General. Determinations have not been made at this point in time on whether there will be any recognition of costs or any cost-sharing with respect to that. It may be an issue, again, on which it would be appropriate for you to contact the Attorney General directly to obtain the answer.
L. Stephens: Do you believe there is a role for the College of Teachers in this initiative, and what may it be?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, many teachers and teachers' association locals contacted me to say that they thought this process should be taken out of the hands of local districts. I agree with that for obvious reasons. That does create a role for the College of Teachers. In any new certifications, that would be the obvious place to do a criminal check. We will be looking for the participation of the college in the overall program. I guess that's not only the most cost-effective way of doing it, but it is also the way to give the maximum degree of privacy to all the employees in the system.
L. Stephens: Has the ministry contemplated how they may review existing teachers and staff members within the public school system? What kind of mechanism may be in place or contemplated to provide the kinds of checks for individuals already in the system? Is there anything in the estimates? Is there any financing set aside for the ministry's role in this criminal record check initiative?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The details of how it will be done for existing employees is something, again, that you will have to raise with the Attorney General. No, there is no reserve amount anywhere in our budget to cover any potential costs in this area.
K. Jones: I understand that there is some policy that the minister has dictated to his ministry in the area of opening up new schools or new school projects. If it's an NDP riding, there would be an official sod-turning with the media and the minister arriving and all that sort of thing. But if it happens to be in a Liberal riding or some other party's riding, there is no such event. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Even if the sod-turning were to turn out to be in an ex-Liberal riding or in the riding of a member who becomes an ex-Liberal, I would be pleased to attend it.
K. Jones: I'm quite confused with the statement the minister gave as an answer. His reference to the riding doesn't seem to make much sense. I don't know which riding he is referring to. Could the minister explain further?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would refer the member to one of his own local papers.
K. Jones: I think the minister is fully aware of the desire of the parents' advisory council of the Latimer Road Elementary School to have the start of construction of their school identified as a significant factor and something they're very proud of. For you to take this cheap shot and make this frivolous attempt to belittle them is most unfortunate, I think. The question is very legitimate. They found that there was no sod-turning occurring, and only after they brought it to the attention of the school board chairman and made further inquiries with the media was there a response from your ministry. Could you explain why that's the case?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The member should realize that I have attended very, very few sod-turnings in the entire province. The Latimer Road school was a situation where, as the member knows because he was on stage with me, some 300 parents, as I recall, turned out to discuss and to impress upon me the need that they felt for a new school for their children. After touring the school and listening to the presentations that the members of the board and members of the parent advisory council made, I was pleased to be able to announce last fall that there would be funding for the replacement of the Latimer Road school. I followed through on that. If my staff has not scheduled me into a sod-turning at that event, there is nothing different there from probably a hundred other sod-turnings that have occurred, which I have not been at.
I took a particular interest in that school because of the efforts made by the parents there. If I could possibly fit it into my schedule, I would contemplate attending a sod-turning, but that would be an unusual occurrence as opposed to a usual one.
K. Jones: That's very good, because I felt that this was such a well-needed project. It was a project where we appreciated the exchange of ideas and thinking of the ministry after the need for it was made clear by the members of the community. I'm glad that the minister was able to take a sober, second-thought review of it, and I congratulate him for bringing that very necessary change. I would also hope that other school capital project needs in Surrey that are very essential....
It's not like they're extras or that they're something to play with, but there are very serious needs in Surrey for capital projects because of the simple fact that we have the fastest-growing area in the province of British Columbia. We have more students coming into Surrey and district than are coming to anywhere else in British Columbia. We have more students in portables than anywhere else in British Columbia. Certainly there is a capital need, and I hope that the minister would see to the needs as identified by the school district. I hope that the district will have those capital construction projects started as soon as possible so that they will be able to meet the deadlines of the students coming into them.
Could the minister tell us what the status is of the new secondary school in the Fraserview area north of the freeway in Surrey?
[ Page 13796 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Some of the information is being obtained. First of all, I wish to confirm to the member that Surrey has probably had the greatest growth of any district over the last -- who knows? -- decade. But at the same time, between 1989 and the budget up to and including this past year, the expenditure on schools in Surrey has been $379 million, which is almost $170 million above the next highest district, Coquitlam, another big growth area. It, in turn, is about $70 million above the next highest, Richmond. So there has been a real response and a commitment made to catch up in Surrey. Indeed, this coming fall there will be fewer portables in Surrey than there were three years ago, even though the enrolment increase has been substantial. We have been able to direct a substantial portion of new capital funds into Surrey, and we've done it in a fair manner, even within the riding. We have tried to meet the needs of families and children.
With respect to your specific question about the Fraser Heights school, I'll have to obtain that information for you and provide it to you.
K. Jones: I do hope the minister will recognize that we have a very serious school board that puts forward very serious proposals for well-thought-out and well-proven needs. When they put out a capital project need, as was done last year, for over $100 million, and then received approval from your ministry for only $30 million, it certainly set back the whole requirement for the students in that area. This has happened many times over, even in the last four years. True, there has been considerable capital expenditure in the area, but there is a need for much larger capital to be able to catch up not only with the situation that has occurred over close to 20 years but also with the fact that we have roughly 2,000 students coming into the school district every year. That has to be dealt with on an ongoing basis, and there's nothing anybody can do to deal with it if the schools aren't there for the students as they grow.
I would ask the minister to seriously support the school board in their identification of needs and give them the kind of funding they require to meet the needs of the students in Surrey-Cloverdale and throughout the Surrey School District.
[5:00]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Surrey is obviously a desirable place to live, if you measure it by the number of people who are moving there. Indeed, as the member opposite has said, there are substantial increases each year. Last year the capital funding dedicated to Surrey was $47.348 million....
K. Jones: That was the adjusted figure.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: That was the total for the year, including the announcements I made in November of $47,000, which contributes to the total of $379 million. This will allow us 232 portables in September of '94, which is a full 121 fewer than three years earlier. So we're making progress.
There are still a lot of students in portables and a lot of need for additional investment, but as the member well knows, if you're going to invest in schools, you're going to incur debt. We cannot on the one hand run an extremely tough debt management program to try to cap and drive down debt and at the same time meet the very real needs of parents, communities and children for new school facilities -- and not just for the increased enrolment. We have facilities such as the Latimer Road, which are replacement schools -- costs over and above new facilities. It would help a great deal to have the member openly espouse additional expenditures in school construction, even if those expenditures result in debt.
K. Jones: There have to be priorities in all cases for where you spend your money. In the case of education, our party believes that the interests of our young people are paramount. As a result, we see the appropriation of funds within the budget -- properly capitalized and properly paid for -- works to the best interest and the needs of the community.
This is not creating additional debt that is outside of the budget; this is working within a zero budget, a balanced budget, making sure that we are not increasing the provincial debt. That's a matter of good management of the funds in the entire government budget. I believe that's what the minister is saying he's desirous of doing.
On a different point, now I'd like to ask the minister whether he feels that parent advisory councils should have adequate funding to be able to carry out their functions. I believe they have a very good role and do very fine work in the community. How does the minister think they should be funded?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We provide funding to each individual school for a PAC. The funding is very modest; I think it's only $200. Across 1,700 schools, that adds up. In addition, we provide some funding to the central organization for the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils. That amount is $150,000.
K. Jones: Does the minister believe that in order to support fundamental school programs for which the parent advisory committees feel obligated to find funds, they should utilize gambling methods to fund programs such as computers, library books and paper for the operation of the schools?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: This year the total budget of the Ministry of Education is just a little under $4 billion. A good deal of that money goes toward equipment. There's $10 million a year in the block and this year an additional $10.7 million. Plus, districts have reserves for learning resources, and I'm permitting them to use up to one-fifth of the funds in their learning resources reserve to acquire either computers or software.
However, if any given parent advisory committee, or DPAC, wishes to establish some kind of society or fundraising effort and use that money to buy a computer, or several computers, for a school, they have the right to do so.
K. Jones: I'm not disputing the right. I wonder if that is the best method for capital equipment items such as computers and books. Should they be having to turn to gambling and casinos as a means of raising the funds for these?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: This year alone we are, as I've said, providing over $20 million for school districts to acquire equipment -- a lot of it in computers -- in addition to drawing down their trust in this area. If the member is saying,
[ Page 13797 ]
"wouldn't it be nice if we had an additional $20,000 or something to buy six or eight computers for every school throughout the province," certainly it would be nice. But there is a limit to how much, in fact, we can expend.
We cannot drive relentlessly toward a balanced budget without putting some fairly tough constraints on spending. One of the constraints we have is the constraint on education spending. Even with the emphasis that this government places on education, we can afford only so much.
This year, what we have decided we can afford is a 3.3 percent lift and an additional $10.7 million into technology. We are producing a technology plan so we can have, we hope, some better coordination of purchases and get more for the dollar spent, but there is never enough money.
It is up to the individual PACs; if they wish to resort to gambling revenue or to any other kind of revenue, that is their business. I can supply, through the system -- through the taxpayer -- a certain number of computers. I will leave it to the districts to make the detail decisions. We can afford a certain amount. If the DPAC or the individual PAC is not satisfied with that amount and wish to go out and do additional work, that is their right.
K. Jones: I'm deeply concerned that our parents' advisory councils, or DPACs, are having to go out and raise funds for what would be considered to be fundamental requirements of our schools today -- and that they have to go to gambling as a vehicle to get those funds.
It's the wrong message that we're giving to our children through their parents -- that that's the only way you can get money to provide for their education needs. Also, when competitive gambling across the border then forces them to be concerned about even that source of funding, they are asking for an opportunity to become more involved in the gambling process so that there are sufficient funds for them as a charitable organization to come back and get the basic fundamental educational tools. It seems to be an escalating problem that is going in the wrong direction altogether. Is this the philosophy that you happen to believe in, hon. minister?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As I said earlier, the total amount going into all districts to supply all schools is $4 billion. Some parents, through their PACs, choose to raise additional money. They may raise it for field trips, for other kinds of trips, or for technology; they may raise it for whatever they wish. I would be greatly surprised if the total amount of money raised through all of the activity, gambling or not, constitutes even 1 percent of the amount spent on children. But if parents have the view that they need more computers in their school, and if that is a general view, then to supply even one additional computer for every ten children -- some 6,000 computers at roughly $2,500 per computer -- we would be looking at an additional expenditure of $15 million.
We cannot relentlessly drive toward a balanced budget and a debt management plan, and increase the level of services in this ministry and every other ministry. But beyond what we are able to supply, as much as it is, we are supplying more, in terms of the increase in the last four years, than any other jurisdiction in Canada. If there are parents who make an independent decision that that is not enough and wish to add to it, it's their choice.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister if he would consider bringing a couple of programs into the kindergarten and early elementary education system. I think it would be very useful for us to do a preventive attack on very serious social programs that are costing this province heavily not only in human factors, but also in actual budgetary costs to the government and to the people.
I'd like the minister to give his comments as to whether he would support putting forward a program that would teach, in the very early formative ages, dispute resolution so that there would be an opportunity for young people to learn how to deal constructively with problems that they come up with in their daily lives, rather getting into destructive forms of violence and all that.
[5:15]
Another topic that I think might work well in this area would be relationship responsibility: teaching the responsibility that goes with entering into a relationship, whether it be a friendship relationship, a sibling relationship, a parent-child or an adult-adult relationship. We might be able to reduce the amount of violence and the amount of family breakup in our society. We may make some progress toward stopping the trend that we are in right now, which is really destroying our society with so many people -- better than half our population these days -- in family breakup.
I think it's something that we all have to be concerned about. It's something that we're not getting a good handle on as far as treating the acute side of it -- that is, after it's already occurred. Could the minister give us his views on these two subjects?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Those issues are being dealt with now in the "Learning for Living" curriculum, which incorporates some of that. In the future, that is going to become part of personal planning at an early age, which then evolves into career and personal planning in the 8-to-12 range.
In addition to dispute resolution and work with respect to anti-racism and anti-sexism, there is also anger management. I have seen it in action when visiting schools. I have seen teachers bring the children into a circle and go into an issue of anger management when, perhaps, one of the children has had a particular difficulty at home and has brought that into the school. It's apparent, and the teacher sits the children down in a group and goes right into an anger management session.
I found them to be very instructive and very well carried out. I fully support them and the relationships, as well. Yes, it's there, as well as the consequences of relationships -- you know, good relationships and not-so-good relationships. If there is one area that perhaps we could even add a bit more and that I would be in favour of, it's parenting skills. There's only so much room in the day and only so much room within curriculum, but it is an area that I have an interest in.
K. Jones: My last question to the minister is in regard to this program. Right now the programming you have is at the older age -- in the secondary school. My emphasis would be to put it at the really formative age -- at kindergarten and the elementary schools -- where young people will really gain the most out of it. Would the minister be willing to consider those earlier ages?
[ Page 13798 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's in the early ages now, hon. member. Under the learning outcomes, even at the kindergarten and grade 1 levels, students identify ranges of feelings and emotions, demonstrate knowledge of appropriate vocabulary for expressing feelings and ranges of emotions, and demonstrate appreciation of the value of friendship all the way up through grades 4, 5 and 6. Up to grade 4, they explore appropriate strategies for sharing expressions, and feelings and emotions, describing themselves in positive terms, working on self-esteem -- elements of it. All of this is in the system now.
I've seen the anger management that I've mentioned at the elementary or primary level -- dispute resolution, as well. I had a student in the intermediate grades tell me of a personal experience she had, where the school brought classes together when there happened to be -- as the student herself described it -- a white-brown split. They had the brown students in the middle, surrounded by the whites, who were putting pressure on them and saying things. Then they had the white students in the centre, with the brown students in the ring. The student expressed to me that it was one of the finest experiences in her young life up to that point in time. She told me she saw people who hated each other at the outset become friends and remain friends through that process. So that, too, is some of the dispute resolution that we currently have.
A. Warnke: I also want to preface my remarks by saying that we're going to go well beyond 5:30. I know my colleague from Richmond Centre has comments that I feel, and I'm sure he feels, are absolutely necessary to have on record. Therefore I thought I'd forewarn the Chair about that.
I would like to pursue a matter that I'm sure the minister is highly aware of, and that is the controversy concerning Richmond schools. I think it is entirely appropriate to address the debate here, because as the minister knows and as we all know, of the three MLAs that represent Richmond.... What's reflected in the Richmond press indicates that the issue concerning the future of our children in Richmond is really getting out of hand. We're seeing a distortion of the issues. In fact, it has the prospect of increasing as more and more people get involved in the debate.
I know the minister has good intentions, and I know the three Richmond MLAs have good intentions for involving the public as much as possible. Indeed, the minister and ourselves have really encouraged this as much as possible because, after all, the future of our children is the parents' responsibility. We want to, obviously, get as many people involved as possible. It is a form of openness, of consultation with the public. But at the same time, we know that the issue, as presented in the press, is distracting us -- both the minister and ourselves -- from really pursuing a resolution of some outstanding issues.
I think the minister is quite aware of some of the comments I've made -- and I'll try to stick just to myself here, because I'm sure my colleague from Richmond Centre at a later time would want to make some comments, representing the interests of his constituency and community.
Hon. Chair, given the nature of the time and what we have to face, I would like to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:23 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]