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)
TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1995
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 20
[ Page 14085 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
E. Conroy: I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome to the House my great-aunt and -uncle, Fred and Phyllis Goldsbury from Victoria, who are constituents of our Forests minister, Andrew Petter. Would the House please make them welcome.
CALL FOR BALANCED-BUDGET LEGISLATION
G. Campbell: I have in my hand a report by Viewpoints Research Ltd. regarding a poll prepared February 16, 1995, for the Minister of Finance on debt and deficit. Unfortunately, the pattern of deception for this government continues. The purpose of this report is clearly to find ways to sell the NDP's massive debt to the people of British Columbia.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
G. Campbell: The minister doesn't understand....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! I would call the hon. Minister of Skills, Training and Labour to order.
G. Campbell: British Columbians don't need a sell job; they need the truth. The NDP is now borrowing $6.5 million a day and has increased public debt by more than 50 percent. British Columbians demand the truth; taxpayers deserve the truth. Can the Premier tell this House when he will bring forward truth-in-budgeting legislation so British Columbians get the truth from this government?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Opposition just doesn't get it. British Columbia has the highest credit rating, the highest environment rating and the greatest job creation record of any province in this country, and all he can do is moan and groan about the success we're having here in British Columbia in job creation. I would like to ask which schools the Leader of the Opposition would chop? Which health care proposals? Which roads? Which ferries would he chop in this hypocritical position the Liberals take on spending on people in British Columbia?
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: Unfortunately, the minister obviously kept the report from the Premier, because the only person who doesn't get it in this House is the government and the Premier himself.
As I'm sure you know, hon. Speaker, British Columbians have the lowest consumer confidence rating in the country and the highest welfare rates and welfare rolls. The fact of the matter is that this report is quite clear. British Columbians did not demand more borrowing, and they did not demand more public debt. What they wanted was less borrowing, less public debt and less taxes. When will the government bring in balanced-budget legislation, Mr. Premier, so taxpayers can be assured that this government will pay only what they can afford and live within the means of the taxpayers of British Columbia?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Right-wing parties in North America -- like the Reform Party and the party that the Leader of the Opposition leads -- have had balanced-budget legislation that they've broken for 40 years. Republicans and Democrats have broken their own balanced-budget legislation. What British Columbians want to see is what this government has done, which is eliminate the deficit, balance the budget and bring in a surplus, and have a debt management plan that's even tougher than the business community brought to us -- and still invest in people, still invest in infrastructure and still invest in our natural resources, so B.C. can stay number one in Canada.
F. Gingell: The Premier would know, if he took a basic accounting course -- which he probably had to take when he was a young law student -- that we don't have a balanced budget. It's not an adequate statement, and in the....
Interjections.
F. Gingell: You can all say what you like, but that is the truth.
VIEWPOINTS RESEARCH OPINION POLL
Viewpoints Research asked the people of British Columbia if they could be Finance minister for one day, what they would do to reduce waste. The answers were particularly revealing: (1) eliminate outrageous benefits to executives like Connie Munro, who got $88,000 for which she had to do nothing; (2) end massive pensions to B.C. Hydro executives like Marc Eliesen; (3) eliminate gold-plated MLA pensions. The people have spoken. When will the minister abolish outlandish executive benefits and MLA pensions in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. E. Cull: This year's budget has the lowest increase in spending in 25 years. If the member read that survey carefully, and if he did what I did, which was to go around the province and talk to people about what they wanted to see in the budget.... They told us to cut waste in government. They didn't tell us to cut teachers, police officers, nurses or schools; they told us to do what we did in this budget, which was to take $100 million out of government operating expenses, and cut it there.
If the member wants to refer to the budget speech, he knows that the MLA pension legislation is coming in soon.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
F. Gingell: I can assure you that I did manage, with difficulty, to stay awake during the budget speech -- but I did.
[ Page 14086 ]
This research, done by Viewpoints Research Ltd., formed the basis for the NDP's ill-fated town hall meeting. Given this fact, can the minister tell the people of British Columbia how much they paid for this research, and if she thinks they got their money's worth?
Hon. E. Cull: I'll get that information for the member.
VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS
R. Neufeld: My question is to the minister responsible for gaming. Yesterday, the minister did an about-face and declared himself a supporter of VLTs, despite opposition from local communities. Today, Fort St. John became the latest municipality to formally oppose the legalization of video lottery terminals. Will the minister now commit that, at the very least, no VLTs will be introduced in any community without a prior local referendum? If communities have the right to be part of the approval process for neighbourhood pubs, they should obviously have the same approval for VLTs in their community.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm actually shocked that, in this day and age, the hon. member would read the Vancouver Sun and believe every word of it. Don't make that mistake again, hon. member.
[2:15]
Let me set the record straight. Ever since I have been the minister responsible for gaming, I have very clearly articulated the need of the day, and that is that it is time for the charities that provide vital services to British Columbians to stand up and talk about the benefits of charitable gaming and the appropriate enhancements that need to be made in charitable gaming.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
R. Neufeld: Contrary to the Vancouver Sun, your articulation has not been very good lately, Mr. Minister.
GAMBLING INDUSTRY LOBBY
Casino companies have started a campaign among charities that benefit from gaming revenues to pressure for higher betting limits and longer gambling hours. The argument they've used is that we have to liberalize our gaming policies to compete with tribal casinos in Washington State. Does the minister have any evidence that B.C. charities have been the least bit adversely affected by on-reserve gambling in Washington?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have heard from many charities in British Columbia. There are 4,700 charities in British Columbia that benefit from charitable gaming, and I've heard from many of them. They have indicated that about $25 million a year from British Columbians would go into the pockets of the investors and owners of casinos in Washington State. We would be losing the money, and we would be stuck with problem gamblers in British Columbia. We have to find a solution to those very serious issues. Rather than taking potshots at the charities, I ask the opposition to address the issue of the vital services that are needed for British Columbians.
KIMBER CABS DECISION
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad to see the Minister of Transportation here today. I hope she will be able to answer these questions on behalf of the Minister of Energy.
On July 5, 1991, Kimber Cabs Ltd. applied to the Motor Carrier Commission for 18 licences to operate -- and I quote from the licence application -- "wheelchair-accessible taxis for disabled persons." However, on appeal to cabinet, the Minister of Energy gave them licences to operate wheelchair-accessible taxis for all passengers. On what grounds did the minister's colleague overrule the Motor Carrier Commission and grant licences to Kimber Cabs Ltd. that are even more valuable than the ones they originally applied for?
Hon. J. Pement: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue of Kimber Cabs Ltd., it is important that the opposition notice that the application itself was the issue the minister was dealing with. Under that application the minister recommended that the licence be granted because such a service would prove invaluable for disabled people. Allowing non-disabled people to use the service makes it more economically viable and ensures continued service for disabled passengers. That's how it was set up. I think it's fairly clear now that this issue was dealt with accordingly.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's not clear to people in Richmond that it was dealt with accordingly. They're the ones who are being pulled by one arm in one direction and one arm in the other direction to get in two different cab companies.
The day after Kimber Cabs got their 18 newly enriched taxi licences, courtesy of the Minister of Energy, several of the shareholders flipped their licences for an estimated profit of $700,000. Can the minister explain why she condones this type of blatant profiteering by a special friend of the NDP after receiving special approval from her NDP cabinet colleague?
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to this issue, I think it's really important the member recognize that the approval of the application was done specifically for the reasons that I just outlined. With regard to the issue of shares in a company, those shares are quite legitimate, no matter who is part of the company; through MCC regulations you cannot sell or transfer licences, but there is nothing wrong with having a share in a company. And I think that's the issue.
GAMBLING INDUSTRY LOBBY
D. Mitchell: A question to the Minister of Government Services, who claims that he was misquoted by the media yesterday about his meetings in Vancouver with proponents of the gambling industry. Apparently the minister told proponents of gambling that he wants to hear them speak up on behalf of the government's proposed expansion-of-gaming policy in the province of British Columbia. Apparently the minister is concerned because he and the government are hearing only from those who are opposed to the expansion of gaming, and who don't want to see video lottery terminals on every corner in their neighbourhood. Does the minister actually see his role as serving as a kind of coach for the gambling industry, encouraging them to speak out on behalf of the
[ Page 14087 ]
government's proposed gaming policy, and showing them how to lobby the government more effectively? Is that his role as minister responsible for gaming?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Far be it from me to coach the member as to what gaming regulators are all about. Gaming regulators are government agencies that regulate gaming across North America; they're not the promoters of gaming. That's the distinction that you need to understand, hon. member. I am, in a sense, the advocate of fair and open debate on this very important issue. So far we've heard from the casino owners. We've heard from citizens who are opposed to gaming. We have not heard fair, open and engaging debate from charities who provide vital services to British Columbia. And the opposition sits here.... The B.C. Lottery Corporation poured over $100 million last year into health services in British Columbia. That Liberal opposition wants to dismantle health care; they also want to dismantle charitable gaming in British Columbia.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS
D. Mitchell: The minister likes to speak about the benefits of gaming, but he doesn't like to speak about the costs of gaming. He refused to answer a question earlier in question period today, but I'd like to put it to him slightly differently: will the minister of high-tech gambling, who believes in the virtues of video lottery terminals, commit to the House today that the provincial government will not allow the installation of VLTs in any municipality in the province that is opposed to them?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The government announced its policy on these issues in October of 1994. I am dealing with that policy, and in the implementation of that policy it may or may not be refined. That's all you're going to hear from me today.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply A, for the purposes of debating the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services estimates; and in the main House, I call continued debate in committee on Bill 11.
G. Janssen: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Janssen: I ask the House to welcome a group of grade 11 students from Alberni District Secondary School, accompanied by a number of adults and their teacher, a frequent visitor to the chamber, Mr. Frank Holm.
GROWTH STRATEGIES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 11; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 4 (continued).
L. Fox: To follow up a little from what we were discussing prior to lunch, as I interpret the minister's answers to a number of questions, section 4 allows for a planning area to be designed which is smaller than a regional area as we know it today. It may in fact be part of two regional areas if that planning area was so designed by the two regional districts.
Yet if any expenditures or costs would be associated with any particular planning, it's my understanding from interpreting the answers before, that those expenditures would have to be approved by the whole regional district, even though it was only going to be levied on a portion of the two regional districts. Is that a correct analysis of what the minister said earlier?
Hon. D. Marzari: The overall budget of the regional district is a board prerogative, and it would have to be voted on by the board. But in areas where there is a subarea of the region that has designated itself as a planning entity for growth management purposes, that area would be able to develop its own budget for its planning process after being authorized by the board to do so. It would therefore be able to expend its planning dollars. Other areas inside that regional district would not be expected to share, because they would not be beneficiaries of the planning process. Although the overall budget is voted on once a year by the board in budgetary items, the expenses incurred for the growth management strategies can be decided among the participants themselves, whether they be inside one regional district or, as the member suggested, inside two or more regional districts.
L. Fox: That leads me to the question. In 4(a) and (b), it essentially limits the weighted vote opportunity with respect to this section. You have a situation in a regional district where the majority of people were to live, and normally the weighted vote gives them some autonomy over the expenditures they're responsible for, because they're also the major contributors in that regional district. It would seem to me that in a more rural regional district, this section would allow the rest of the regional district literally to stop that planning process from being approved at the funding stage, because the weighted vote would no longer apply. Is that not a correct assumption?
[2:30]
Hon. D. Marzari: The boundaries of the area that would be undergoing a regional growth strategy would be determined by the entire board, as in subsection (b) of the section we're dealing with here. That would be an unweighted vote, because it's not budgetary in nature. The entire board would engage in a dialogue about the growth management strategy service that a part of it was interested in engaging in. The budget for the planning purposes for the section of the region that was interested in engaging would be a weighted vote, obviously, by the participants who were engaged in the planning process. So what we're saying here is that the boundaries
[ Page 14088 ]
determined by the entire region would be done by an unweighted vote, and the budget for the planning purpose would be a weighted vote of the participants engaged around the table.
C. Serwa: Seeing that these specific areas of a regional district -- let's say G and H in the Central Okanagan Regional District -- decide to undergo a growth strategy management plan, why should the entire regional district, not being confronted with the financial responsibility, have to approve or disapprove? Why can't the approval be made by the specific areas? For example, if we have a specified area for improvements -- whether it's street lighting or sidewalks or something -- within a regional district, the entire regional district doesn't have to vote on that, only the areas affected.
Hon. D. Marzari: The essence here is to approach the region in question with its legal mandate and with its authority to make certain decisions rather than hiving off specified areas for specific purposes, as one might do with other services. The essence of the managed growth phenomenon, which this act represents.... The context here is to have as many people at the table as possible with as much information as possible, using the mandate legally granted to the entire region to engage in managed growth. But as we've said before, there are obviously some regions that have one component part of them which is undergoing heavy growth pressure. That one component part is the part that would be interested most in paying for and engaging in managed growth planning, but the whole region should be there at the table. Even though you and I may agree that some of the boundaries of regions aren't realistic anymore and perhaps should be reviewed, it's my intention with this bill to bring the entire region to the table for discussion of the nature of the program and the definition of boundaries for the planning area.
C. Serwa: I don't like to belabour this, but other than as a protocol type of exercise, it doesn't appear to me that the other areas within the regional district, for example, would have a significant amount of interest with what happens in one specific area. Obviously the minister is correct. If we're looking at a high-density type of situation with more impact, not only in areas of regional districts but in other regional districts, then obviously those affected have to be part and parcel of it. I just don't know what the benefit is or even what the interest to other area representatives would be, voting on a growth strategy in, for example, G and H in the Central Okanagan Regional District, when they're entirely separate and distant from it; they're separated by Okanagan Lake, for example. Other than a protocol benefit, I see no logical rationale for this type of requirement -- not that I think for an instant that they would stop the planning process, because they're not confronted with any financial liability here.
Hon. D. Marzari: I should repeat that basically what we have in front of us in Bill 11 is a bill which has been carefully considered by electoral area directors throughout the province as well as regional directors from incorporated areas. This is the format with which they can live comfortably. This is the format through which they can see a managed growth strategy unfolding in their regions, and it's therefore the format that I bring forward to you, without restructuring boundaries, without going into legal mandates of regional districts and -- perhaps I should put it this way -- without interfering with the ongoing nature and context of how they operate now. Basically we're giving them good choices, good information and the options of defining subareas, if that is in fact what they wish to do. Therefore they have that power to define how the plan ultimately looks down the road.
If the member's concerned about electoral areas which may not be at all involved or care to be involved, having one vote at the table which ultimately approves or disapproves of the final plan, I can only suggest to the member that that's a chance we should take together. This is the format that all the regional districts that will be engaging in regional growth planning have agreed upon and have decided that they can live with.
C. Serwa: The minister talks about restructuring or redefining boundaries. It's not clear to me which boundaries: whether they're area boundaries within a regional district or regional district boundaries. What boundaries was the minister talking about there in the restructuring process?
Hon. D. Marzari: This is not a restructuring of regional boundaries; I just want to make that perfectly clear. I don't want to send a message out there that we're even thinking about restructuring boundaries of regional districts. This involves a regional district, where half of the regional district is in status quo and half is in high growth around a heavily incorporated area such as the east side of Vancouver Island. It may be necessary for the regional district to decide where a boundary should go for a subarea for planning purposes only -- not legally defined but simply decided upon by mutual agreement of the entire regional district.
C. Tanner: I didn't catch the very first answer that the minister gave to the first question. Did she say that under this section we could have a circumstance where two different areas of two different regions could be adjoined, and we could have a strategy plan for those two?
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, that is basically what I said. It's confirmed not only in this section but also in section 942.13.
L. Fox: In asking this question I'm probably stretching this section a bit, but it's an appropriate time to ask it, given the discussion we've had over the course of the last few minutes. An assumption that I'm making -- and I'm hoping that the minister will confirm it, because assumptions are always dangerous when we're looking at legislation -- is that any expenditures that would be approved through the process that we've discussed would be subject to the same public process which is presently governing regional districts in how they might levy taxes -- for instance, in terms of referendums required after a certain stage to approve expenditures in a specified planning area. That would still, I hope, be something that this process was subject to.
Hon. D. Marzari: The process of budgeting is a normal process for the regional district and therefore it's a normal process for the participating area of the regional district. We're talking about how regular, normal processes of formulating budgets and budgeting, and public process insofar as it's involved with regional budgeting now, would be involved with a subarea of the regional planning process.
[ Page 14089 ]
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
C. Tanner: I'd like an explanation on why we need section 6. It appears to me that it's already taken care of in section 808, and I don't see what this amendment does.
Hon. D. Marzari: The current section basically doesn't deal with regional planning in any way, shape or form. The proposed subsection (3.1) under section 6 provides that where a regional growth strategy is being prepared for an area that's less than the entire regional district, only those areas to which the regional growth strategy is to apply will be apportioned the costs of providing the service. Currently, section 808 provides for the costs of providing general services to be proportioned among all municipalities and electoral areas. So this basically ratifies the financing of planning purposes for the preceding section, which we've just debated.
L. Fox: I'm not sure this is the appropriate section to raise this or not, but I'm always hesitant not to because I may find, once the section has gone, that I've passed the opportunity by. But as we see throughout this bill, there appear to be opportunities for municipalities and regional areas to opt into a section of the strategy. They may, indeed, not want to opt into the whole planning process; they may want to opt into a section of it. Does the minister...? Unless I've misunderstood, that's what I read into later sections of the bill. Does this particular section, then, allow municipalities to contribute only to the limits which they opt into? Or if they opt into portions of it, would they have to contribute the same as the rest, who may have opted into more of the strategies?
Hon. D. Marzari: The opting-out provisions are for later on in the process, when municipalities may agree to disagree. That is a legitimate stance inside the context of this bill. If there's disagreement that cannot be dealt with later on in the bill, there are ways in which we can deal with that -- in fact, respect that. But here, once you're in, you're in. There's not an opting-out provision once you're in, once it's signed and once it's agreed. A high-growth region has to sit down and take a close look at the issues having an impact on its quality of life. Hence they wouldn't be at the table in the first place.
So there's no piecemealing here of the intent. When municipalities or unincorporated areas come to the table, they're in. They're not in for just one section or one tiny issue, they're there for the duration; and they're there for the whole planning process that brings everyone to the table.
Section 6 approved.
The Chair: Let me say before I recognize anybody on section 7 that we will deal with this one on the basis of sections 942.1, 942.11, 942.12, etc. Is that agreeable?
On section 7, section 942.1.
C. Tanner: Just to make sure that I understand it, maybe we can get an explanation from the minister as to why we go from sections 942.1 and 942.11, and then seven pages later we come back to section 942.2. I'm not sure why we have that sort of numbering.
Hon. D. Marzari: Well, this is the way legal drafting apparently gets done. It clarifies itself if you add a zero after the units here, so section 942.10 is the appropriate way to read it, if you so desire. If I....
The Chair: I'm sure we're all happily edified.
C. Tanner: I'm afraid the minister can't get away with that. That isn't what it reads here. It says section 942.1 and then section 942.11, and then on page ten it says section 942.2.
Hon. D. Marzari: Well, it starts with .10, then it goes to .11 -- right? -- then to .12 and then to .13. Am I right? When it reaches .19, it goes to .20.
[2:45]
The Chair: Perhaps the clarification is that it is not section 942.1 but section 942.10. Is that the clarification we're looking for? West Vancouver-Garibaldi, in case I didn't do that well, perhaps the member....
D. Mitchell: In order to get through this section, we're going to have to accept your recommendation. I'm not sure if a small amendment might be in order or not, or whether or not this is accepted drafting for a bill. It is a little bit confusing, but I think we can follow it, given the minister's explanation. Whether or not this bill should be translated into an actual statute of our province with this numbering is really the question I think the member for Saanich North and the Islands is raising. Plain language and plain numbers, I think, is what we aspire to in terms of legislation -- clean drafting.
While we're on section 942.1.... This section deals with the definitions for the key portion of the act, the regional growth strategies. There are a number of definitions here. I'd just like to ask for some clarification on a couple of them. Could I ask the minister why there is no definition for a region? We're talking about regional growth strategies; we talk in here about regional matters, regional contexts, regional strategies, but nowhere is there a definition of what a region constitutes. Is that contemplated in another portion of the statute?
Hon. D. Marzari: Region doesn't really have a.... Regional district is defined in the bill, obviously, and defined for the purposes of the bill, but region is not defined out of a sense that it is self-defined either by the boundaries of the region or by the boundaries of the subregions or supraregions that decide that they are going to become planning units. For that purpose, there's no real sense in defining a region; it's just the common vernacular or the dictionary definition.
D. Mitchell: The first definition in this section refers to "affected local government," and it talks about a local government whose acceptance of a regional growth strategy is required under this act. Could the minister explain how a local government becomes an affected local government? It's not necessarily through their own volition, I would understand, but it would be through the process of this legislation. I'm wondering if a local government can become an affected local government under this act without desiring to be affected.
[ Page 14090 ]
Hon. D. Marzari: Once a regional district or a combination of regional districts is inside the rubric of the managed growth planning, which this bill encourages them to voluntarily engage in, they are affected. They are all the municipalities and, I suppose, the electoral areas that will be paying for, or engaging in, the planning process. Where a regional district is engaged in a managed growth planning process, and its adjacent regional districts aren't particularly engaged, there will still be some conferring to do with adjacent regional districts. Those regional districts, although they might not be affected financially, will still be consulted by the regional district that is, in fact, doing regional growth management. An affected local government means the local governments that will be signing off on the regional districts' regional growth strategy. That means each municipality covered by the regional growth strategy. It also means the adjoining regional districts that will be looking at and conferring with the plan.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's response to this. Just so I understand it before we move on.... An affected local government, according to what the minister has said, is any local government -- any regional district, let's say -- that is potentially affected by the development of a regional growth strategy. It might not be primarily the regional district involved in the growth strategy, but it might even be a regional district adjacent. Will a regional district that is not directly involved, then, with a regional growth strategy but is simply geographically adjacent to the region involved be designated an affected local government on its own, by its own application? Simply because it's contiguous to a regional district, will it automatically be declared an affected local government?
Hon. D. Marzari: It's interesting to have this debate, because it really clarifies thinking.
The important thing here is that an affected local government can be either inside the regional planning framework or adjacent to it. If it's adjacent and not paying for or engaging in regional planning or growth management, it is still entitled to be conferred with and to be consulted, and to receive the plan of the neighbour, read it over and make comments on that plan. It is affected whether or not that region is engaged in paying for that plan or in day-to-day discussions around the table.
Roads do run through regional districts in sequence, air pollution does seem to tumble over boundaries, and water quality does degrade along the whole shoreline -- in the Okanagan, for example. Consequently, even if the regional district isn't engaged in or paying the price of regional growth management, it still is an affected government. It is entitled to receive information, to receive copies of the final growth strategy and to comment on it.
L. Fox: Under definitions in this legislation, the minister has: " 'first nation' means an aboriginal governing body, however organized...." I would like the minister to give me some breakdown as to her understanding of "however organized."
Hon. D. Marzari: That seems to be standard phraseology in legislation. Basically, first nation is very broadly defined here to cover any aboriginal governing body. We're dealing with first nations in this legislation as they are dealt with in other legislation of government.
L. Fox: I just have to follow up on that. I understand that this government may have a pretty fair understanding of what it considers to be "however organized," but we're talking about drafting legislation which is going to be used by municipalities. What does this suggest to the minister? For instance, is it organized Metis and local bands? Indeed, if we have breakaway groups within those organizations that are quasi-organized.... Are municipalities compelled to recognize any sector because they break away over a disagreement on some values or something? I really believe that we have to understand "however organized" and what that means to municipalities.
Hon. D. Marzari: I believe it means just what we have here: governing bodies that are recognized both by the federal government, which has its definition, and by other provincial legislation. Bands and councils certainly come into that framework. The important thing here is that the definition be as broad as possible, because where there is land use planning going on, whether it be in the municipality or inside the first nation, those are the people we must bring together and who must be consulted. Wherever there is authority over or control of land, or wherever there is an interest in a service, there has to be a table for people to sit at where agreements can be reached, consensus can be developed and disagreements can be voiced. This goes on on a day-to-day basis between most municipalities and any bands and councils that are within or just outside their perimeter. This act basically builds on the strengths of what is happening now on a day-to-day basis, and encourages and invites and consults with first nations without imposing or constitutionally involving the province in something where it should not be. The important thing here is facilitation and invitation with first nations across this province who happen to be in high-growth areas.
L. Fox: As a mayor for eight years and as an individual who has been very involved in municipal politics, I recognize that indeed there is consultation happening all across the province between municipalities, regional districts, bands and organized Metis, but this leaves it open for more than that. The point I want to make is that many of these individuals also have due process available to them because they are eligible voters or constituents of that municipality or region. They already have that available to them. If you're recognizing the organized Metis and the organized bands, I don't have a problem. But the open end, "however organized," gives me some concern, because you could then have special interests among them that break away, and we would immediately have almost double representation -- one as a constituent and another as an independent group. I think that tips the scale, in terms of the democratic process. If the minister could give me some comfort in that concern, I'd really appreciate it.
Hon. D. Marzari: I am concerned that we are, in fact, dealing with governing bodies -- bodies that have some jurisdiction over land or services -- and groups that have something to come to the table for, in terms of proper land use or whatever planning is being done, that will engage the region. The definition in this legislation is in keeping with provincial legislation and certainly is, I am sure, perfectly in keeping with any federal legislation. As we develop regulations around this act, I would guarantee the member that the provisions relating to first nations would have to do with those bands, councils and groups of governing first nations bodies that have to do with services and land.
[ Page 14091 ]
The Chair: The member for Okanagan East...or West -- I'm sorry.
C. Serwa: I told you it's like boxing a compass, hon. Chair: west is best, and if you remember that, then we'll be all right.
On the same topic, because I'm also very concerned about the open-endedness of this -- and I think it could be cleaned up -- there are a variety of informally recognized aboriginal governing bodies. It may be the family unit, the clan, a band, a tribal council or maybe a breakaway group. Nevertheless, they have their sphere of influence. It does seem abundantly clear that the concern about this and the intent of the legislation is such that there should be some qualifier here and perhaps some amendment that would indicate the type of aboriginal governing body. It may be something like "provincially recognized," so that the intention of the minister is carried out in the interpretation. I'm really concerned when we get into the roadblock situation, where we have a group that is not even representative of the band or of the general interest of the band but that has its own specific axe to grind -- they're just like we are, just individual groups and peoples -- if we consider those individuals as a governing body -- and to a degree they are, within the broad parameters.... If the minister would accept a qualifier on that, like "provincially recognized," then I would have a great deal more comfort in that definition.
Hon. D. Marzari: I'm informed that under section 942.16, this has been written basically so that the province can assist in ensuring that appropriate first nations governing bodies are notified. So basically there is assurance farther on within the bill that gives you some guarantee that you'll be dealing with governing bodies that in fact are working with or are listed with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs of this government.
[3:00]
C. Serwa: Just once more then: why is it inappropriate, then, to modify the legislation to improve it just ever so slightly to make certain that it's clear in the definitions section of the bill, rather than referring to it later on? Because what the minister has said is not quite what I think the minister wants to be made clear in this definitions section. It would seem to me that it would establish the credibility and the legitimacy of the governing body. I think that's what has to be done, and it would be best to be done here for clarity in the definitions section rather than in some subsequent area that may indicate -- but not absolutely, as it would in the definitions section.
Hon. D. Marzari: I think it might be best to leave it open-ended in the definitions section and just make absolutely sure that we use the appropriate section further on to help define. It was very difficult, I felt, to start to use a definition which might constrain in the final analysis of an overall, larger picture. The important thing here is that we use the later section of the bill to help determine and define for the various regional districts who the first nations governing bodies are. They will certainly self-identify, I'm sure. So leave it flexible in definition, but then work with lists and Aboriginal Affairs down the road so that the right people will be at the table. That's the crucial thing.
L. Fox: I just have one further question. It relates to what we've been talking about in the last few minutes. Given that it's a general thrust of this legislation to encourage municipalities or this new growth strategies region to consult with the aboriginal people, would the minister not have thought it would have been useful to have a definition of "consult" in this section? Because we know the different views that are being given to British Columbians by different ministries of what consultation means. In fact, in many areas, there's some concern that the consultation process is literally almost a veto for the native, so I think it would have been very useful if the minister would have had a definition in this section as to what this bill means by consultation, because I read through the bill and wasn't really satisfied that I understood or could interpret a consistent process for consultation.
Hon. D. Marzari: The member's jumping ahead a bit to section 942.17, but basically we used the word "consult" after a lot of consideration was given to other verbs. The important thing here is to bring people to the table. It's very important that this act not interfere with constitutional mandates or rights of first nations. It is not the intention of this bill to start to draw boxes or create special categories. We will be assuming, and working with regional districts who are preparing plans with the assumption, that there will be consultation. Now, that consultation can look like notification to a first nation that a growth management plan has been initiated. It can be an invitation to first nations to participate in the development of a strategy; it can be an invitation to a first nation to identify its interests in the course of the development of a plan. It can be meetings with first nations with no particular agenda, or it can be an invitation to first nations to participate on an intergovernmental advisory committee, which will be, for example, a technical group of civil servants and Crown agency representatives. The important thing here is that there be the consultation. It is very important that consultation not be too closely defined, for fear that we will end up stymieing the process rather enabling it.
I am interested in seeing meetings, consultations and involvements. I want to see local governments entering into implementation agreements, wherever that's possible. I want to see the door open, so that local and regional governments can create a table to sit down for first nations. How that happens can be decided by the local government and the first nation. There is nothing prescribed in this bill as to how it should look, who makes the first phone call or who writes the first letter. It is not the intention of this bill to start framing something that will be used as a piece of litigation later on down the line. It is simply an attempt to make some rational decisions around land use or servicing.
C. Serwa: The consultation process realistically should be a two-way process; this is very necessary. When I'm listening to the minister speak, I hear the concerns of the aboriginal groups as to how they reflect on the regional district's growth strategy plan. In my particular constituency of Okanagan West, we have a great deal of development by the Westbank Indian band going on in both areas G and H on the west side of the lake, as well as significantly high-density development. There is absolutely no influence or control by the regional district. There is no consultative process, for example. There is no planning of services required, be they sewer or water, etc. The growth can transpire on band land, being federal private land. Does the minister see any opportunity under this growth strategies act to encourage consultation between the bands who are developing land to a very high density?
[ Page 14092 ]
Hon. D. Marzari: It is an opportunity, but it's not legislated. There are enhanced opportunities for local governments to sit down with local bands, largely because of interest about this act now, to bring regional planning into some kind of focus and perspective that will encourage a sharing of visions and goals for a region, a basin or a group of regions. I'm sure many of the first nations that aren't presently engaged in service agreements or in land use discussions might see that with the facilitation of the provincial government and with the implementation agreements that will be signed down the road in due course, there is every reason to plug into a strategic growth management initiative. In doing so, the federal dollars and provincial agency dollars can flow to a region to help rationalize its transportation and its water or air cleanup. This suits everybody. In engaging in the initial discussion and in sitting there and making sure the implementation agreements really do reflect the spirit of the plan in the last analysis, it's a win-win for everybody. So there is an opportunity here, but I don't say there is a necessity, a mandate or a legal requirement.
C. Serwa: I have one further question on this particular topic, because it is an important area. A significant portion of our regional district is band land, and when the minister talks about air quality.... Provincial statutes have no legitimacy on band land with respect to air quality. You don't require burning permits; you can do what you want. There's nothing that the province can do with respect to water quality on band land either.
The other area of concern here is the competing interests. Obviously, you're into the marketplace. You're competing for commercial and residential development.
You know, there's a conflict of interest here. If the band, for example, has the ability to perhaps stymie or negate a growth development strategy in an area of the regional district, and it's to their benefit to do so, and this legislation enables that but without some sort of balance.... I know it's outside the parameters of this legislation and perhaps of provincial authority. But if we want to get someplace by working together, we can't get there by loading it so that one side has all of the advantages and none of the responsibilities. That's my concern with this, unless it's applicable to all elements, not simply to regional districts -- with the exclusion of, for example, band land.
Hon. D. Marzari: This act doesn't force bands to do anything they don't want to do. This act, for the most part, doesn't force local governments to do things they don't want to do. Neither does this act basically give a veto power to an individual band or a first nations governing body. We're talking about basic consultation, invitation and tables where discussion can take place. We are not talking about veto power of any individual first nation over a regional district growth management initiative.
C. Tanner: It seems to me that we're anticipating a debate that we should be having under section 942.17. I think it's a very important part of this debate. Can I take it, then, that when we get to section 942.17 the members who have spoken will forgo that debate? Would that be a logical conclusion, Mr. Chairman?
I have another question on another part of the definitions, and that is the official community plan. Unless I've misread this, it seems to me we've got a very confusing set of facts. I mean, the numbering system in itself is quite brilliant, but the official community plan "includes (a) an official settlement plan under section 809(3) of this Act before that section was repealed by section 4 of the Municipal Amendment Act, 1985...." I look at section 809(3), and I don't see how it is pertinent to this particular definition, unless the minister's got some other explanation which has escaped me.
Hon. D. Marzari: It does look confusing, but official settlement plans still exist in some communities in our province. They were basically done away with, as I say, under the Municipal Act in 1985, but official settlement plans still exist, and this clause recognizes them. Where a community has, rather than an official community plan, an official settlement plan -- which was the old language under a slightly different mandate -- we are recognizing them here. In other words, we're not telling a community that still has an official settlement plan that it doesn't count and that it's not inside the planning framework.
C. Tanner: If I was a green lawyer coming out of law school and was asked by a municipality to check on this legislation, not only would I be dealing with this enormity -- this 600 pages of backwards-and-forwards reference -- but now I'm going to deal with this, an act that's repealed. Is the minister saying that we're dealing with an act that's repealed?
Hon. D. Marzari: It's simply a carryover from an old type, an old label -- a language around settlement planning. We are now recognizing settlement plans as official community plans, which is simply to notify communities that still operate under the old rules that they are, in fact, recognized by this provincial government as having a community plan -- which, I should also remind the member, is updated every five years; I'm assuming that we will be seeing fewer and fewer. How many settlement plans do we have now -- just a few in the province? Within the next few years most plans, if not all, will be official community plans.
[3:15]
C. Tanner: I'm sorry to pursue this, but I don't understand how you can have section 809(3) when there's no section 809(3) here.
Hon. D. Marzari: I am informed that this clause is legally necessary to recognize those communities that still have official settlement plans, even though official settlement plans were repealed by section 4 of the act in 1985.
C. Tanner: They don't make it easy, do they?
I'd like to introduce an amendment to section 942.1, which adds the following:
"'affected body' means any person referred to in section 942.3, other than a local government;
'provincial body' means any provincial
(a) Crown corporation,
(b) Crown commission,
(c) Crown agency, and
(d) ministry that is included in a consultation plan under section 942.17(2)(e)."
It's submitted under my name, and I believe you've got it, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: We do have the amendment. We have reviewed it; it certainly seems to be in order. We'll allow the minister an opportunity to respond.
[ Page 14093 ]
On the amendment.
Hon. D. Marzari: Affected local government is basically what we're dealing with here in this act. I don't see any necessity, really, to further define what an affected local government is, because they are, in fact, the primary movers here. They are the autonomous units of local government that are driving this legislation, and they have helped write this legislation. I think that if the member is interested in pulling Crown agencies into any discussion here about what an affected local government is, he should be reminded that under sections 942.16(4) and 942.29, which define the mandate and the context of the intergovernmental advisory committee, he will find that all the Crown agencies, federal and provincial, and special agencies -- even of local government, improvement districts or whatever -- are at the table during the implementation stage. You will find many of them at a technical table from the very beginning of the planning process.
One of the major features of this bill is that it pulls Crown agencies, provincial ministries and federal ministries to the table at the outset of the planning process, and it certainly keeps them there after the plan is approved for implementation purposes. Since that is one of the basic tenets of this bill, and one of the basic promises this bill is offering to communities, you can be well assured that Crown agencies and ministries are well taken care of in the content of the bill in our later discussions. The vehicle for implementation is there, but it's important to separate what they do and what their context is from the local governments themselves. The affected local governments are basically the agencies -- as I say, the autonomous local government units that drive the bill.
C. Tanner: I and my caucus are coming from a different standpoint than....
Interjection.
C. Tanner: When they get here.
We are coming from a different standpoint than the minister is, and we're saying that we want some compulsion on the part of the provincial departments of the government to be compelled to do the same things that you're asking everybody else to do. I can give you a classic case in my constituency of a circumstance where a reserve has put in a sewer system which has to cross some federal land to get to a municipal sewer system, and it's not happening for the simple reason that the three authorities involved aren't sitting down together and discussing it. As a consequence, sewage is being trucked from reserve lands every single day, at an enormous cost to the taxpayers of Canada. Because the sewer lines are already in there, at the turn of a tap we could have a great saving and a large benefit, not only to the community but also to the reserve.
This is exactly what's happening, and what's going to make it worse is that we're not only dealing with a federal authority, we'll shortly be dealing with a municipal airport authority, which is another separate body not mentioned in this legislation at all. That's why we feel that you need this amendment to bring all those various people to the table with some compulsion. As we read it, it's not defined in your definitions, and we think it's absolutely vital that you put this amendment through.
Hon. D. Marzari: It doesn't make sense to include amendments when we have the provisions in section 942.17 for the very agencies that the member is concerned about:
"(1) During the development of a regional growth strategy,
(a) the proposing board must provide opportunity for consultation with persons, organizations and authorities who the board considers will be affected by the regional growth strategy, and
(b) the board and the affected local governments must make all reasonable efforts to reach agreement on a proposed regional growth strategy."
So you have your agencies there, and in section 942.17 once again, in subsection (2):
"...the board must adopt a consultation plan that, in the opinion of the board, provides opportunities for...ongoing consultation with...(e) the Provincial and federal governments and their agencies."
It's very clearly spelled out later in the bill as to what these agencies are and what their roles are in the context of the regional growth plan.
L. Fox: I believe that the Liberal critic is trying to bring forward a process that provides some protocols for ministries and the responsible agencies -- something that I am very much concerned with and am going to address in later sections of this legislation. Without those protocols being in place -- with the Highways ministry, the Ministry of Environment and other ministries which will be front and centre in many of the issues that will be addressed through this legislation -- it's going to be very frustrating indeed for this planning process to identify some initiatives -- for instance, the sewage problem in the CVRD, and there not being a process to deliver any change because there are no protocols in place with respective government ministries to help resolve that concern. That may be the reason the member chose to bring this amendment forward.
I really believe that if the minister doesn't think it necessary to reflect this kind of definition, perhaps she should put all of our minds at ease and tell us that those protocols are presently being discussed and will be in place prior to any implementation of these strategy initiatives.
Hon. D. Marzari: The whole bill, as a matter of fact, is about protocol. The whole bill is a process. It's a process which basically encourages regions that are suffering the consequences of unplanned growth.... It creates a process for them to be able to come together and agree on what their issues are and what they can do to solve them; who disagrees in the mix; who can handle the growth and who can't handle the growth; what the neighbours think about that growth; where the roads should ultimately go, where they should connect and in whose neighbourhood that should happen.
All this is a process that takes us towards issue solution. A big part of that solution is how the provincial government plugs in. We have the provincial government with its resources and its facilitation plugging in early in the process with every ministry that a region defines as being important. We have the province plugging in with a facilitator to try to ensure that everybody's talking to each other and that the provincial government is hearing the voice of the community.
Then, in the last analysis, one of the major and most substantive pieces of this bill -- without which nobody would have bothered coming to a year and a half worth of consultations -- is the part where there are implementation agree-
[ Page 14094 ]
ments signed between regional districts and the provincial government. I am awfully sorry to Hansard up there for bashing away at the microphone.
The protocols will be found in the implementation agreements, and those implementation agreements will take the form of actual contracts, memos of understanding, agreements on provincial expenditure, agreements with Crown agencies or corporations -- similar perhaps to the Columbia Basin agreement that was just signed and similar to other agreements that are signed between the provincial government and regions, such as the Peace River regional agreement that was reached a few months ago.
These implementation agreements are basically the bread and butter of what this legislation is about, and they are very firmly entrenched in the pages of Bill 11. Without these agreements firmly entrenched, this bill would be just pieces of paper that recommend good planning. Implementation agreements are absolutely crucial to the appropriate completion of community problem-solving and regional growth patterns, which cost too much for the local taxpayer, both in money and in quality of life, if they're unplanned.
I think the members are trying to say that this bill isn't worth the paper it's written on if it doesn't include Crown corporations, Crown agencies, Crown commissions and provincial ministries at the beginning. I think the amendment that's being put forward suggests that.
The amendment is also suggesting that down the road, the provincial government itself should be signing off on a regional growth strategy for any given region. This has been discussed, believe me; I should tell the member that. This has been discussed at great length with the regions and the municipalities of this province. I think there's a pretty strong notion that if the provincial government puts itself into the position of actually signing off and becoming a responsible party for a regional growth strategy, very quickly regional growth strategies would become the property of the provincial government. That is not the intent. Regional growth strategies, and the solutions that regions must come up with to define and then solve the problems, must be the property of local government, because it is local government and regional government that drives this piece of legislation. They are the governments which sat down and helped mould this legislation. In a sign-off by provincial government inside this process, we would turn this legislation into the property of this level of government, which is not where the issues or the solutions must be vested.
What we have to look toward down the road are action performance contracts, properly and completely enunciated and articulated in the provisions of this bill as we move through it. But defining provincial bodies that must be involved and then insisting that the province sign off on a regional growth strategy is to remove ownership of the planning process itself and the implementation of the process. That is the last thing any member of this House wants. Every member of this House and every member of local government that I've conferred with is interested in the maintenance of local autonomy as much as possible and in community problem-solving, using good, solid, negotiated contracts with other levels of government, Crown agencies and provincial ministries. I rest my case on the amendment to the bill -- and on the next amendment, which I know will be coming along -- on the basis of local autonomy.
[3:30]
L. Fox: I just want to follow up very quickly, because I know that the mover of the amendment would like to speak. First, I want to point out that I didn't speak in favour of the amendment. I certainly am a great advocate of local autonomy, but with local autonomy also comes responsibility; hence the need for protocols. I recognize, hon. Chair, that this is a pretty far-reaching debate for this particular section of the bill, but I think it's very worthwhile, and I sure am thankful that the minister is prepared to entertain it.
We don't want a regional strategy plan individual property or air quality that impacts on industrial development or any of these other areas without having the ability to follow through and deal with the compensation issues that flow out of that, especially in terms of property. The minister will be well aware of our debates a year ago. I believe that was on Bill 25. In some components of this bill I read opportunities to take the pressure away from municipalities needing to deal with the compensation factor, and later on in the bill we'll get into that to a greater degree.
In real fact, if this system is going to work so that there is a true partnership with business, industries, individuals, municipalities, regional districts, the provincial government and, in some cases, the federal government, then there have to be protocols developed in order to follow through and meet the targets and objectives of the planning process. That was my point, and I wanted to reiterate it once again; it's very important.
I would only mention that if the member for Saanich North and the Islands is attempting to do this through this amendment, perhaps it could be redrafted in a way that signifies that correctly. Knowing that member, I don't believe he wants to put more power in the hands of the provincial government; indeed, I think he wants to obligate the provincial government to be an equal partner in this process and be prepared to meet the obligations that they will have flowing out of this process.
Hon. D. Marzari: I just want to tell the member categorically that regional growth strategies are general policies; they are not land use plans. They do not replace the individual municipality's ability to zone its land use. Okay?
The regional district is not engaged in microzoning of land here, and therefore we're not talking about strategies that will be in general conflict with the official community plans. We're talking about regional growth strategies that will be compatible with official community plans. Official community plans might be adjusted in accordance with the regional growth strategy. Therefore our strong opinion is that the regional growth strategies are not going to result in reduced land values or a necessity for compensation in any way, shape or form.
If an OCP gets amended by a municipality to bring it into conformity, into consistency, with a regional growth strategy, then we're not changing the goalposts there. The rules remain the same as they are now for OCPs and for changes that are made to municipal land use. Municipalities are in the same position and will be in the same position as they basically are now. We may not agree with what those goalposts might be in terms of long-range planning, but the fact is that this bill does nothing to change those goalposts or any rules around compensation.
[ Page 14095 ]
C. Tanner: Referring to what the minister said and to the previous speaker from Prince George-Omineca.... He is partly right about what our intentions are.
But we have another very strong fear in this whole suggested package of legislation. That's the fear that we've probably all experienced in our municipal capacities, which is that the provincial government didn't come through particularly -- not the municipal government, not the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, but the other provincial ministries. Highways comes to mind immediately and Environment comes to mind. For example, with zoning in the Islands Trust, the final signing-off authority is the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. They're signing off, would you believe, for Health; they're signing off for Environment; they're signing off for municipal governments; they're signing off for everybody. That's the final authority. The heartache and troubles they go through on the Gulf Islands to get any sort of plan through because one ministry doesn't cooperate with the other.... We have that problem within our own provincial government. What we're attempting to do is get a commitment from the government for the various ministries besides the lead authority in this case -- your ministry, Madam Minister.
If that's a problem in our own provincial government -- which we live with every day, and we can pick up the phone and talk -- imagine the problems we foresee with Crown corporations, which, by their very nature, boast of their independence and don't frequently even report to their ministers. We don't get their annual reports, because they are so independent. Then, on top of that, think of the federal government, which thumbs its nose at anybody beneath them, in their view. They will pay no attention to provincial ministers, because they think they've got -- well, they have -- the authority to pay no attention.
What we're attempting to do is to get the provincial ministries in line with the minister's plan, to get a commitment from Crown agencies that they also will follow the minister's plan -- because I don't see the commitment here in the legislation -- and at the same time send a warning signal to those federal departments which fall within the jurisdiction of the province that we can expect from them the very cooperation which we expect from our own ministries.
Hon. D. Marzari: It's obvious that no piece of provincial legislation is going to be able to mandate the federal government to sit down at the table. My knowledge of systems is that it's best to work with them when you've got a bill like this that starts to outline specifically how people must sit down and talk to each other -- or how they should sit down and talk to each other. As I said before, this bill wouldn't even be in the House if local governments didn't feel that it provided them with the contract with the provincial government that they need in order to deal with their problems.
This bill is basically in itself a commitment of the provincial government to do the problem-solving that you're talking about -- to solve the problems of water and air pollution, transportation gridlock and all those ails that lamentably affect the larger urban areas in our province. This is the contract, and as we sit down with each individual regional district or group of regional districts, the contracts that are signed between the regional districts and the provincial government will be the contracts that will implement the agreements, that will implement the plan. That is the nature, that is the substance, of what this bill is all about.
The intergovernmental advisory committees and the implementation agreements which are structured later in the bill provide this province's guarantee that the issues of urban sprawl and urban growth can be properly dealt with. They cannot be dealt with by fiat; they must be dealt with by the proper process -- sitting down, creating the tables, creating the agreement mechanisms, creating the dispute resolution mechanisms that will take us down the road to good contracts between the provincial government and local communities. Will this bill guarantee that? Will this bill actually say: "Thou shalt.... The provincial government shall guarantee certain transportation corridors 30 years down the road"? It cannot.
Bringing in the whole prospect of provincial sign-off on a regional strategy would kill it. As I said, it would remove the ownership of the strategy to the provincial government, and the regional government would find itself constantly lobbying provincial government as senior partner. This bill tries to create equal partners around a table, and pushes the concept of equal partnership to its logical conclusion, which means good contracts between negotiating parties. That is what the bill is about. I say -- and I'll say it again -- the intergovernmental advisory group and the implementation agreement section in effect give the member what he's looking for here in a way which doesn't infringe on the autonomy of the local governments that drove this bill in the first place.
The Chair: I want to remind members that we are discussing the amendment. Any more discussion of the amendment?
C. Tanner: I can't help using that expression: "The path to hell is paved with good intentions." I suspect that's what we have here. I say that with the full knowledge that I know how much work members of the minister's ministry put into it. I appreciate what they've done, but I don't think....
My short experience in this House and my experience with local government has been that while we can get all sorts of cooperation from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, which deals with municipalities, we can't get cooperation from Highways, which has its own agenda. The Highways ministry will do what it likes, bar none. In fact, if you have one like we had a few years ago in the previous government -- a good few years ago -- which rode roughshod over the whole province at high speeds and did exactly what he wanted to do.... As a consequence, municipalities were chopped to pieces. They had no recourse, except for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. But in that particular circumstance, the Minister of Highways was the impresario of development, and he got away with it all over the province.
The same thing can happen again in the Ministry of Environment. In fact, you might even say there is a comparison between the two now, because the Ministry of Environment seems to be the provincial ministry that has the clout. In my constituency, when anything happens -- and you have to apply to Nanaimo to get anything done -- you wait months before you get a reply from the Ministry of Environment, because they have their particular agenda which has nothing to do with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I don't think those guarantees are in this legislation.
I respect the minister for what she's attempting to do; I respect her staff for what they've attempted to do and for the efforts they've put into it. But the fact of the matter is that she
[ Page 14096 ]
doesn't have the clout to carry it in cabinet if the members of the other ministries don't want to do it. I'm trying to put it in here so that you have got the clout.
Hon. D. Marzari: I'll just wrap up the debate on the amendment by saying that the internal coordination between ministries has begun already, in preparation for the bill and for the unfolding of regional growth management. The Ministry of Highways has been more than cooperative, and in fact subdivision approvals are in the process of being devolved to regional districts that are prepared to accept subdivision approvals. This is a major step forward, a major step in the right direction, and it's just one of hundreds of initiatives that must be taken by the provincial government in order to pull themselves into line with regional needs and with growth management requirements.
This bill in itself, as I said, pulls all those agencies to the table; it demands that those agencies be pulled to the table. If the agencies are not at the table, there can be no growth strategy. If there is no growth strategy, there is not a function here; there is not a bill. These agencies will be at the table, and they are required to be at the table. So the bill gives the member all the assurances that he needs. It does not provide him with gold-plated guarantees that everything will run according to plan or according to Hoyle. But it is the process that sets us off in this province in the right direction; it is the process of which local and provincial government have been able to say: "Yes, this is our first step. This is the step that we can take which will take us down the road to doing good contracts with each other." It's a planning bill in the best sense of the word.
[3:45]
C. Serwa: I think the amendment was perhaps well intentioned, but appears to be born in confusion and debated in confusion. I certainly can't support the amendment. Where we have the official opposition critic indicating that Crown corporations should be consulted, and we have the Leader of the Official Opposition saying all Crown corporations should be privatized.... Are we going to consult all corporations? It doesn't make any rational sense at all, and I think the last bit of debate on this amendment hasn't made any more sense than the official opposition has been making.
Interjections.
The Chair: On the amendment, member, may I advise the committee that we have indeed canvassed this amendment at some length now, and so I'm going to ask people to please focus their remarks rather considerably.
C. Tanner: I'm sorry -- because of the exuberance of the moment, I didn't hear what you were saying, Mr. Chairman. Could you just repeat it again for me, please?
The Chair: I simply made the point, member, that we have indeed canvassed this amendment at some length, and it would seem to me that our remarks, if there are any further required, ought to be very focussed indeed.
Shall the amendment pass?
C. Tanner: I wonder whether the minister and the Chairman, as a special consideration for the effort that I put into this, would stand this down for a while and we can go on to the next one. I have another amendment coming up.
The Chair: I don't see agreement to that, member; therefore I have to ask the question on the amendment. Shall the amendment pass?
Amendment negatived.
D. Mitchell: Just one question on the definitions section before we move on, hopefully. The section provides the definition of a facilitator. I know we're going to deal with that in a subsequent section of the bill, but perhaps this might be an efficient way to ask this question. The facilitators that are contemplated here under this definitions section, I understand, would be appointed by the minister to assist regional governments with developing a process for regional growth strategies. Who would these facilitators be? Could the minister inform the committee who she or the ministry might have in mind for these facilitators who might be appointed? Would they be public servants of the province of British Columbia? Would they be MLAs for the areas affected, which might be an interesting use of members of the House? I'm not sure if that's being contemplated or not.
I understand that if local governments get together to form a regional growth strategy, they could appoint their own facilitator, I would imagine. But this would be in the event that the minister might feel that a facilitator is important and would be necessary to help the process. The bill clearly doesn't say that the minister should or "shall" appoint a facilitator, but the minister "may" appoint a facilitator, so this is an optional process. I'm wondering if the minister can give us an idea of what category of professionals in the province of British Columbia might be contemplated to fill this important role of facilitator.
Hon. D. Marzari: There's no individual profession which we're referring to here; I imagine the job descriptions get written. But obviously we're looking for people with certain judgment, with planning skills, with organizational skills, and with the skill of being able to pull tables together tto ensure that there's a healthy debate and discussion of issues, problems and solutions for regional districts. Obviously, a facilitator must be able to work well with the regions, and I can guarantee that the minister will not be making decisions around who the individual facilitators are without a full consultation with the regional districts involved. I would add that the facilitator must and should be compatible with, and have a reasonable working knowledge of and reasonable amicable relations with, the regional district that's engaged in that land use plan. It's a very special role which must be played, and it's also very important that the minister appoint the facilitator and pay for the facilitator.
D. Mitchell: Just to establish the last point the minister made -- that the minister should pay for the facilitator, as well -- I think that's an important point. If a facilitator is appointed by the minister to assist local governments with the process of developing a regional growth strategy, it is at the minister's
[ Page 14097 ]
discretion. Presumably it might happen if one or other of the local governing bodies affected prevail upon the minister and ask for some assistance and for a facilitator. The minister said that the ministry or the provincial government would pay for the facilitator. Can the minister tell us what is contemplated in terms of remuneration for a facilitator who might be appointed? Has there been any thought given to that?
If the individual was a public servant, presumably there would not be any extra budget required for that. But if the facilitator was an independent professional, a planner practising in the province, presumably there would be some remuneration. If putting together a growth strategy for a complex region was involved, the process could be a lengthy one -- it could go on for some time. So what kind of compensation would the minister have in mind?
Hon. D. Marzari: At the present time, I don't have a salary range in mind, though I'm also thinking about using existing staff to do some of the initial work here. If there's going to be contracting to be done, we'll discuss that down the road when the time comes closer for facilitators to be engaged or hired or sent to the regions. But as of this moment, there's no discussion or thinking through of what the pay scale or what the contract level might look like.
D. Mitchell: Just one final question, then, on this definition of facilitator. I think the minister inferred this in her first answer, but I'd like to just be clear on who the facilitator reports to. If the minister appointed the facilitator to assist with the local governing processes in developing a regional growth strategy, that facilitator would be working, by definition, very, very closely with the local government bodies -- whether they be regional districts, municipalities or what have you. In order to have the trust and confidence of those bodies to function as a facilitator in that kind of environment, would the facilitator be reporting to those bodies? Or would the facilitator be reporting to, and therefore be taking direction directly from, the minister?
The reason I ask this question is that it's an important one relating to local government autonomy and to the independence of this process. The minister made the statement earlier in this debate, in this committee today, that this whole process of regional growth strategies has to come from the communities, from the local government bodies, not from the provincial government, and that this facilitator might play an extremely important part in the process of putting together a regional strategy. Yet if the facilitator is reporting to the minister, and presumably therefore being paid by the minister and taking direction from the minister, it certainly has implications for the autonomy that she suggested earlier; in fact, it suggests that that autonomy might not be there.
Hon. D. Marzari: The facilitator is appropriately vested in the ministry and reports through the ministry, and that is where the role should be played. Obviously, the facilitator should also have good working relationships with the regional districts. The facilitator has no overt power except to facilitate, whether that facilitation be in the pulling together of the regional growth strategy in the beginning of the exercise, or whether it be in facilitating dispute resolution down the road, when there are local governments in conflict over particular provisions of the growth strategy act. It's appropriate that the facilitator have one accountability -- that is, back to the ministry, because it's also the role of the ministry and the role of a provincial government to coordinate within itself to ensure that it is in fact pulling together the appropriate complex of interministerial functions to be able to answer the needs of the local communities.
So the facilitator does not have dual accountability; that is not an appropriate role to put anybody in -- you get shot in the front and stabbed in the back. I've discovered that anybody who is labelled "coordinator" ends up burning out very early on in a process. Single accountability, obviously with the local governments.... The regional government has every opportunity throughout the planning process to talk to the minister about the nature of the facilitation, and a facilitator is not a facilitator unless they are doing what they are hired to do. So, single accountability, but a good working relationship with any regional district that's doing its plan.
L. Reid: I beg leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Reid: It's my pleasure to welcome to the galleries this afternoon 27 grade 7 students from Garden City Elementary School in my riding. They are accompanied by Mrs. D. Gilbert, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
C. Tanner: I have one final question. " 'Official community plan'...(b) Part 1 of a rural land use bylaw..." -- could the minister tell us what that pertains to? We've already had one description which has been repealed. I was wondering whether this is still in action or if that's been repealed too.
Hon. D. Marzari: Apparently "Part 1 of a rural land use bylaw" is equivalent to an official community plan, obviously coming out of a rural area or an electoral district.
Section 7, section 942.1 approved.
On section 7, section 942.11.
C. Tanner: Madam Minister, we agreed earlier on to keep to the.... Mr. Chairman, I think you agreed that we would talk about the preamble and bring it in at the end, and it seems to me that we have another preamble here. I don't see why we need this; it seems repetitious to me. Section 942.11 reads fine as far as subsection (2)(a) down to (n) is concerned, without having this preamble. If we do need it here.... Why do we need it in the first place?
Hon. D. Marzari: This is not a preamble; this is basically a purpose of regional growth strategy. Each of these sub sections of this purpose section has been carefully thought through with local government around the province. Mind you, many of the provisions in this statement of goals -- preventing urban sprawl and creating settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles, the efficient movement of people while making effective use of transportation corridors.... Goals like these don't particularly pertain to low-growth areas or areas which are not suffering the effects of unplanned growth. But when we carried these goals and statements of goals around the province for a year and a half and moulded them and changed them in accordance with
[ Page 14098 ]
what local governments said were the principles of planning and the principles that they wanted to see established in this act, these are the ones we came up with. Even the low-growth areas basically conferred and agreed, and consented that these goals would be a statement of what quality of life should be about, and what they would like to plan around were they to engage in a managed growth plan for their region. Far from being a preamble, this is basically a statement of goals.
Mind you, it must also be stated that these goals are not mandatory. They are not carved in stone on the minds and the tablets of every regional district. Rather, we must call them something like guidelines and goals to assist regional districts to think through their own goals and their own particular problems, and to help them define what their top priorities are for intervention in their planning processes. When we read these goals from section 942.11(2)(a) to (n), we have to be mindful of the fact that they are not, as I say, carved in stone but are in fact a reflection of communities throughout British Columbia and their interest in the development of quality-of-life benchmarks for the province.
[4:00]
C. Tanner: I can't help but note that the goals in section 942.11(2)(a) to (n) nicely fit the page. I sort of wonder, because it didn't go on to the next page, whether what motivated the minister in the consultation process was that or the fact that they ran out of ideas. There's one very obvious one missing. There should be a section 942.11(2)(o) added on the end, and it should say something like: "This secures the acceptance of first nation lands to growth strategy." There's a very notable absence of that goal.
I know we've had this discussion, and we're probably going to have it again, although it's been fairly extensive at section 942.15. But the fact of the matter is that it isn't a goal, and it should be a goal. It's absolutely essential. In most municipalities, to my knowledge, they've got problems with reserve lands. Why isn't there something down here, at least as a goal, that it's what the minister and her bureaucrats want to obtain?
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
L. Fox: Contrary to the official opposition critic, I strongly believe that this is the meat of the whole program in this section and, I think, deserves a lot of debate around the principles of this bill and of each section.
The first observation that I had when I read through this.... I was quite concerned, because nowhere else in the bill can I find it addressed. With the growing need that we have in the fast-growing areas of this province for identification of, for instance, school sites, we see nothing in this legislation that would allow this strategy to work collectively with school boards in identifying educational sites for schools. That's number one.
Along with that same frame of mind, I was quite amazed in the Education estimates when I asked the minister whether he'd had any dialogue with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The problem of acquiring sites is a very real problem in school districts in British Columbia, particularly in the Surreys, Richmonds and Vancouvers, where we have growing numbers of children. Yet that particular problem, which is a very real one, is not identified in this section. Could the minister give the committee some rationale as to why it should not be included in the growth strategy plan?
Hon. D. Marzari: Well, basically, the goal of limiting "urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be provided in a timely...manner" certainly must refer to the social infrastructure goals that you've referred to here.
Throughout the course of the bill, in terms of who the local governments must confer with, school districts are outlined as one of the agencies that must be conferred with or consulted with. On the next page of the bill, in the next section, we're talking about regional matters and regional agencies that must be pulled in, or we're talking about services which must be allowed for and planned for by regional districts.
The exclusion of education was not intentional, but I do believe it's basically contained within the very first goal -- the business of avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that we've got public facilities and services, land and other resources adding to the quality of life in a community, and not detracting from it.
L. Fox: I guess my only observation would be about that answer is that we do make some rather "motherhood" statements in this particular section. It would seem to me that education should qualify, if it were truly of value to this government, in that we could have very easily identified that as one of the main objectives. Because there truly is a kind of real regional problem with respect to growth, so I would like the minister to put something more definite on the record that indeed encouragement will be given to these new strategies to organize, promote and orchestrate cooperation between school districts and this new planning process to deal with the specific issues around acquisition of school sites and planning for acquisition of those school sites. I think it really deserves a statement from the minister to identify that as something we should be addressing through this process.
Hon. D. Marzari: I understand the member's concern. Obviously, I felt that the opening statement and the goals covered healthy communities and those basic pieces of infrastructure -- from schools to day care centres to hospitals to courthouses -- that make up the basic rubric of what a community's all about. And certainly I can guarantee that this government is working toward trying to create an appropriate planning atmosphere for the selection of school sites. So I will just take that under advisement and guarantee the member that in fact school sites are very much a part of the agenda of this government and of the Ministry of Education, and leave it at that. But basically the goals here outlined are the goals that have come to us through an 18-month consultation process with local government itself. And school boards are very much incorporated into the consultative process.
C. Serwa: Referring to section 942.11(a) under "avoiding urban sprawl," I want to talk briefly about that because this has a significant role to play in urban sprawl and what has occurred in the province. I'm looking at the government that is probably responsible for the greatest theft imposed upon a free people by a duly elected government. I'm talking about the agricultural land reserve, which you're the authors of,
[ Page 14099 ]
where a small percentage of the people who happen to own that land are paying the price for the green space that you happen to enjoy.
But that's not the issue. Under this section.... With respect to urban sprawl, one of the realities that occurs in my constituency is the fact that the agricultural land reserve has prevented good, sound urban planning. We have a very large community -- Kelowna was one of the places which underwent, through your government, a forced amalgamation process. So the city of Kelowna is very large in area. It contains a great deal of agricultural land. That agricultural land has increased the cost of development and also imposed on the community a hopscotch type of development, where some parcels can be developed and other parcels cannot be developed. So the infrastructure costs are much higher; the planning room has gone away. Actually, legislation this government -- a former administration -- brought in prevents doing what you're proposing to do, which is to prevent urban sprawl. So perhaps the minister could enlighten me on how she's going to plan for something that is already in place, and which is creating urban sprawl in the central Okanagan.
Hon. D. Marzari: I simply want to assure the member that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Agricultural Land Commission are very much in the consultation loop. I know there are particular difficulties around land use in the Okanagan. I understand that the Okanagan is in the throes of a very serious transition in terms of its growing urban densities. I can only assure the member that the Okanagan is going to be very much inside the growth management strategy. It has spent a number of years trying to work together between the three regional districts on various issues -- starting with water, basically. This legislation will now give the Okanagan an opportunity to have a facilitated discussion around how it wants to proceed, and how it must proceed.
The planning solution coming out of the Okanagan might be, and probably will be, extremely different from the planning solution that we will see on the east coast of the Island, or in the Greater Vancouver Regional District up to Hope. I can only assure the member that the table will be there: the Ministry of Agriculture will be there; the agriculture land reserve will be there. The discussions will emanate from that Okanagan table -- not from a debate in the Legislature, but from the local community itself.
C. Serwa: From listening to the minister's response, then, the Agricultural Land Commission will be there. But will they be sensitive to the needs of the community and the planning process within the community? What's happening at the present time works against the community. First, I spoke about the urban aspect and the type of urban sprawl that is encouraged -- that is made mandatory -- by the present legislation and the unwillingness of the Agricultural Land Commission to recognize that a community has to have space to live and grow.
The other downside of this is with respect to agriculture. The farmers who are entrapped within an urban development find that they're fundamentally victimized, once again, because of the rural-urban conflict that occurs. Certainly with respect to orchard lands, spraying, noise and also the imposition of using the orchard as a playground for the high-density areas around it make a very, very difficult type of problem.
I hope that in this planning process, where the concern with urban sprawl is, there is some strong mandate to bring all of the players to the table to address all of the concerns and requirements of all of the participants involved, because if you do not, then there's no hope of managing urban sprawl.
Hon. D. Marzari: That is the essence of the bill.
G. Wilson: The reason I ask the questions I do on section 942.11 is the implications in section 942.14, which is where there are mandatory or ministerial requirements with respect to these growth strategies. Everything up to section 942.14 talks about how the minister "may," the regional districts "may" and the local governments "may," and it tends to be somewhat open and discretionary. But in section 942.14, which we'll get to very shortly, hopefully, all of that discretion is eliminated. We start to get down to some things that must be done. We'll talk about that. When we look at this, one of the things I notice is that in a number of these subsections in 942.11(2), subsections (a) through (n), even though it says they should work toward.... I'm anticipating that the minister is going to say that this is something that is a general goal objective, and therefore it is not something they have to do overnight.
Some of these recommendations, however, have very clear cost implications to local government. That's what causes me some concern. Since this bill has come forward, I have had a chance to get on my phone and consult with a whole series of planners and regional district reps. Having come out of the regional district system after being elected at that level of government for a number years, I have contacted people I know in the system, and all of them to an individual -- and I should put this on the record -- congratulated the minister with respect to the consultation that has been undertaken with this bill. Even though they don't agree with everything in it, they agree with most of what's in it.
The one area where they do have some real concern is the question of these growth strategies that are going to have cost implications for local governments. One of them is (i): "...adequate inventories of suitable land and resources for future settlement...." If we're going to have a proper inventory, inventory development, land use mapping and the kind of geotechnical work that needs to be done, that is going to imply dollars; there has to be some money spent.
[4:15]
Similarly, we talk under (b) about the use of settlement patterns that minimize the automobile and move toward efficient public transit. Public transit is clearly something that most local governments would like to encourage and enhance and see grow in their communities. But again, there are cost implications with respect to contracts awarded -- particularly in light of some of the controversies that have existed in the province over the last little while.
I'm concerned that when we start to look at the sections in here that are not really generic, in the sense that they're not motherhood -- and some of this in here is -- these growth strategies imply costs to local governments. Can the minister tell us what plan...? There's nothing in here that really suggests that, and therefore there must be some plan to provide the necessary funding for the kind of work that the minister is advocating be done.
[ Page 14100 ]
Most regional districts have staff that are pretty much doing all they can right now under their traditional planning functions. The last thing we want to do is duplicate the planning function between municipalities within regional districts, or in regional districts that have companion plans. We don't want to duplicate the expense. Is there an overall strategy that would put together some money to do the kind of broad-based, integrated land use planning and inventory development that would greatly facilitate these plans? If so, where is that spelled out in this section?
Hon. D. Marzari: This bill doesn't go into an inventory of land use planning and the processes that are now engaged in by this provincial government to work with resource areas. This plan basically works inside those areas that haven't been dealt with by other land use planning processes in the province. It intersects with them, but it doesn't outline how it intersects with them. This is something that we have to work on and develop as time goes by. In fact, the interministerial committees will, I hope, start to inform that process.
Basically, these goals don't even begin to talk about what mechanics have to be brought to bear in order to solve the problems that municipalities and regions may identify. If a region identifies with these goals -- or a certain number of these goals, or five or six of these goals -- and decides that a strategic and action plan is going to relate to these goals, the implementation agreements and all of the interministerial and Crown agency consultations have to come together to do some implementation and problem solving. There's nothing in here that will say how this problem is going to be solved; that comes later on. As you said, Mr. Member, section 942.14 is where you start to engage the processes to ensure that the problems get solved.
If the member is saying that there's no commitment or money to meet these goals, I can assure the member that, in effect, money comes -- provincial dollars flow, federal dollars flow and taxpayers' dollars flow -- when a community comes to an understanding that it has a finite problem that can be solved using solutions 1 through 10, each one of them carrying a cost. Long-range financial planning for a community means that those taxpayers' dollars will be found, just as they have been found for the infrastructure program, for example, where communities have articulated their goals for the last 20 years, saying they needed hard services in the ground to maintain the quality of life, quality of water and sewage disposal in their communities. Nobody complained about there not being any money around to do a hard-service delivery when the infrastructure program was delivered to us. When the federal government came along and said, "We'll provide 33-cent dollars," municipalities in this province rallied to the flag -- and so did the provincial government. In fact, we're one of the few provinces that said: "We want to continue this program, and we're putting more money on the line."
So lack of dollars is not the issue as much as taxpayer willingness to outline some goals, say where the problems are, get on with the job of creating the will to be taxed and put dollars on the line to do things that need to be done. Communities will find that way. They'll find that way through developing their own dollars and their own tax base, or through signing contracts with provincial governments, provincial Crown agencies or the federal government to see that it is done. As I say, the infrastructure program in the last year is a perfect example of that.
G. Wilson: I don't take issue with what the minister has said, except to say it is clear that while most people want to have adequate sewers and proper water systems and those kinds of services available to them -- and they don't particularly mind paying for them if their services are adequate and they recognize the need -- the one thing that I hear a chorus of as I travel around the province and consult with people from virtually every region is that they are becoming extremely alarmed at the size and cost of local government in relation to the size and cost of the provincial government in relation to the size and cost of the federal government. So the infrastructure program which has been alluded to by the minister might be very useful. In fact, I think my own riding has had five approved projects, and I'm very pleased about that and work very hard to make sure that that money continues to come in.
But the fact is that it is all taxpayers' money. What I'm getting at here is that it would strike me, if the requirement is.... When we get to section 942.14.... The reason I want to link those two now, with indulgence of the Chair, is because under that.... "On the recommendation of the minister...a regional growth strategy must be developed and adopted...." It's not a "may"; there are no "mays" at this point. A regional growth strategy "must" be adopted.
So you ask yourself: what is this regional growth strategy? Well, that's what we read in this: section 942.11 is what it is. There are issues in here that the minister may very well insist be in that plan, which is going to have a cost implication to local government and which is going to be passed on down to the taxpayer. Yet the local government really has no control over things like transit development or transportation utility corridor development. The local government can't control that. I remember when the Sunshine Coast tried to get its share of revenue off the natural gas pipeline that went right through the middle of our regional district, and we couldn't even cut the same deal that was cut in the interior municipalities, because the previous government had negotiated a deal with the gas company. So we didn't have any opportunity to try and deal with that issue even though it affected our local planning.
My question is: if this is going to be the set of criteria which constitutes a regional growth strategy, is the government then committing -- if it is going to require local government to put this in place -- to provide that local government with the necessary resources to make that happen? That's my question, and then I have another question with respect to the inventory.
Hon. D. Marzari: In the interest of brevity, the answer to the question is yes.
G. Wilson: Those elected members of local government and planners -- who tuned into this debate after I telephoned them earlier on this morning to let them know that it would be on -- will be absolutely delighted to hear the minister say that. I'm sure the letters are being typed now as we speak.
My last question on this section deals with the "adequate inventories of suitable land." As the minister knows, one of the things that the Alliance and I, as leader of the Alliance, have been very, very keen on since my election in '91 is the development of a proper land and resource inventory for British Columbia. It strikes me that this is a perfectly reasonable vehicle to accommodate that, and I think that this is what we can do.
[ Page 14101 ]
I'm hoping, with respect to those inventories, that we might include documentation of material in some kind of compatible form that already exists. I'm thinking, for example, of the mapping and the kind of zoning that was done in my own area -- as an elected member of the regional district -- only to find that we had very, very detailed and very useful maps already completed by B.C. Tel. We didn't realize that if you get a compatible system, there can be many different sets of materials that can provide the kind of inventory we need for exactly what's being developed here.
I wonder if the minister might just say, with respect to the "adequate inventories of suitable land and resources for future settlement," if the minister indeed envisages that this might provide the base for the provincial inventory of land and resources that is so necessary. It strikes me that very few areas of the province are not included within a regional district, or that very few areas in which growth and development are occurring are not under some kind of local government. If that's the case, and if there's a commitment to it, I think it would certainly enhance the will of those people in local government to get on with the job.
Hon. D. Marzari: This bill doesn't pretend to be the overall land use plan for the province. It does patch in, though, to a resource and land use plan that the province has been putting together, which is coupled with the parks, recreational and protected-areas plan that we have put together in the last three years. This is the urban component of that overall picture, you might say. Down the road I certainly hope that we would have an overall picture and plan and even perhaps a compatible system that can pull in the appropriate map, so that everyone can see where they are and where the land use planning is inside and on the fringes of their community.
In terms of the "adequate inventories of suitable land and resources," I think the member is trying to expand that into a notion that it's basically a planning tool to ensure that every community has a land bank and a resource for future expansion. If that is in fact a community's top priority, obviously we all have to pay attention to that. The provincial government has to pay attention to that in the context of community priorities.
But I cannot at this point say that this clause or this goal can be used to say that we are using this legislation as an overall land use plan, land inventory or land bank for the province. Rather, it's simply a statement from a number of communities that it would be useful and a top priority for them to be able to acquire some land -- which need not be all that expensive for communities if we bring the right players to the table and do some appropriate planning with, for example, Crown Lands, which owns 90 percent of the land in the province.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to enter back into the debate. I guess my observations have been, particularly in the rural parts of the province, that.... My discussions have been primarily with the politicians, not with the planning department. I would not be surprised if the planner would welcome any expansion of planning. I mean, I've known many planners in my days, and anytime they want to expand their departments they certainly are capable of identifying the need and making a good, strong argument.
But, from talking to the politicians, I want to say that most rural municipal and regional district politicians I've spoken to have really not paid a lot of attention to this legislation, because they understand that they can opt into it. Because of that, they don't envision that their area is a growing area, so really haven't spent a lot of time consuming.... Even though the minister has attempted -- as has the UBCM -- to inform municipalities of this legislation, they haven't really given it.... Those communities and regional districts that do not see themselves in a fast-growing scenario have not paid a lot of attention to it. But aside from that, there are a couple of issues that I'm really, really concerned about. Although we can address them to some degree in later sections, I think they should be addressed at this time.
The member from the Sunshine Coast alluded to one: in many of these categories contained within this section, there are going to be some costs identified. Realistically, as we talked about earlier, there's going to be a need for those costs to be identified in order to (1) have good, effective planning, and (2) look after real property interests and the impact it's going to have on property values.
[4:30]
I know what the minister said earlier with respect to that, and I understand full well that planning in itself does not immediately have any impact on property value. In real terms it does, however. If I have a particular vacant lot that is planned rural or residential.... The opportunity may exist to have high density contained in there, but if we identify in that area a need to set aside property for a future transportation corridor, a future school site or whatever the case may be, it immediately renders my property of less value; and I can't do anything with it in terms of developing, because it's being considered in the planning process.
I have to come back to the argument that I've made before. When we start to do that, we should identify what the real value of that property is that's fair to municipal, regional and provincial governments as well as to the property owner. There should be some recognition that, yes, if we choose this corridor, here's what the overall costs are going to be. Therefore we can set up a protocol where we can deal with those issues immediately with those landowners. It does a number of things. I think it's upfront, and it provides us with cost-effectiveness in terms of our planning. We can then decide on corridors that are pleasing aesthetically as well as perhaps suitable financially. I think it brings some credibility into the process. I would first suggest that if we can't accept that that should be a principle, then we have a real problem.
The other issue I have here.... I'll ask them both at the same time. When we look at some of the highlighted areas -- at housing; at reducing and improving the environment; at water control, both groundwater and surface water -- we start to sit back and ask who is going to end up with the responsibility of mitigating any impact of any policy. I think there's a real possibility that the province would be in a position, without those protocols in place up front, to say: "That's your policy. That's beyond our ability to deal with currently. If you want to resolve it, you folks within that region can pay for it." That's a real concern, and it's not clearly articulated within this legislation.
Those two issues, I believe, are very, very important and key to this particular section. We should have some principle statements on how those are going to be addressed by this minister.
[ Page 14102 ]
Hon. D. Marzari: The first issue has to do with.... I believe the member is pulling a deja vu: he's bringing Bill 25 from last year onto the floor of the House again. At that point we decided that we would not be engaging in long-range planning -- which we really do need -- because of private property rights and the lack of compensation which can be afforded right up front, when and if a transportation corridor is allocated. I think the court in Maple Ridge said that unless a capital plan of a municipality basically reflects its long-range plans, there can't really be a long-range plan or an allocation of a transportation corridor, which says that long-range planning is more than a little difficult. This legislation does not address the issues raised by Bill 25, nor does it promise that there will be long-range planning without compensation. It basically states that these are tables to sit around; if you want to do long-range planning, you should do it legally. There is no changing of the goalposts around compensation or lack of compensation from previous legislation; and OCPs and municipalities have all the powers that they have now to compensate or not compensate. So that deals with item number one, in effect. Down the road, we'll have to make some pretty strong decisions about the ability of capital plans to actually pay compensation for a transportation corridor that may be in the offing, but that is not within the framework of this bill. So basically, that deals with that.
The second point I believe the member raised had to do with downloading that he perceived might occur if we were to take each one of these goals and a municipality or a region were to adopt each one and say: "Okay, this one is going to cost us such-and-such, and this will cost us such-and-such." I believe he is afraid that the municipality will say: "If we adopt the third goal and the provincial government is not prepared to pay for it, then we will be forced to pay for it ourselves and to raise our taxes accordingly."
These goals are a checklist for communities to use in the development of their regional growth strategy. They are not mandatory pieces of an overall recipe to make the perfect cake. Municipalities or regions can buy in or buy out of these goals. We are simply suggesting that these are some of the areas which should be investigated. In fact, municipalities and regions themselves said that these are the things they think they should be addressing.
Down the road, the contracts will determine what can get funded and what can't get funded, and those contracts might reflect differently in different regions. Different regions might decide that they do have the will or the commitment to get on with particular projects on their own. In other areas -- like transportation, for example -- they'll be coming to the provincial government for help. If they have an affordable housing program, they will definitely be coming to the provincial government, and possibly even to the federal government -- if there is any affordable housing coming out of the federal government within the next decade.
There is no compunction here to subscribe to or vest financial interest in these goals. The municipalities and regions are not being forced to adopt an expensive solution if they happen to adopt these goals. Rather, the framework that's established here, using these goals as a checklist, is basically the creation of a table where all the interests can sit -- the local government and the interministerial interests of the provincial government and Crown agencies -- to try to arrive at some solutions. If the regions want those solutions to be affordable -- and I'm sure they do, as do we -- the contracts will reflect the ability of the region and the province to come together and cost-share or create contracts which will solve transportation problems, which will put in water distribution networks or put in sewage disposal units that will be affordable in the long haul.
The advantage here is that there is a plan in place, and that everybody can understand that plan and see what the expenses might be five, ten or 15 years down the road. That's what planning affords the region here. It is not a recipe for downloading by any stretch of the imagination; it's simply an ability for communities in the province to work together to come up with some good problem-solving.
L. Fox: I guess part of the reason I asked that question -- and I think it's going to become more and more relevant as we march through the rest of the bill -- is that there's little to no opportunity, or any particular function, once a respective municipality opts into the program, to opt out for a 20-year period. There's going to be a lot of questions asked, in terms of these responsibilities and the obligation one will carry when signing on to a particular area.
What I understand from the minister's answer is that each situation, or each region, may be treated differently, depending on the provincial government, I guess, identifying a perceived need, priorities or whatever. That sounds to me like it's a bit of the provincial agenda driving it, instead of the local agenda. If that's not the case, I'm not sure I understand how the government would then make the determination that one area or specific region should be treated differently in the contract than another region. Perhaps the minister might clarify that for me.
Hon. D. Marzari: I didn't mean to leave the impression that it is the provincial government making all the determining moves here. The determining moves are made by the planning process at the regional level. It's the regional government that determines what its priorities are. Of course, when you're sitting down at a table as a regional politician, you're not going to ask for pie in the sky. You're not going to say that you need a 3,000-bed hospital in a small community; it's not realistic. You're sitting down, making your plans, looking at your priorities, thinking about the needs of the community and working with an interministry agency -- a group of senior people from the various ministries of the provincial government and the Crown agencies; you're sitting down and saying: "These are our priorities." You, as a regional board, are driving it, because you've got your plan in place and your municipalities are onside, and woe betide the provincial government if they don't come along with a decent response to your priorities.
The driver here is the local government; the context is a partnership. The final outcome is a series of contracts, and regions might ask for different contracts and different solutions to their problems. They'll have the advice; they'll have the facilitation of the provincial government; and, hopefully, the provincial government gets a better planning framework out of this so that it can look a few years down the road with different communities and say: "Yes, we can live with this" or"This is something we can do" or"This we can fit into the five-year plan" -- inside highways, for example.
It makes for a win-win situation for everybody, not a top-down decision by the provincial government that it's going to do such-and-so here and such-and-so over there. It basically
[ Page 14103 ]
provides everybody with a planning format so that they can do some decent capital planning.
The Chair: Shall section 942.11 pass? The member for Saanich North and the Islands.
C. Tanner: That's the first time, Mr. Chairman, you've missed me. You need a mirror up there so you can see behind you.
I have two problems with this particular section: subsections (h) and (i). They're both the same problem we tried to pass our amendment for, because they both concern something which is outside the purview of the municipalities or the regions.
In the second one, section 942.11(2)(i), we're talking about the Agricultural Land Commission. Since this government has been in office, the Agricultural Land Commission has shown a reluctance to make any decisions -- that I've heard of, certainly in my constituency -- which have been of assistance to anybody other than themselves. While I don't necessarily disagree with those decisions, the fact of the matter is that they are an autonomous body which makes decisions virtually on their own. There is no appeal of them, since this government hasn't replaced any appeal process to go against those decisions. Consequently, when a municipality wants to find some land for a school or a region wants to find land for a hospital, and they go to the Agricultural Land Commission, they are almost invariably turned down.
If you took the case of one of the municipalities in my constituency, Sidney, there is virtually no land left. There's not a lot to be had in Sidney, by government or by individuals; they're all sold; they are all covered; they've all got houses or institutions or parks. Where does the town of Sidney go when it wants to do something as suggested by this section? Section (h) is the same thing: "adequate, affordable and appropriate housing." I suspect that it's an attempt by the provincial government to push the costs of that sort of planning down to the municipalities; that's what it looks like to me.
My two considerations are somewhat similar to those of the member for Prince George-Omineca, and I don't think they've been satisfied by the minister. It's the same sort of thing: pie in the sky and no protection from the commissions and Crown corporations of this province and of this government.
[4:45]
Hon. D. Marzari: An accusation of downloading seems to be coming out of the opposition when in fact they are dealing with a very benign clause in a bill. It basically says that to the extent that a regional growth strategy deals with these matters, to the extent that the region engages in a discussion of these matters, then they might want to deal with this particular checklist.
Municipalities have always been interested in adequate and affordable housing. Municipalities are feeling strapped when they can't provide affordable housing for their residents. Municipalities are very much inside the envelope of providing affordable housing. The city of Vancouver created a land bank some years ago in order to provide affordable housing as time went on. In fact, it has done just that.
Inadequate inventories of suitable land is something that should be addressed, but the provincial government is not going to come along with manufactured land; there's no way that can possibly be done. It might facilitate a municipality thinking through densification in zoning or doing whatever could be done. Bill 57, for example, was an enabling piece of legislation to help all municipalities think through how they might want to densify and create some opportunities for different types of housing and different types of residential constructs.
This is a checklist. I repeat: it's a checklist. It's not a mandatory recipe for baking a particular kind of cake; it is simply something that municipalities can look at and use to start to work with other agencies -- the provincial government included -- to develop the framework or to develop the financing formulas that might help to solve some of the problems.
Section 7, section 942.11 approved.
On section 7, section 942.12.
L. Fox: Much of the concern that I have with this section flows out of the discussion on the last section. What we have in this section is a long-term commitment for whatever you decide to enter into. The first thing that comes to mind is: now that we have municipal and regional district elections for three years, it's quite possible that you could have a municipality or a regional district director opt in with a specific set of values that the electorate itself may disagree with. They may opt into the sections that do not reflect the general community's wishes, and they don't have any opportunity later on to opt out.
I wonder if any thought was given with respect to the process that might be used by the respective communities in order to identify the values of the community prior to opting into this particular area. Does the minister envision any process that would identify those so that the true wishes of the electorate are going to be honoured at the table rather than.... I've seen it in the past, and I'm sure the minister has: individuals say "damn the torpedoes," and they take on their personal agenda and really do not reflect what's in the best interest of the community. Are there any kinds of protections here?
Hon. D. Marzari: First of all, the member should know that official community plans must be reviewed every five years, so that is a safety valve there. In that review, an unofficial community plan can be brought into line with what a new council may think or feel or was elected on.
The other thing that I think should be said at this point is that this bill, being a process bill, basically, does pay a lot of attention to public process and public consultation. You'll see throughout this bill, whether it be a public hearing during second reading of the bill itself so that there's a legal framework for public consultation, or simply an insistence that municipalities in the region engage in public consultation, that there is within the framework of this bill, I think, a strong impetus for local councils to work with their constituents, their residents, to come up with appropriate amendments to the official community plan or appropriate responses to the regional growth strategy. It's incorporated in various phrases of the bill itself; public consultation is mandated, basically. A
[ Page 14104 ]
regional district can question a municipality, or a municipality can question a regional district, if public consultation hasn't been properly done. It's there within the context and within the pages of this bill, I think, to the satisfaction of the member's question.
L. Fox: I guess there are a number of issues around that. We will certainly deal with the public consultation process in later sections of the act.
But we're talking about a process to react to, rather than a proactive process of designing the priorities -- two different issues. The minister, I'm sure, has been party to public hearings, as I have. You know that, indeed, unless it's an overwhelming voice, the chances of persuading the respective council or regional district to move away from a particular initiative through the public process is pretty difficult. This will be even more complex, because you could have values from a planning area that encompasses quite a few different municipalities, and there are some limiting factors in this legislation which suggest that there wouldn't be a public process in each of those municipalities -- that the process would be one within the regional growth strategy region.
I guess my concern is, first, public process prior to opting in, which I think is very, very valuable: the people within that municipality or region help to identify the objectives that the previous section set out as possibilities, rather than reacting to them.
Hon. D. Marzari: There is nothing to prevent a municipal council from going out to its community and doing a public process before the whole program begins. Neither is there anything in the ministry that says that planning grants can't be offered for that purpose. There is nothing in any regional district legislation that limits its ability to go to a consultative process if it so chooses. This act encourages that process.
I understand the member's concerns about saying that you've got to have a proactive community development kind of relationship and kind of program. Many communities in this province have done that. For example, Nanaimo went through an extensive two-year visioning process, they call them, where everybody in Nanaimo basically sat down and thought through how they wanted the community to look in 20 years. Vancouver has had a similar process over the last 25 years, to look to goals for the growth of Vancouver and to look to goals for neighbourhoods. It's all very useful stuff, and there's nothing in this bill that will inhibit that. In fact, the planning grants system in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is being somewhat transformed into ensuring that regional growth management strategies are properly funded. We'll be ensuring that that happens in consultation with the regions that engage; we'll be providing some planning grants. But there's nothing here to prevent municipalities from reaching out and asking their citizens: "How would you like to see this community in 20 years?" And I would certainly ensure that the ministry's planning grant program would respond to such a request.
C. Tanner: In spite of what the minister just said, I find it ironical that you go to so much trouble to outline in 942.11 all the details of what you wish to see, and then in 942.12, you tell the areas that they can have a growth strategy, but it must be for 20 years. And then you go all the way down to 942.12(3). Let me read what it says to the minister: "In addition to the requirements of subsection (2), a regional growth strategy may deal with any other regional matter." That's a catch-all. And in fact you use that catch-all in 942.17(6), further into the legislation, to do something else right out of the realm of this particular section.
Why didn't the minister, if that's what she wants to do, just wipe out the whole of 942.12 and say that a regional growth strategy may deal with any matter? Why not just say that? Why go to all this detailed paraphernalia when in fact they can deal with any matter?
Hon. D. Marzari: The member's absolutely right; they can deal with any matter that they deem to be a priority in the community. However, on these five -- housing, transportation, regional district services, parks and natural areas, and economic development -- we found the greatest consensus around the province in terms of our consultations with municipalities and regional districts. These were the basic five that most local elected officials found to be most pertinent to their particular needs. That informs the province that the ministries that are responsible for these five areas are going to be the ones, obviously, that are the most connected to what goes on in regional growth strategies. But they do not preclude, as I said, involvement with all other ministries or Crown agencies. The important thing here is that there were some common denominators in terms of interest.
C. Tanner: Can we read into what the minister just said, then, the fact that when we're looking at 942.12(2)(c), where it says "parks and natural areas," you really mean parks and the Ministry of Environment?
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, but obviously local governments are concerned about parks that may not necessarily be provincially dictated or ascribed. They are also concerned about their greenspace that they themselves might have had donated or have provided for their citizens.
C. Tanner: But this illustrates again the same position we took previously in the amendment we attempted to make and in a further amendment which is coming up shortly. We're saying why, when you get an opportunity to be specific, do you avoid it? Why don't you say that these regional strategy groups have got to deal with the Ministry of Environment -- because that's really what they've got to deal with. You say that they're going to deal with transportation. Why don't you specifically say that? Because parks and natural areas.... It looks as if you're skirting the issue because you don't want to say just that.
In the same way, when you've laid out some of the details in (1) and (2) of 941.12, you suddenly throw this catch-all phrase in and use it where it's appropriate further down in the legislation. It seems to me that on the one hand, you were being quite open in section 942.11, whereas when you get to section 942.12 you could almost be accused of being secretive.
L. Fox: I have one final observation. I'm sure the minister is aware, but it would appear to me that this section really does tie the hands of a municipality and prevent a municipality from opting out, and could carry forward values of a specific council which may not have had the community's overall best interest in mind at that point. It may have been actually supporting special interests rather than the general
[ Page 14105 ]
consensus of the respective region or municipality. There doesn't appear anywhere in this legislation any reconsideration of that. In fact, it ties the voters' hands for 20 years in being able to deal with the council handling it perhaps incorrectly and not representing the interests of the people.... I'm sure that the minister is well aware of that, and I think that's enough on that subject from me.
[5:00]
Section 7, section 942.12 approved.
On section 7, section 942.13.
G. Wilson: With the indulgence of the Chair, my question to the minister on this section jumps forward. It's not only section 942.13; it links to sections 942.14 and 942.16. It has to do with the powers of the minister to initiate a regional growth strategy for only a portion of a regional district. It says in section 942.13(2): "On request by the applicable board or boards, the minister may authorize a regional growth strategy that (a) applies to only part of a regional district...." I don't know if we can get too far ahead on this, except that I think they are all directly related, and that's why I raise it. In the next section it says that the minister may, on recommendation, require that this kind of planning take place if, in the minister's view, there is unrestricted growth and there are some real, urgent needs to be looked at. Then it goes on to say in section 942.16(2) that the only way that can happen is under this section here, unless there is a direct ministerial requirement.
I'd like clarification on this, because this is going to be a very contentious issue. In some regional districts you are going to find that there will be an opting out of a particular electoral area which may not wish to participate in an overall plan, therefore the regional board may say: "We may actually want to go ahead with this, but recognize -- for argument's sake, let's say -- that electoral areas A and B have opted out; therefore they're not into our regional growth strategy plan and may have a completely different community plan base." There may be a number of reasons why. Does this then say that unless there is a request by the board, there can be no ministerial direction on that question? Or does it mean that the board could pass, by majority vote, that it will include all of the regional district, and areas A and B are in whether they like it or not?
Hon. D. Marzari: In the business of how we engage in the managed growth strategy, once you're in, you're in. That is what I have said to municipalities and regional districts as I have gone around the province. A regional district may come and say: "We are in, and we will be paying the costs or working with the provincial government to develop a managed growth strategy, but electoral areas A and B are not interested in being in, therefore we don't want them to be in." That can happen, but it will require ministerial consent.
In another instance, the regional district comes forward and says that this particular component of its community is prepared to pay the costs of doing the planning. Once again, consent or even encouragement from the minister in certain areas that are high growth inside regional districts....
Basically, there is ministerial discretion if a regional district is undergoing rapid growth and has decided that it is not interested in engaging in any kind of ongoing planning. That is not the case in this province. I should say that this is way out of the ballpark. All three high-growth regions in this province are eagerly awaiting the passage of this into law.
We're discussing what would happen if there were reluctance. The minister does have the discretion, in section 942.14, to ask for a regional plan to be initiated. That is a power vested in the minister; that is not a power which I foresee using.
I foresee that the incentives will be well recognized. The incentives are inside the.... The win-win situation that comes out of a properly done plan provides faster, better and more efficient provincial support to a community that has done its planning over a community that hasn't done its planning. There's a win-win there for everybody. We're talking about theoretical cases here. Once a community is inside a plan, it's inside the plan -- unless there's a ministerial direction given that certain areas or subareas or electoral areas be left out.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
G. Wilson: Let me provide a more concrete example, because I think this is likely to come up. In the Sunshine Coast Regional District there is one particular electoral area, area A, which is distanced by virtue of the fact that it's at the northwest portion of the peninsula and also by the fact that it has a separate community plan. In fact, it has a land use bylaw that is separate from the balance of the regional district. Therefore the community plan that is now underway -- it's undergoing its process.... The land use bylaw is quite different, and that's because the people who live there want it that way. They may very well not wish to opt in to a growth strategy that would be developed by the south end of that regional district.
My question is: if the majority of the members of the board apply for this growth strategy money, and if by passage of a vote they say, "We want it for the entire regional district," is the discretion with the minister to say: "It's got to be the entire district, or you don't get any money at all"? Can one electoral area simply say: "I'm opting out. You guys get on with it; we're going to do our own thing"? That's where I'm coming from. I think there is a movement toward a district municipality within the Pender Harbour area, and that is going to be an issue.
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, I can see how that could be an issue in an individual community. I was thinking of a much larger region; I was looking at the whole Fraser Valley, all the way up to Hope, in terms of what strategies the GVRD and the other three regional districts are engaged in now to make themselves compatible to an overall regional growth strategy.
Looking at a very particular region, the Sunshine Coast, I'd say that the minister is going to have to make that decision based on the ability of the region to prove its case: that there is an electoral area that really is not an affected community or is so far outside the growth area that it is not in any way going to be pulled in or compromised or have its land use compromised down the road by a regional growth strategy. It's highly unlikely, but if a regional district could make the case that a community can be excluded because the plan won't be compromised by that exclusion, I suppose the minister might make that decision under the provisions of the bill.
[ Page 14106 ]
L. Fox: In this section that permits the.... On a point of clarification, are we on section 942.14?
Interjection.
L. Fox: Sorry.
Section 7, section 942.13 approved.
On section 7, section 942.14.
C. Tanner: In actual fact, on section 942.13 as well, but particularly on section 942.14, I make the same point again that there's no inclusion of the first nations. I think it's an objective we all want to see obtained. I know we get to it later on, but it seems to me that you had an opportunity, Madam Minister, to make some mention of it in the past.
There are many, many communities in this province where two or three first nations reserves are sitting close to, adjacent to or even in the middle of municipal areas, and they're doing things in those areas which are contrary to the purpose of this act. You had an opportunity.... I know you can't compel them, but surely, Madam Minister, you should have mentioned it so that we could bring home to bear the fact that what you want to accomplish is, in some respects, going to be a disappointment to the growth strategy areas because of those first nations' non-commitments.
Hon. D. Marzari: I don't think we should say non-commitment. I think that we should just say different order of government, different jurisdiction and different mandate, rather than cast a blanket out there saying that there is non-commitment.
This section basically says that we can designate areas for a regional growth strategy, and that's what the minister will do if there is reluctance. As I said in the discussion of the previous point, there is no reluctance at this point; there is, in fact, tremendous anticipation of this bill coming through with all the accompanying comprehensive coordination of provincial services, provincial mandates and planning funds that will be forwarded to communities interested in regional growth management.
This clause is the first basic tooth in the legislation, if you want to talk about teeth in legislation. It basically gives the minister, in the order-in-council, the ability to designate areas that are undergoing growth stress and are suffering from the consequences of poor planning -- which is basically higher tax rates at the local level -- but are unable to form partnerships among themselves or with first nations to begin to deal with problems affecting them. So this particular section is where the minister can designate an area for managed growth initiative.
L. Fox: I have a couple of questions on this section. First, I guess it goes without saying that if the minister in his or her determination decides that there is a region or a geographical area that should be designated for a regional growth strategy, a commitment should go along with that -- a very strong commitment -- that the province is compelled to identify and deal with the findings of that strategy should it move forward, and that should be costs and so on. I think that's one theme which appears to be constantly missing. Although the minister has reiterated it many times, it's still not contained within this legislation. That's one issue.
The other issue that I'm concerned with around this designated area -- and the previous opposition critic did mention it -- is that we could have a significant.... In some fast-growing areas -- and I think of West Vancouver, and so on -- we have fairly substantial reserve lands and holdings. Does the minister see it within her authority, under this act, to include those areas in the regional growth strategy?
Hon. D. Marzari: I think this minister would be reluctant to deliberately reach out in the act and draw a deliberate boundary around a band or a first nations governing body; rather, I would prefer.... I think this act deliberately states that the units we're dealing with here are regional districts, and where first nations live within the regional districts and have property, interests and services within regional districts, they are therefore included in the land area which is designated, basically. But it's up to the local government, the regional district and the municipalities to sit down and form the partnerships with the first nations.
I'll say it again: nothing in this act can happen without goodwill. There has to be goodwill. There are some provisions in this act to force the issue sometimes, and to create some mandatory tables where people have to sit down, talk and solve some disputes. It's there, but goodwill has to be there, or else we've only got a pile of paper here. This act is calculated to breed goodwill and provide incentives for that goodwill; without it, we're not going to get very far. Drawing artificial boundaries that pull in a first nation, for example, where there is no preparatory work done, serves nobody's purpose. There has to be goodwill; there has to be a willingness to sit at the table.
[5:15]
L. Fox: It might be hypothetical, but given that this is the section which empowers the minister to designate an area, I'm wondering what level of cooperation you're going to have with an unwilling partner. Ultimately, if the minister is to carry this authority forward, there may very well need to be the ability for the minister to designate an area, because you may not have the willingness at the municipal or regional district level; if they were willing, they would have started the process. I wonder how all this works, how the minister would use that authority and how far they would be able to carry that.
Hon. D. Marzari: Obviously, where there's a reluctant party, the minister has to use that discretion. My guess is that.... We're not dealing with high-growth areas right now that aren't interested in this legislation. But assuming that you've got a few municipalities that are interested and others that aren't, there has to be a judgment made at a certain point. If you have some parties that aren't prepared to come to the table for the initiation of a process, and they obviously live in an area that's suffering high growth, and a majority of municipalities or regions are interested in doing some long-range planning to make more affordable services that have to be provided, then ministerial discretion is obviously going to be used. How is it going to be used? It's going to be used in cases where there doesn't seem to be an agreement, and where a
[ Page 14107 ]
minority of the parties are reluctant to come to the table. When the ministerial discretion is used, it will probably encompass a regional district or more -- that would be my assessment -- and that will be entirely based on evidence that a community is undergoing a high growth rate or stress related to a high growth rate.
I'd like to think that the ministerial discretion, once used, is going to bring good things to the community, and that it is a promise of good contracts with the provincial government. It's a promise of coordinated action between ministries that sometimes don't talk to each other. It's a promise that Crown corporations will be listening to communities, and that communities will be able to do long-range planning around issues that affect them in consultation with a senior level of government. It's a promise that there will be equal partnership at a table. That's what it provides. It's not a threat as much as it is a promise.
It's obviously a threat to communities that for various reasons are not interested in coming into a long-range planning process, for whatever reason they may have, such as, perhaps, desiring to remain no-growth communities. Even for communities that wish to remain no-growth or low-growth, there can be promises and commitments made here between those communities as to what kind of growth one community should have vis-a-vis another. There can be trade-offs made, for example, so that certain communities that may be more agricultural in nature will be able to retain that face to the outside world and retain their values. I assume that this would be the case. Otherwise, we wouldn't be creating a bill that was driven by local government.
L. Fox: I have just one follow-up. Maybe I could put it another way. When we see these kinds of powers given to a minister, somebody somewhere has obviously envisioned a reason why this authority is needed. I guess what I'm trying to do is ascertain how far the minister, in this minister's eyes, would perceive that a minister would go. Would a minister in fact see using this authority -- the idea of using a facilitator to facilitate the process -- where you had an unwilling municipality or regional area? Does the minister see the powers contained within this section as...? And there's one other significant factor here, and that is the clause that suggests the minister could identify significant change and use it as the theme behind this initiative.
I guess there are two questions. The first is that maybe the minister could give us some idea as to what "significant change" is in her mind, beyond what is stated here, because I think this leaves it open. Second, how far would the minister be prepared to go -- or how far would this act allow them to go -- and what process would the minister see in addressing the growth strategy needs under this clause?
Hon. D. Marzari: I find the question very interesting, Mr. Chair, because it comes from a municipal perspective which is terrified that the provincial government is in there to usurp municipal authority and municipal autonomy. I'm coming at it very often from the point of view of a minister that has to.... The minister takes a recommendation to the executive council if there's going to be an order made that a region come into a managed growth strategy. The interesting thing for me is that the executive council may be reluctant to engage in regional growth strategies because of the commitment the provincial government will have to engage in in order to properly service the contracts that come out the other end of a growth strategy. So you see I'm coming at it from a slightly different angle here. I come out of municipal government, so I view systems slightly differently than perhaps others do, and at the provincial level there is not a great incentive to coordinate and to cooperate and pull together ministerial initiatives. There isn't. I'll tell you that. You might notice that.
This bill is a way of forcing that issue and encouraging ministries to actually confer together and to lend an ear to various regions throughout the province. That is what this legislation offers to municipalities. That's the bonus at the end of the day.
Now, how far is any minister prepared to go in terms of using this section of the act to pull a region into regional growth strategies? I cannot say. I can only say it will be, and should be, based on the evidence. If there's massive population growth, for example, or if a community or region is unable to face the financial requirements of infrastructure, or if the regional growth strategy is the last resort for a community, basically -- if long-range planning becomes the last resort, rather than the first resort that it should be -- I would think that any minister would advise the executive council to initiate a growth management strategy, and bring all the goods and services that result from such a strategy.
I don't regard it as an imposition on a community. I regard the growth strategies as an asset, as do most communities in the province, and as something that will be competed for, rather than as an imposition and something which is going to draw away or drain local autonomy.
G. Wilson: I'd like to come back to something that the minister said just a few minutes ago about how this encourages ministries to come together and to communicate and to work together on this issue. I consider section 942.14 to be a rather key section in this bill, because it does provide ministerial authority to move in where there's.... From that flows the rest of the section as to how the process is going to work, what kind of arbitration is in place and all those sorts of things.
I just wonder how much consultation the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has had with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs in the drafting of this particular piece of legislation. The minister will be aware, I'm sure.... Let me use Kelowna as an example, with the Westbank Indian band, where there are very large densities that are being developed right now, with a very limited amount of water available and a problem associated in terms of the infrastructure services that are there. It isn't going to work, frankly, to have a regional growth strategy put in place by the regional district if it isn't bought into by the Westbank Indian band. It just isn't going to function; it isn't going to work. I wonder how much consultation has taken place.
I ask this in light of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs' comments in the House the other day, when he said that we are negotiating a "meet or beat" process -- you either have to meet or beat the kind of regulation that's coming down. Is that what's intended here, as well? Does the minister see that whatever regional growth strategy is put in place, there's going to be an expectation that the aboriginal communities will meet or beat those regulations so that there can be some consistency, at least, with the land use strategy that comes out in a region?
[ Page 14108 ]
Hon. D. Marzari: The expectation vis-a-vis first nations is that there will be good and decent process, there will be open tables and there will be an ability for the first nations to come forward, either in a consultative mode or an invitational mode. There will be room at the table for first nations to participate, either at the intergovernmental agency level or, I would assume, at the consultative level, as the municipal and regional governments go through the stages of developing the plan. There is room at the table for first nations to engage in the plan if they so desire.
This government would be reluctant to draw the boundaries that include reserves if those boundaries were not within the regional district that's undergoing the planning process or if the bands were reluctant to comply. Yes, this ministry has conducted numerous consultations with the Aboriginal Affairs ministry, and yes, the language that's in this bill around first nations reflects that consultation. It's very important that I remain cautious and interested in opening the tables, that I remain interested in maintaining due process and proper process, but not pretend that we have jurisdiction over native land or over native decision-making.
G. Wilson: I guess that's where I have the biggest problem. Let me use my own community of the Sunshine Coast for a moment, where we have the Sechelt Indian band and the Sechelt Indian government district, which has had very successful self-government for eight years. It's a very progressive band. They sit on the regional district and are actively participating in the overall development of land use strategy, and it works very well. To everybody's credit in that community, we've got an operation that's open and effective, and I think it is working well. So I don't take issue with the fact that it can work, because I've seen it work well in my own community.
My biggest concern is when there is resistance to having it happen. Quite clearly, if a regional growth strategy is going to be put in place, various land values are going to change, depending upon the direction given to local government with respect to land use zoning. I think the minister would agree that if certain lands are developed for high-density residential development -- the potential for resale or subdivision, or the potential tax base coming out of that residential area -- they are going to be different than lands that are designated to be rural, low density and not highly residential. Similarly, you could argue the same for commercial and industrial developments -- all those sorts of things. The minister probably knows better than I -- I think she was in local government longer than I was -- that municipalities will, in the restructuring of boundaries, often try to draw their boundaries in order to catch as much industrial activity as they can in order to expand their tax base.
[5:30]
My concern here is that if we're going to have a regional plan and we have no cooperation or limited cooperation, or you have a resistance to cooperation from first nations who are included within that regional district with their traditional IR lands, what do we do about that? It may be in their financial best interest to not cooperate, and you could argue that in fact it is in their financial best interests if everybody else is going to low growth or no growth or restrictive growth development strategies. If they say, "That's great because we recognize there's a potential here, and we're going to go ahead and develop this to its fullest and greatest potential," you might say: "Well, more power to them. It's their land; allow them to do that." Fair enough. But what happens to the outlying area, which is going to be directly impacted by those decisions in terms of water supply, in terms of dealing with sewer, in terms of the amount of traffic that comes off it, in terms of the transit requirements and all of those kinds of considerations and concerns -- educational considerations and concerns; you need schools where you have high residential developments and families moving in? You need all of those kinds of costs, which often have to be borne outside that area by municipalities or regional districts that have absolutely no way of inputting into first nations' decisions. That's a big problem. What we have to do is find some teeth in here somewhere for there to be some compulsory measures to bring in that group to local land use planning functions so that they plan consistently with their region.
I want to go back to what I said in the beginning before the minister answered. I've seen it work. I know it can work, because I live in a community where it does work -- the Sunshine Coast. But I also know that it may not work, because I have visited several communities where, right now, there is a real resistance to cooperation. Penticton is an example of that -- what we are seeing right now. Can the minister answer those concerns? Because it's of huge concern to local government, to local residents and people in local regional districts.
Hon. D. Marzari: There is nothing in this bill which basically interferes with federal jurisdiction around native land and native services. There is everything in this bill that promotes good politics -- good politics at the local level -- to encourage and, in fact, force the issue for local governments to sit down and talk, not only to native bands, but to each other. The problems that you've outlined around a native band, for example, exist perhaps in electoral areas, which in some areas of this province are growing faster than the municipalities that are adjacent to them. In fact, it is cheaper to develop in an electoral area right now -- in an unincorporated area -- than it is to develop in a municipality.
This bill promotes good politics, and good politics means that there has to be discussion and there has to be planning. It basically puts the locally elected people in the position of having to discuss with each other how they want their growth and how they want to see it develop. First nations are invited to the table. They are consulted with and they are informed -- everything but coercion; there cannot be coercion. In fact, the number of teeth in this bill that put the minister in a position of making a judgment call on pulling people into or keeping people in a plan are few and far between. They're there to hold the bill together and to maintain the provincial commitment. But vis-a-vis first nations peoples there is no coercion or force. We can persuade, consult, invite and identify mutual concerns and opportunities. But there is no method of coercion inside this bill, and neither should anybody pretend that there is.
There are vehicles, there is money, there are planning grants and there is facilitation to encourage appropriate discussion. If land development is high on the priority of any given jurisdiction -- a first nation or an electoral area, for example -- the electoral area can be brought into the rubric of the overall plan. The first nation absolutely must be consulted and negotiated with. That is the nature of what good politics is about: good consultation, good compromise solutions and good planning that has an action component to it.
[ Page 14109 ]
With good planning, then the provincial government kicks in with good contracts that basically promise to make the ultimate tax load cheaper, I think, for the residents who engage in the regional planning process. No, for first nations it comes down to good politics at the local level -- tables that are open, honest and prepared to discuss and make trade-offs.
There is not a first nation that's heavily engaged in land development that is not also engaged in service contracts with their adjacent municipality or regional district. It is around those service contracts that the discussions have been conducted over the last number of years and will ostensibly continue to be conducted. Service contracts are something that we are all aware of, use and know about. They are part of the push and pull in negotiating a deal. That's basically what this bill encourages and certainly what we can expect vis-a-vis first nations involvement.
G. Wilson: I've a great deal of respect for this minister, so I hope she will not misinterpret what I'm about to say as being disrespectful. Frankly, I'm not interested in what's good politics. I'm more interested in what's good legislation. Good legislation, quite frankly, treats all people equally, allows the law to apply evenly to all citizens, does not make distinctions and does not discriminate against one group or another -- particularly when that discrimination is founded on the basis of one's race.
What the minister is saying about regional districts that may have development potential is unfortunately true, but this bill provides teeth for that minister to force those regional districts to come into line. The reason we accept this is because what we have to do is recognize that there is usually a limited amount of water. More and more, water is becoming a planning tool in this country, notwithstanding that everybody thinks we have abundant amounts of water. We do not have abundant amounts of potable water, and that water often has to be transferred for significant distances to be able to supply people.
You have to bring people into line. That's why I support the concept of this bill, because it provides a regional development strategy to look after that. We have to deal with wastes, municipal solid wastes that come out of residential disposal as well as liquid wastes or sewage. Those are two things that have to be dealt with, and they're very expensive. They are an enormous cost item to local government, yet we have no teeth whatsoever to bring into line the first nations who live within those regional districts and refuse to cooperate with local government.
Those costs are being borne by the Canadian taxpayer. If they were bearing their own costs, and if the costs of their development were being financed out of some kind of independent local tax base under an authority that had self-government and was autonomous, you might argue that that's fair ball. But they're not. They're financed out of the Canadian tax base, and they impact directly on the local tax base in local communities.
The local communities who are looking to try to bring them into line with regional strategies want to see some government agency somewhere. It clearly isn't Ottawa, because the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has done nothing whatsoever to encourage that kind of development. They want them to be brought into line, so that they participate directly in the overall regional plan.
If they don't, and if they develop high densities, it's necessary for water be delivered to those houses. Sewers have to be provided, and septic systems must be put in place. Let me say that when you put in those kinds of services for those kinds of densities, the limited water that goes into those developments is no longer available to farmers who want to irrigate or to residential communities in other regional districts who may want to see development.
That's why we need one law to apply evenly to all people regardless of who they are, and that's why there has to be provision to bring those communities into line. I happen to be fortunate in that I live in a community in which a very progressive first nation, the Sechelt Indian government district, has sought to sit on the regional district. They wanted it; they asked for it; they put it in place. They put in place the Sechelt Indian government district legislation that allowed them to come and participate. I and the people of the Sunshine Coast are enormously fortunate, because we benefit from the wisdom and the involvement of the Sechelt Indian people. It's a very good thing; it's working well.
That isn't true in other communities, and there has to be a way to bring it into play. I have recently visited four communities in the province where there is no cooperation and where there are high-density developments being proposed. In one instance, there is a massive gambling casino development with a huge hotel facility, all kinds of residential development surrounding it, marinas going in, and they're going to have floating homes in another community -- all those kinds of things being done on first nations "territory." There is absolutely no provision for the local government or for this provincial government to have authority over how those developments are going to go.
Yet every single regional district and municipal government where development is taking place are going to be directly impacted by it. As a result, their regional growth strategy, as outlined in this bill, is going to have to be amended to accommodate it, even though they have absolutely no way of controlling it. Now surely, the minister has to recognize that that is just inherently not right -- that's just not the way it should be. It may be good politics, but it's sure bad legislation. We need legislation that is fair and evenly applied to all citizens, and doesn't distinguish one from the other, particularly on the basis of their racial heritage.
Hon. D. Marzari: Bad legislation is legislation that can't deliver. The member knows that bad legislation is legislation that pretends that it can deliver something that it can't. I must say that local governments in this province know that first nations and their land use and servicing are not within local government jurisdiction, nor is it within provincial government jurisdiction. We all know that. Local government came to that recognition during the course of our consultations.
Local government, in the form of the UBCM, is doing workshop after workshop to teach itself how it's going to begin to sit down and begin to deliver promises to constituencies, working with first nations. Local government in this province is the first agency that is ready to admit that it doesn't have jurisdiction. But it wants a bill like this one that can deliver certain things, including good tables where people can sit down and discuss things. Local government is very realistic about what this legislation can deliver to them. I give local government -- and the UBCM most particularly -- full credit for understanding that as it's interpreted, this can be good legislation, because it does open up tables.
[ Page 14110 ]
Local government didn't ask even once that this legislation come in with a heavy hand and try to coerce a first nations agreement or try to force issues around first nations land use. Nobody in local government in this province has suggested that that should be the route we travel with this legislation. Rather, local government is prepared to understand that this legislation is one step toward a good process that will create trade-offs and negotiations and good service delivery and possibly improved contracts with first nations as planning occurs.
The member paints a very deleterious picture, too, of the willingness of first nations to come to the table. Obviously, there are some first nations that for various reasons are not interested in tables; but there are very many more who are, and a lot of them are in the high-growth regions that we're talking about. It is in that business of doing politics and negotiating service contracts that we're going to find our solutions. We're going to find those tables start to deliver some good planning and some good quality-of-life visions for overall regions.
I'd suggest to the member that we're looking at good legislation here. It would be terrible legislation if we pretended that we could have jurisdiction over first nations land use.
C. Serwa: The discussion taking place by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is a very interesting test of the validity of this whole piece of legislation. What I hear and what I listen to from the responses.... Not only are we treating first nations people differently than other British Columbians in the current situation, but we're treating non-native British Columbians who happen to live on band land differently than British Columbians who live off band land.
[5:45]
I'm going to ask if the minister has issued instructions to the negotiators that one of the points in negotiating native land claims.... Is this issue, the requirement to adopt a regional growth strategy, being brought forward so that all British Columbians will be treated equally? I recognize the present restraints on federal private land. But with the treaty negotiations, I also recognize that it is obviously the current government's will to dispose of a great deal of Crown land. Has the minister made any inroads to negotiators? Has the minister made any recommendations that this section or this type of legislation be accepted and applicable to all British Columbians equally?
Hon. D. Marzari: This ministry has worked on a protocol agreement with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities which places the UBCM at the negotiating table for the treaty negotiations that this government has initiated -- the last province in the country to do so. Being at that table, the UBCM is very much involved -- even more so than the ministry itself -- in terms of bringing its issues to the fore and working out agreements with first nations throughout the treaty process. So I would say that this ministry and this government has gone one step further than what you have suggested, by putting municipalities themselves, as an order of government, right at the negotiating table, and has developed an agreement with the UBCM to further that and to enable that process.
So I would say that what we have in this province is local municipal and regional government very much involved in the actual creation of tables and in dealing with day-to-day solutions, working with first nations people on contracts and service agreements that will stand everybody in good stead down the road and pave the way toward good land use decisions, given the fact that there is a federal jurisdiction around native land, as we all know.
C. Serwa: That's the current status of federal private lands. The future status and negotiated position is fee simple lands, and to the best of my knowledge, that's the negotiating position of the native people -- not federal private land, but fee simple land ownership by the various bands. So that scenario is vastly different.
The position of having the advisory council at the table is only that: primarily in an observer role, not in any actually active role. The one step further is really a deceptive type of a statement indicating that there is some influence and some concern; but there is no ability as a third party, a level of government that is really not recognized by this current government, to have any concrete input into the actual negotiations. This particular position has to be taken up either by the federal government, as part of the direct negotiations, or by the provincial government, who are directly involved in negotiations.
The test of this whole legislation and its validity is that either it has to be made acceptable and applicable to all British Columbians, or else, I think, the legislation is probably not worth the paper it's printed on. If the minister refuses to insist that part of the negotiation position is an adherence to clean air strategy, or an adherence to water strategy under some sort of provincial umbrella, then I'd suggest that the legislation is not complete and will not do the job. It will bring more divisiveness into the province because of the different treatment of native and non-native residents who happen to live on band land -- whether it be federal private land, as it is at the present time, or negotiated land claims settlements, which will be fee simple. I think the minister, by her refusal, has fallen far short of the mark in trying to treat all British Columbians equally. With her refusal to do that, I think the legislation actually fails -- and fails miserably -- in the true test of its merit.
G. Wilson: I wonder if I could just pick up on several other issues that relate to this. Currently, throughout the province there are a number of technical committees struck, interministerial in nature, that deal with a whole series and variety of different planning options. Some do have inclusion of local government. In fact, I think all of them have some local government, although in a couple of instances there have been applications by regional districts to get onto these technical planning committees and the applications have been denied. I just wonder if the minister can tell us what the function of these technical planning committees is going to be in relation to the powers that the minister may now have with respect to the designation of these areas. Is that seen to be part of the same process, or is it going to be a parallel process? How does that work?
Hon. D. Marzari: Mr. Chair, I think we're on section 942.14, are we not? I think the member is referring to section 942.29. Can we deal with that when we get there? I can answer the question now, but why not do it when we reach section 942.29?
[ Page 14111 ]
G. Wilson: Because when we get to that other section, we will be dealing with a process of facilitation of agreements, and that's not what I'm talking about.
What I'm talking about is the fact that the requirement.... What this section deals with is the minister's power to require a local government to adopt this growth strategy. What I'm suggesting is that there are already functional processes underway, and so I want to know if that constitutes the requirements or not.
Hon. D. Marzari: The ministry right now is building the intergovernmental, the interministerial, process that will be in place for each individual region as it develops its managed growth strategy. Is the process underway? Yes, it's underway. Is it compatible with other processes throughout government? Reasonably so. Is it connected up with resource land use planning? No, it is not particularly.
It is basically a facilitative model that we're using to pull together ministries, to ensure that ministries will be delegating an individual to each of the managed growth strategy planning processes that will be ongoing. It's certainly in the three high-growth regions: the Okanagan, the east Island and the GVRD plus, up to Hope. Those will be the three obvious ones as the first candidates for regional growth planning initiative grants, etc.
But the pulling together of the interministerial task force is happening now, and its mandate will the mandate that's outlined later on in the legislation.
G. Wilson: I take what the minister is saying, but within those technical committees that are operational now, they have fairly specific mandates with fairly specific time lines, and I would argue that they are not necessarily required to go through the process outlined in other sections of this bill. I guess my concern is that it seems what we're doing here is creating legislation that is going to provide powers to the minister with respect to recommendations; and yet there are other ministries that are currently actively involved in this kind of process. What I'm concerned about is that we're headed toward duplication of work -- one that's going to require a public process and one that isn't; so we'll have parallel processes, in effect. I think transportation strategies, for example, that are already underway.... There are already energy supply and development strategies underway -- all those kinds of things -- but they don't require public hearings or any of those public processes.
Hon. D. Marzari: Wherever possible, the process that we're pulling together with interministerial committees that will service each one of the processes out there in the regions.... There will be maximum involvement with the ministries themselves or with the Crown agencies that are engaged in planning. It's as simple as that. We have to make sure that the process that's happening here intersects with processes that are occurring within the ministries. That's the whole essence of forcing the provincial government to listen to regional and local government. That's the whole reason why local government would be interested in discussing this legislation in the first place. If local government didn't feel it was getting a good deal out of this, it wouldn't have been at the table over the last 18 months.
Because of the lateness of the hour, I move that the committee rise and report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would remind members that the House will sit tomorrow at 2 p.m. Having so advised the House, I move adjournment.
Hon. A. Charbonneau moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:29 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HOUSING, RECREATION AND CONSUMER SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 44: minister's office, $360,624 (continued).
Hon. J. Smallwood: In closing this morning, the member raised a number of issues with regard to the rental market. I hope the member kept track and can reintroduce questions that we haven't answered.
Having said that, I want to take the opportunity to read into the record a report on the bill and the progress that has been made. On February 10, my ministry implemented legislative admendments that were fair, balanced and designed to improve communication and business practices between landlords and tenants.
As I mentioned earlier in the debate, rent protection measures are in effect and additional landlord-tenant protections now exist. During debate on the bill, some members expressed concern that every tenant in the province would dispute any rent increase, no matter what the size. Some felt that retroactive provisions would result in an overwhelming backlog of cases dating back to December, 1993. The government's view is that most tenants and landlords treat each other fairly and that this would continue. The improved protections offered by Bill 50 were targeted to the exceptions, those bad actors in the rental housing market.
[ Page 14112 ]
I am pleased to inform members that government's confidence was well placed. With the retroactivity provision in the bill, we have had about 16 months' experience with the rental housing marketplace. We have had 208 arbitration requests relating to Bill 50. Of these, 161 specifically requested a review of their rent. Since proclamation on February 10 and up to May 3, 1995, rent review arbitration cases represented only about 4 percent of our total business. We estimate that in the new fiscal year this number will drop to about 2 percent.
At this time, our largest rent review arbitration load falls into the 11-20 percent rent increase category. Statistics indicate 43 files disputing rent increases between 3.6 and 10 percent, 59 files disputing rent increases between 11 percent and 20 percent, 23 files disputing rent increases between 21 percent and 30 percent, and seven files disputing rent increases of more than 31 percent. One of the rent review arbitrations dealt with a rent increase of 233 percent. Of the files related to Bill 50, to date, 47 have dealt with other issues: 13 arbitrations requesting a change of locks, three requests for assignments or sublets of a tenancy and 31 arbitrations requesting the return of personal property.
I'd also like to report on the government's financial investment in improving services and enhancing consumer protection to approximately one-third of British Columbians who rent their homes. Last year residential tenancy activities in my ministry received a budget increase of $4.5 million, from $3.7 million, to a total of $8.2 million to implement a number of legislative changes including rent protection. Of that increase, over half was invested in new access to services throughout B.C. The balance was spent to implement Bill 50 and Bill 67 amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act. These include a proactive information role for residential tenancy officers, rent protection, registrars orders to return security deposits, set-up costs for the arbitration review panel, and a new mediation and dispute resolution service for the manufactured home park sector.
Expenditures to implement these legislative changes cover staffing, additional arbitrator systems hardware and software, training, education, advertising and publication. To put these figures in context, our expenditures to improve fairness and access to residential tenancy information and services represent about $10 per rental housing unit in British Columbia. This funding has provided a legacy of access, service and protection to tenants and landlords now, and to British Columbians who may be tenants or landlords in the future. In conclusion, I'm pleased to report that the response to our residential tenancy initiatives has been positive and well within range of the ministry's estimates.
W. Hurd: The minister indicated this morning that the rate of new construction in the rental housing industry is around 2,000 units per year. Can the minister tell us how many of those units might be in the lower mainland and how many would be in the rest of the province?
Obviously we have two almost distinct housing markets in the province of British Columbia: the lower mainland, which is experiencing rapid growth and an almost equally rapid escalation in prices, and the rest of the province, with the possible exceptions of greater Victoria, Kelowna and areas of the south Okanagan. But clearly the biggest area of concern would be the rate of construction of new rental accommodations in the lower mainland. I wonder if the minister can give us an idea of where we're heading in that critical component. Of the 2,000 units that we identified this morning, what percentage might be coming on line in the lower mainland?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The figures that we provided earlier were developed by CMHC. We'll get the breakdown for you. I know the member was not present during the debate on housing policy development in this province, but I think it's particularly interesting to note that while this province has continued to develop and influence non-market affordable housing, the federal Liberals have abandoned that field totally and now only participate in the marketplace by supporting the industry and for-profit housing.
I think it's also important for the member to realize that the statistics were on new rental housing stocks and likely did not take into consideration the most significant influence in the rental stocks, which was the increase in secondary suites.
W. Hurd: There seems to be a lack of recognition that the costs of rental housing -- the rents that are charged every month -- surely are a function of the number of units that are available. If the private sector is essentially dealt out of the process and there's absolutely no incentive in the province to construct a rental building -- for-profit or otherwise -- surely that has an impact on the cost of rental accommodation in the province.
The minister talks about the growth being in secondary suites. Well, shouldn't the concern be that if the incremental growth is in secondary suites, there will be less likelihood of Bill 50 having any impact on tenants in the province of British Columbia? If they're in an illegal suite that is not registered with the municipality -- a suite that's constructed in a building without even a building inspection, necessarily -- surely those particular tenants are at a greater disadvantage when it comes to reporting any increases in rent that might be unfair. It seems to me that the suggestion that we're seeing an increase in secondary suites in the province is driving the issue underground.
If there were some incentives out there to provide more rental accommodation and vacancies in the rental market, would that not at least contribute some market force to rental increases in the province? Since the minister has quoted statistics from the initial applications of Bill 50, maybe I could ask her if she can indicate what percentage of them are coming from people who occupy what could be called a secondary suite, as opposed to people who are actually living in buildings that are identified as rental buildings? Since she has acknowledged that the area of secondary suites is the greatest area of growth in rental housing stock in the province of British Columbia, how many of the complaints that the ministry receives are coming from people in secondary suites?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I find it really difficult for this member to stand up, representing -- to be really clear on this, I will quote his leader -- "the coalition of free enterprise," and lobby for public money for private profit. I think you'd better get it straight, Mr. Member. Do you support free enterprise and a free marketplace or do you truly want taxpayers' dollars going into the pockets of your developer friends?
Let me deal with a couple of points on that front. First, the industry itself -- and this is from the Canadian housing building association -- clearly states that it doesn't want false subsidies in the marketplace. It wants to stand on its own.
[ Page 14113 ]
Second, when you look at your leader and his involvement with the VLC in providing free land, in lobbying to have the interest rates paid down and in having those very same friends actually fail to produce rental housing and affordable housing for tenants.... Those examples of public money for private profit, Mr. Member, are what your party is all about. The targeting and development that this government has built into the provision for supporting fairness in the marketplace with Consumer Services and the consumer legislation is just that.
If the member had listened to the numbers that were presented with the report on the legislation, he would have clearly seen that it is nothing short of a safety valve. Surely the member is not suggesting that dealing with an independent third party to hear an arbitration for a rent increase of 233 percent is anything other than what should have existed in this province all along.
The Chair: I just might remind hon. members, including the minister, that all remarks are to be made through the Chair, and no personal pronouns are to be expected.
W. Hurd: The minister said in the last few minutes that the greatest growth in the rental housing market has been in the secondary suite area. That's what I thought I heard. If I didn't, I'm sure I'll stand corrected. But if the greatest growth is in the secondary suite area, what kind of quantifiable measuring statistic does the ministry have to determine how great the growth is? If it's an underground economy we're dealing with here, how do you measure it? Where are we going in terms of the number of rental units in British Columbia? Does this minister have a benchmark or a goal?
It's such a simple question that it's pathetic, quite frankly, that we haven't been able to get an answer. Where are we going to be at the end of 1995 in terms of the number of rental units in the province? What is the target? If we can't measure the ministry in that way, how can we measure its success? Where are we going?
I've asked the minister about rental housing from the private sector. She has indicated 2,000 units in the next fiscal year. I would welcome a clarification of that. How many of those units are actually in the lower mainland and how many are in the rest of the province? That is a critical issue.
I'd also be interested in knowing where we're going to be at the end of the year in terms of new units. Obviously the number of units has an impact on the price of rents in greater Vancouver. What is the target? Where are we going to be at the end of the year and how can we measure the success of the ministry from January 1, 1995 to January 1, 1996? How many more units are going to be available for renters in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me first clarify for the member. He seems unaware of the mandate of this ministry. There are two areas in which we affect housing policy. One is fairness in the marketplace. It is a piece of consumer protection legislation that helps provide fairness and balance to the relationship between landlords and tenants. It is very much like any other consumer protection legislation governing any other sector, such as bringing fairness to the relationships of people who are leasing automobiles and the automobile leasing industry -- just to give one practical example of consumer protection legislation that is also very effective.
[2:45]
On the other hand, the second piece of housing policy is the responsibility of B.C. Housing, and it affects the supply side of non-market housing with respect to the industry and the developers that this member represents. Their interface with government has to do with Municipal Affairs and the zoning policies in the community development reflected by the Municipal Affairs legislation.
The member asked for housing statistics. I provided the information that we had available to us here and made the commitment to bring the specifics that the member required to him during this session. Those statistics are compiled by CMHC and not by our ministry. The private market is not -- again to you, Mr. Member -- the responsibility of this ministry. Indeed, I would hope that you argue....
The Chair: Hon. minister, I hate to interrupt you, but I have to get your language straight. Thank you.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Quite right. My apologies.
The role and interface of government with the private marketplace is one of partnership in developing and achieving our mutual goals.
W. Hurd: With respect to the secondary suite issue, the minister indicated that her ministry is satisfied that there has been a growth in that segment of the rental housing market. Can the minister provide some statistics on that? Clearly, in terms of providing affordable rental accommodation for people in the province, that appears to be -- from the minister's own comments -- the best hope we have: the provision of more secondary suites in the province. I would ask the minister if she has a figure that could be offered on where we're going in that segment of the market.
Hon. J. Smallwood: CMHC estimates that rented houses or flats in houses accounted for approximately 30 percent of the total rental stock in British Columbia. That's as of the 1991 consensus.
W. Hurd: Then in terms of the complaints that come forward to the residential tenancy branch with respect to that 30 percent, would the minister be able to provide the committee with some idea of whether the number of complaints is higher or lower from that segment? Clearly, it would appear to me that a person living in a "secondary" or illegal suite would not be in a particularly strong position when it comes to dealing with the residential tenancy branch, and I wonder if the minister can provide us with some statistics? Is she comfortable that those living in secondary suites have the same access to the residential tenancy branch for complaints as would a tenant in a registered or aboveground rental housing project?
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, we do not keep separate statistics with regard to the source of the complaint. We are not asking tenants whether they live in a suite or a fourplex or in multiple-unit housing. I do think it is fair to say that in our consultation, and in public meetings that we continue to hold throughout the province, landlords who are renting single suites or units are often in a situation where they need additional support and information in running their business. That
[ Page 14114 ]
is one of the reasons why we have developed and enhanced the access to the residential tenancy branches throughout the province and why we have built in an information component to the residential tenancy branches -- so our information officers can actively support both landlords and tenants in their relationship.
Finally, the issue of legal or illegal suites. I want to make it clear to the member that the Residential Tenancy Act governs the residential tenancy agreement -- the contract between landlords and tenants -- and is not specific to the type of rental. So if there is an agreement between a landlord and a tenant, then the accessibility of the legislation and the residential tenancy branch and its support services are based on that agreement.
W. Hurd: I can appreciate that the unit that was the subject of a complaint wouldn't necessarily be identified as a secondary suite. Clearly we are dealing with two distinct types of accommodation here. On the one hand, we have someone who may be living in the basement suite of a home in Surrey, Vancouver or elsewhere and who has an arrangement with the owner of the dwelling that may or may not even follow the traditional landlord-tenant relationship.
I think it is a legitimate question to ask the minister whether she is satisfied that the people who are living in illegal suites and may not have a standard agreement still have access to equity and fairness. Again, as we contemplate the fact that there hasn't been a huge exponential growth in private rental stock in the province and that the minister has acknowledged that the greatest growth in affordable housing appears to be in this segment, are there any programs underway to encourage the owners of illegal suites who are in a landlord-tenant relationship to in any way normalize those relationships by registering them or pursuing a formal standard agreement? Or is she concerned that we might be dealing with the growth of an underground housing economy, if we can use the term, that would have the effect of reducing the protection that tenants may have, given the fact that the best long-term solution we've heard offered in the rental housing area is in secondary suites?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The ministry has a number of issues on its agenda for next year's work plan. We've begun the development with my ministry's advisory council, which has broad representation from the housing sector. In that, one of the task groups is taking on the issue of secondary suites.
The member may be aware that we began the work prior to the formation of this ministry, under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. We have worked with representatives of the UBCM to develop the initial work dealing with regulatory changes to the Municipal Act. That report was tabled with the UBCM, and we are at this point receiving input from a number of different councils around the province with regard to that report. While that task group did not represent tenants, individual homeowners or the real estate industry, we felt it was necessary to broaden the work and include issues of security of tenure for tenants and issues of mortgage-helpers for homeowners.
Often a secondary suite will help someone just starting in the housing market to make mortgage payments and will allow many seniors to stay in their homes. We see benefit in a further consultation, in the hope that we can identify issues with municipal councils and encourage in some communities the use of secondary suites to address affordable housing, as well as a number of other issues.
Let me give an example that I heard from the task group this past week. As the member well knows, likely by following the local papers in his own community, the issue of secondary suites was a fairly contentious one in Delta. Ironically, the community dealing with the issue of secondary suites was an older one. Many of the children had grown up and moved away and, at the same time, the school board was dealing with the issue of having to close the school. The use of secondary suites in that community may not only deal with affordable housing, but also may support the utilization of a common asset -- the school and its infrastructure -- to better use, rather than building a new school and supporting the development of new facilities.
These are issues on which we hope to encourage debate in communities with local councils, in an attempt to reach a consensus in this province in using that most affordable housing stock.
W. Hurd: I have just one other question. I want to inquire about the Abbeyfield housing society of Canada. I understand that projects under the society are funded, or partly funded, by B.C. Housing, which allows a group of seniors to live in a separate suite in a single-family residence, with a home-care component to allow them to function in a semi-independent environment. Otherwise they might have to be resident in a long term or medium term care facility.
Since I am aware that B.C. Housing is funding some projects and others that are funded entirely privately, I wonder whether there's any intention on the part of the ministry to look at the expansion of this type of concept, particularly for seniors who may be experiencing medical difficulties but who could thrive in an environment where they could be supported by a caregiver in a large single-family dwelling with a number of smaller suites within the house. I wonder if the minister could tell us how much money in this year's budget is being allocated to supporting the housing society proposal and whether there's any potential application for expanding that program in the future.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me start by explaining to the member the relationship that our ministry, through B.C. Housing, has with community groups in supporting community initiatives. At the point of expression of interest -- last year's was in June -- there was a call for community groups to put forward their proposals or expressions of interest in developing housing developments. Included in that, of course, are examples like the Abbeyfield development, a good example of one of those developments very close to the Legislature. Abbeyfield has been made possible through the availability of BCBC lands written down below market. Those sorts of developments are initiated by communities and non-profit societies, and they compete along with other non-profit community groups in meeting the number of units that we have available each year.
W. Hurd: This morning I asked a brief series of questions about the Assessment Act. While I understand that falls under the purview of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, clearly where non-profit societies are providing housing stock they obviously face the same rather onerous property tax burden
[ Page 14115 ]
as would a private homeowner or any other type of venture. I wonder whether the Minister of Housing had given any consideration to lobbying her colleague with respect to the rate classes that are available for non-profit housing. I know there's certainly a situation in my own riding where a non-profit society that isn't into housing but does own a building is classified as a business under the Assessment Act; it pays an astronomically high rate of taxation, even though it is registered as non-profit, providing a multiplicity of social services to the community.
I wonder whether there is any consideration given by the ministry to looking at the property tax issue with respect to non-profit housing societies that are providing a needed public service and yet don't seem to enjoy any benefits with respect to assessments, municipal taxation, school taxes, etc.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Our ministry works very closely with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. This is an issue we will continue to discuss with that ministry, along with many other housing-related issues.
R. Chisholm: If the minister could think back to the last time I addressed her, it was in reference to PEP and the role her ministry played in the emergency measures organization. I was speaking to PEP this morning; I just came back from a meeting with them. They said there were directives sent out to each of the ministries to develop policy on how they are going to take care of their responsibilities toward the emergency program.
[3:00]
My question to the minister is: now that you have responsibility for this and it's no longer under Social Services, has your ministry developed that policy, and to what degree? If you have, could you make that policy available to us? Has the federal government been incorporated into that policy?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member is correct, in that our role falls under the umbrella of emergency social services and is represented by B.C. Housing. There is a policy developed, and I would be happy to make it available.
R. Chisholm: The last part of that question to the hon. minister was: was the federal government taken into account when you developed your policy, and to what degree?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The way the system has developed.... It's set up in such a way that the first line of defence is municipal support. If the municipal level is overwhelmed, the next step is federal support.
R. Chisholm: I realize the steps you go through and how they apply for the support, but I'm just wondering if the federal government has been written into your policy, other than just asking for it and for resources through the Attorney General or through the Premier.
Hon. J. Smallwood: If the member's line of questioning has to do with the role of the Chilliwack base, perhaps....
Interjection.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Just a fishing expedition, that's all.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Well, I'd be real happy to line up the hook with the fish if I understood where the fish was.
Our involvement is simply with those three steps. If the member can be more explicit with his question, perhaps we can help him more directly with the answer.
R. Chisholm: No, this isn't about CFB Chilliwack; this is about all federal resources and facilities in the province and whether these resources are on a list and written into your policy as to the availability of them, and this type of thing.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The answer is no, they're simply reflected in the lines of responsibility.
V. Anderson: I'd like to take us back to where we left off this morning before some other people came in. I'd like to go over the financial part of the estimates for a few minutes.
This morning we were talking about the $14 million in provincial programs, and we were discussing the $10 million that was in one category, which was paying off an already contracted mortgage arrangement that had been previously undertaken. So it would seem that the $3 million to $4 million in special needs housing is the area that I'd like to discuss for a few minutes.
Perhaps the minister might explain to us that $4 million, how it's able to meet the needs and whether it's at all adequate for the kinds of programs she has in mind.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Special needs housing is the responsibility of the service-providing ministries, whether it's the Ministry of Social Services, Ministry of Health or Ministry of Attorney General. We manage the stock and help with the development of those group homes and special needs housing. If the member wants his question answered with regard to that housing meeting its needs, I would suggest that the member ask the questions of the ministries responsible.
V. Anderson: What I was trying to get at is how that $4 million is used. I agree and understand that it's another ministry's and that you're cooperating with those ministries. What I was trying to get is: what's the nature and extent of the cooperation? How is the $4 million used in that cooperative process?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Perhaps I should start from square one and provide the budget figures for 1995-96 in the total of $14 million. The member can disregard the numbers we gave him earlier because they didn't pertain directly to this year. I'll give you rounded figures: directly managed, $2 million; B.C. rental supply, $6 million -- this is a non-profit program. The Homes B.C. initiative is: homeless at risk, $1.9 million; non-profit, $3 million; new options for home ownership, $152,000; and the community housing initiative, $1.3 million -- for a total of $6 million for Homes B.C. It all adds up to roughly $14 million.
For the member's information, it does not deal with special needs housing. The special needs housing numbers that we talked about this morning were confusing apples and oranges. It's a direct flowthrough. It is money that is provided out of another ministry's budget and is not included in our budget at all.
[ Page 14116 ]
V. Anderson: Just to clarify the last point, if I understand, special needs housing is for people with disabilities, people with AIDS and people in transition houses. Are all those the kinds of things you're talking about in terms of special needs and that -- come out of the respective ministries of Social Services, Health and Women's Equality?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member is well versed in the housing support program that is available through the Ministry of Social Services, whether it's group homes or facilities for people with mental handicaps. As for the support services for housing, with respect to the Ministry of Health and the Attorney General -- all their responsibilities -- we don't have an interface with them. Although there are some special needs groups that we do support, and they are providing subsidies for housing for people with AIDS, as an example, the service ministry's responsibility is limited to their client base and often focuses exclusively on deinstitutionalization -- for instance, Riverview, through the Ministry of Health.
V. Anderson: Perhaps it would be helpful then.... I know the minister talked about these various new undertakings at the UBCM and was putting out to them all of these undertakings.
But when you hear the package and then look at the figures here, the package that we hear about seems to be a lot bigger than the actual package, when we begin to see the figures that go with it. So perhaps we need to clarify how much is symbolism. And I am not negating the importance of symbolism in creating partnerships, because I am aware that $20 here may be able to trigger $100 someplace else and that one is selling symbolism or a package that other people can buy into and support, where without that, people would not be able to do this.
But perhaps it could be a little clearer as to not just the finances involved but the particular focus of each of these options and how each option differs from the other so that people buy into it. If they are looking for help, what would be the particular quality of one option that they would be a part of rather than a part of another option? If I understand correctly, they are not going to get a great deal of financial help, but they will get supportive help and perhaps networking help along with other organizations. I am trying to get at the exact nature of what's being offered.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me clarify for the member that these programs are real, hard construction costs; they are not simply counselling or support programs. The figures that the member sees in our budget are simply a single-year commitment to a 35-year subsidy. The actual construction costs generated in one year by Homes B.C. are approximately $120 million. So the member can see -- and I have made the argument before -- that housing policy and housing strategy not only deal with the immediate costs of individuals in meeting their rent, the subsidy, but also encourage and support significant economic generation in the community where the housing development is being built. In this past year alone, it was $120 million, and we can anticipate, in the years to come, that amount increasing. It's projected next year at about $140 million.
V. Anderson: There's one clarification that follows that, which the minister might be able to help with. We talked about the previous program which the Social Credit government did, on which we are continuing to pay off the mortgage until that program runs out. Are we creating programs now, in the money we are presenting this year, which have made similar kinds of commitments for the years after this? If so, what is the nature of those commitments, and how much have we "contracted for" for next year and the year after, without ever having done anything beyond what we do this year?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like the member to focus on two different components: the ongoing subsidy, which makes up the difference between the market rent, and the subsidy that is made available to underwrite the market rent for an individual so that that individual pays only 30 percent of their income. This year that ongoing subsidy is approximately $5 million, and the commitments are over 35 years, so for these developments you can anticipate approximately $5 million a year over 35 years.
[3:15]
Around the construction costs, the way it works is that a non-profit society builds the development with our support and incurs a mortgage. The mortgage is reflected by that $120 million construction value. Through the rents that they achieve in their development, they meet their mortgage payments. So our involvement was that we facilitated only the ongoing subsidy, by bringing a number of different resources to that table.
V. Anderson: I'm just trying to clarify this. If we put, then, on the construction end of it.... I'm including the planning and whatever money is spent in putting that together. There may be assistance -- 5 percent to 10 percent or whatever it would amount to -- in that area, which is actually cash outflow in the current year to the project underway. Then there's no further direct costs to the society for that construction.
The ongoing cost is not for the original building. It then transfers to the subsidy for the renter on an ongoing basis and no longer for the construction of the building itself. So in the construction, it's the cash in any given year that has helped it to come into being, but there's no ongoing cost for that. The ongoing cost is simply in the subsidy to the renter at that point. Is that an understanding?
Hon. J. Smallwood: You're correct in your analysis, but I'd like to add a couple of factors to that: first, the acknowledgment that the equity accrued in the development goes to the non-profit society and is held by it, and does not go to the renter. As the member is aware, the subsidy is provided to the renter for rent geared to income.
V. Anderson: I'm trying to figure out the accumulated effect of that five-year program. I'm using my own round figures at the moment, rather than yours. If you put a million dollars into a variety of projects this year -- this is at the construction end of the project toward the capital costs this year -- and you have on top of that the ongoing subsidies, and then, in the next year, you put another million in, you would in essence double the number of subsidies the next year. You would have this year's, plus what you will do next year and the following year. Can you project over that period of time what that increase in subsidy will be in contracting, as it multiplies over that five-year period? What would the total
[ Page 14117 ]
of that be, say, in the fifth year? What would be the yearly cost another 20 to 35 years beyond that? I can see that if you become really successful, it only increases the subsidy, particularly if we get a downturn in the economy. People's incomes go down, and the subsidies then, in effect, have to go up.
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, we are getting the numbers for the current housing subsidies, the accumulation of all that has gone before. These are the federal-provincial.... I'll get those numbers for you. Let me explain to you that in this past year we did things a little bit differently because we were going on our own. It was only the province funding the housing developments. As you know, once we'd lost two-thirds of the funding for the federal program, that put us in a real bind.
The $5 million provincial funding for subsidies provides support for 600 units. We acknowledge that the need is far greater than that. In this past year, through B.C. 21, we had an additional $20 million available to us -- I'm talking about 1994-95. We used that additional $20 million for capital funding up front to write down the cost of housing so that the subsidy could be stretched farther and the difference between the actual market costs of the development and that 30 percent geared to income would be reduced overall. That way we could get more units for the same money. We actually managed to stretch the unit allocation to almost 1,000 by underwriting the front-end costs with B.C. 21 money.
The approach this year is likely to be different, and we are not yet in a position to make an announcement with regard to this year's allocation. We are hoping to be able to do the expression-of-interest call shortly. Having said that, the member can understand that it is very difficult to project ongoing costs, because each year the approach, depending on resources, may be different. A good window is what has happened in the past and what that ongoing subsidy amounts to.
The total amount in the budget for ongoing subsidies to date is $54 million; $41 million is federal-provincial and $13 million is wholly provincial. That total of $54 million is supporting roughly 37,000 units in the province.
V. Anderson: To clarify and make sure I understand, the $5 million subsidy made possible 600 units in the current year. That wasn't the construction part of the unit; that was the subsidy over and above. What was the input, then, into the 600 units as far as the cost of supporting those units in getting underway? If I understand, there are two parts: one is the support for the units getting underway to the non-profit societies; the other is the subsidy to the individual. What is the one time amount in the current year that is given to non-profit societies, rather than ongoing individual subsidies?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sorry if the two different programs cause some confusion. With normal social housing -- non-market, non-profit housing -- the cost is borne by the society in the mortgage and covered by the mortgage. As a rule, no government money is provided for capital. The only government money provided is to write down the difference between the mortgage, which would be required by a market rent to meet the mortgage, and the rent geared to income. The ongoing subsidy of $5 million is for writing down the operating costs, including covering the mortgage, to rent geared to income.
Last year, 1994-95, was a different scenario. Because we were trying to do more with less, we actually had an opportunity to write down the front-end capital costs and therefore shrink the difference between the operating cost and the rent geared to income. This allowed us to subsidize more units with our ongoing subsidy -- the same amount of dollars -- over the 35 years.
V. Anderson: Let me see if I understand this. The 600 units would have required a $5 million subsidy each year over the 35 years. Adding the $20 million from B.C. 21, you are saying with that same $5 million subsidy you can cover 1,000 units each year over the 35 years. Am I right?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The actual number is 974 units, and we have been able to do that not only with front-end capital -- the $20 million -- but also by some discounting of land, as well as this partnering I talked about, where groups would bring assets to the table to help spread that money as far as we could.
V. Anderson: Whether we get B.C. 21 input another year or not, what I hear the minister saying is that the plan over the next five years is to put in $5 million a year for subsidy. That $5 million will only subsidize what is already there. If we do additional building this current year, then we would have to have that $5 million subsidy, plus, if you did another 600 units, another $5 million to cover those units. You would need a $10 million subsidy this year to pick up the $5 million from last year, plus the new ones which begin this year -- if I understand correctly.
Hon. J. Smallwood: First, I did not say five years; I was talking of the $5 million subsidy. The commitments made last year contractually last the length of the mortgage -- 35 years. The $5 million subsidy that will support 974 units will be built into the base budget of the ministry in each of the 35 years. Over and above that ongoing commitment, we have an additional $5 million this year for subsidies. This is new money.
V. Anderson: I think I understand. There is $5 million built into the base budget, which is some place in this $83 million, under housing continuation and cooperatives. That $5 million is built into each of the coming 35 years. If there was no new construction this year, there would be only $5 million each year. If new housing comes on line this year, there will be an additional $5 million so that the base budget next year will have to have $10 million in it. If the same happens the following year, it would be $15 million, so it would increase each year for the full 35 years until the first year begins to drop off, as long as you continue. So an escalating amount has to be built into the budget each year, which presumably, if you have an increasing budget every year, means that you can continue to extend your program. But if for some reason we have a decreasing budget....
[3:30]
D. Schreck: Like a Liberal election.
V. Anderson: Yes, like a Liberal election, because people want to get out of debt.
[ Page 14118 ]
But when you have a decreasing budget, then you are committed to those additional costs and you are prevented from having additional costs, regardless of who's in government at that time. I just want to be clear that there is an additional commitment there. Perhaps you can tell me: what is your ongoing commitment in the program that was carried over from the Social Credit government, which is also being written into your base budget? Is that included in this $5 million or is that over and above this $5 million? I understand that there was a base commitment to begin with for that previous contractor, the Social Credit housing, which you're now going out of.... This year there was an additional $5 million added to that. So in the current year, what is the total subsidy -- the $5 million plus the previous contract?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm really pleased that the member put on the record that the potential of a Liberal government in this province will mean that there will be no new investment in social housing.
I think it's also important for the member to put on the record the fact that, as was suggested by his leader in his speech, he would privatize Crowns, including B.C. Housing, and in doing so, he would begin to divest the public assets of Crown land and real estate holdings that B.C. Housing has in support of social housing. I think the people of British Columbia deserve that honesty, and I'm pleased that the member has taken that step and put it on the public record.
Secondly, the rental supply program that we talked about earlier is a five-year program, and that ongoing commitment will decline and has a final date to it. The federal-provincial program is currently funded with $41 million, and that is for all the developments that are in place in the province. Also, because those developments came on at different times, that will decline.
The commitment this province has is not only to provide the subsidy for those who cannot participate.... I have to remind the member of the difference, and ironically, the legacy that the true Liberals in Canada brought in by developing the national housing strategy in the first place, which made our country so different from the U.S., which said that the marketplace would provide support for those most in need. The reality in the States is the increasing number of people living on the streets, the increasing crime and violence and the cost of prison systems to deal with those who have lost hope.
The member quips back that for those people who are concerned about ongoing investments in this province -- and the shallowness of such words.... We realize that in the United States a number of states are now going bankrupt because of the cost of keeping their citizens, who have no hope and no support from government, in prison. It's a very important comment from the member, and I think the people of the province deserve none less.
V. Anderson: I hate to say that the....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
V. Anderson: I hate to say that the hon. minister misunderstands or misquotes. I know that the hon. minister would never do that intentionally. I would have to say that the hon. minister needs to be clarified in her statements. What I did say is that we have to take into account the financial realities. There was no time at which I said that we would be doing anything but supporting housing in our Liberal government, when we have the opportunity to do so.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
V. Anderson: I'm glad the backbenchers have finally come awake in the discussion. Let me clarify.
An Hon. Member: It's unusual that you come out of the closet and tell us what you really mean.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
V. Anderson: Let me clarify that it is not our intention to deprive people of housing. I did not say that in the first place, and I must correct the hon. minister in that our hon. leader has said that we would review each of the corporations, not that we would do away with the corporations. I trust that the minister herself does a review of each corporation's activities.
We'll have an opportunity to look at the B.C. housing corporation later. I would expect that the minister has reviewed the effectiveness of that corporation; I would be very disappointed if she has not. We'll come to that later and ask about the review: how she has evaluated its effectiveness and how she has worked either to alter or to improve its undertakings. I think we indicated earlier when I met with her staff that this is the kind of questioning that we would do. What are the implications? It is important that we know what are the long-run, multiplying factors of this. When we go back into the discussion, that's just to clarify the minister's statements -- not that it will clarify her thinking, but at least I responded to it.
On the $20 million that came from B.C. 21, perhaps the minister could clarify out of what account that money came. Was it from a reserve account or was it borrowed in order to make it possible for her ministry to do the programs that she plans to undertake? What was the original source of the $20 million? Are they borrowed funds or is it a reserve fund that was left in one of the government's pockets that we're not aware of?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm a little concerned. This member seems to be disassociating himself from his leader. This member says that he supports housing. But his own leader, in a very high-profile speech just lately, said that government should not be in the real estate business and that they would "sell off the Crowns." And that is a quote.
He further went on to talk about evaluating the Crowns. When I heard that, I wondered whether he was suggesting that his friend Jim Moody should come in and evaluate B.C. Housing, just as an example. You're the coalition of free enterprisers. Is it your intention to bring into government those developers and those people who are lusting after our public resources and public assets in order to assess their viability?
Within our portfolio, we have very valuable land and very valuable assets. They are being used to provide housing for people most in need.
[ Page 14119 ]
Let me talk not only about the human face of that investment, but about the costs. We did talk about the economic spinoffs in the province from the generation of actual construction and employment. Let me also provide the member with some statistics about the subsidies that we were talking about to underwrite the costs of social housing. In this province, it costs about $20 a day to subsidize a home for someone in social housing. For that same individual who has lost hope....
In our very short history, we unfortunately saw the riots in Los Angeles and the real tangible effects of the loss of hope for a whole generation of young people. The cost to that society.... I'll do it in Canadian dollars. Provincial jails in British Columbia cost $121 a day. Federal jails in British Columbia cost approximately $171 a day. This government has chosen to invest in our strengths, invest in people and invest in hope. Not only is it cost-effective, not only is it a good investment in dollars, communities, construction and real jobs, but it's an investment in strengths. It is a lot cheaper than not investing, hon. member.
So I would suggest if you are disassociating yourself from your leader, then stand up and say so. If not, I'm hoping you'll take a message back to your leader that he is on the wrong track.
The Chair: Hon. minister, you have slid off the point I was making to you earlier, as I recall, about addressing comments through the Chair.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Through you, hon. Chair, let me also provide some statistics with regard to the effectiveness of and the need for B.C. Housing and the work that we are very proud of as a province. These are active applicants for housing on the lower mainland in all categories -- families, seniors, handicapped and women. When we say they are active applicants, we mean they are people who meet the qualifications for public housing. In March of 1995, there were 7,985 applicants. Between March 1994 and March 1995 we saw an increase of 50 percent. Those statistics deal with the lower mainland. The waiting list may not be quite as large in other communities. We have waiting lists throughout the province, and I would suggest that many individuals don't even get on the waiting list, knowing that there are so many people ahead of them.
There is a real need, hon. member. All we have to do is look at the last 20 years' legacy of a country and a government that made a different decision, the decision that the federal Liberals are making now.
V. Anderson: The hon. minister does wax eloquent when she hits her political stride. I appreciate that she's excited, convinced and enthusiastic about what she does, because I trust I would be the same way. I can't resist saying, though, that I'm not in the business of supporting people who are lusting after any particular item, much less finances or anything else. I just had to comment on that one.
I like the minister, though, in her concern for housing, because housing is a fundamental need in everybody's family. There is no question about that. One of the realities, though, is that the minister indicates, as she has, that there's roughly 8,000 people in the lower mainland who are looking for housing. I am quite aware of that housing need, because we hear about it consistently and regularly. It is one of the reasons I got into politics myself. I'm not separating myself from the leader in this concern, because we all have that same concern.
One of the realities is: how are we going to meet that need in the long run? The situation is not going to become any easier in the foreseeable future; it's going to become more critical. The concern is how we can meet that without mortgaging the future, not only for ourselves but for all of those people who are coming after us. That is why I was asking about the cumulative effect of the mortgage payments -- the more we put into housing at this present time, the more we have to be aware that though it meets our current needs, it could make the problem far greater for our children down the road. That is the reason for asking for the cumulative effect of those figures.
[3:45]
It is also the reason why I asked -- and I didn't get an answer, but a response in a political vein -- where the $20 million came from through B.C. 21: whether this was borrowed money or whether this came out of a pot that was accumulated and which, fortunately, is not a pot that has to be paid back. That's my curiosity about B.C. 21: where that $20 million came from. It provided additional housing over this year, but what are the future implications of that $20 million?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Two comments. First of all, if the member is interested in the voted appropriation for the Ministry of Employment and Investment, he should ask those questions during their estimates.
Second, with regard to the issue of affordability, investing in people today assures that they will have a future. By making the decision not to invest in the people of British Columbia, many of those young people that are struggling now with parents and families that are living in poverty will not have a future and will not have those opportunities that would have been provided by safe, stable housing. It is very difficult to feed your family, hold down a job or get training if you don't have that basic need met.
Having said that, let me elaborate a little. In this province, approximately 20 percent of the gross domestic product is required to meet our debt obligations. If you go to any banker, investment institution or lender of money in this province, they would jump at the opportunity if any person in this room was in a situation in which 20 percent of their income was going to pay for their debt obligations. That is why we have such a good credit rating; we are a good place to invest, a good place to work and a good place to live. That is the reality, and that demystifies the rhetoric and shows not only that the management of the province's assets and budget is on track, but that the decisions that our government has made make sense. What you are suggesting -- the rhetoric that is pumped out by all right-wing parties -- reflects neither the reality nor the lives of the people in this province.
V. Anderson: I'm interested that, because I ask questions about where money is coming from and where it's going to, the hon. minister thinks I'm suggesting something other than good financial responsibility and social responsibility to people as well. I'm sure she's not suggesting that financial responsibility is nothing to be concerned about. I note that the minister does not wish to answer where the $20 million came from -- other than it came from B.C. 21 -- and whether it's
[ Page 14120 ]
borrowed or not. Apparently, she indicates that as long as she gets the money, she doesn't really care what the implications of it are. As long as she has the money to build the houses to meet the needs she wants to meet, she's not concerned about the other implications.
D. Schreck: According to the Minister of Finance, the budget is balanced. The money comes from general revenue.
V. Anderson: So we'll look at that and under it. I just wanted to clarify whether the minister was aware of that.
Hon. J. Smallwood: You've got the wrong ministry.
V. Anderson: No, I've got the right ministry. Every minister who's spending $20 million should know where that $20 million comes from and what the obligations of that are. There's a gift there, and where that gift came from always has implications and things that are tied to it.
So I have my answer from the minister. The extra million dollars in her budget this year, in that particular column, we have explained and dealt with.
I would like to move briefly away from that figure and deal with a few others in the budget and then come back to this area. But while we have the financial statement in front of us, I would like to just add a couple of things for clarification. First of all, the Consumer Services budget for salaries is $8 million. It's by far the largest expenditure -- almost three times the amount in other areas of her ministry. I'm wondering if she might explain the number of persons working in that particular area and how they are deployed so that it requires that particular amount for Consumer Services, as over against other parts of her ministry.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The total FTEs in Consumer Services is 168; of that, 100 are with the residential tenancy branch. The rest are with other statutory requirements in consumer ops and debtor assistance. They fill a mandate of investigations as well as registrars' functions.
V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister could clarify. How many new persons were brought in as a result of the Residential Tenancy Act, and how much has the program expended, particularly to put that act into effect in the manner in which the minister felt it needed to be put into effect?
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, the member, I am sure, is aware that the enhancements to the residential tenancy branch dealt not only with the legislative changes but also with access issues. We've opened six new offices in the province. In total there are an additional 42 FTEs for the enhancements and legislative changes.
V. Anderson: You mentioned 168 FTEs in here, and you also mentioned 260, I believe, in the ministry. Are most of those full-time or are a number of those part-time FTEs? I know that's equivalent, but do you know how many are full-time and how many are part-time FTEs?
Hon. J. Smallwood: They're all full-time.
V. Anderson: Also, in Consumer Services I noticed that there is $2.5 million for professional services over and above the 168 full-time-equivalents. I'm wondering if the minister might indicate the need, the use or the reason for those extra professional services costing $2.5 million over and above the $8.5 million for staffing within that ministry itself.
Hon. J. Smallwood: It's primarily the arbitrators, but the manufactured homes dispute resolution committee is also included.
V. Anderson: My assumption is that that's a fairly large increase because of the mediation and the new arbitrators who have come in as the result of the extension of services. I'm presuming also that the $1.25 million increase in building charges was also for the extension and establishment of the new offices. Would that be correct?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.
V. Anderson: Okay.
I want to go back and just do a little review. I was looking at our discussion last year in estimates, and the minister made a number of comments, promises or projections at that particular time. I thought it would be useful to go back over some of these and have her comment on what has happened as a result. We will have hit some of them; we probably won't have hit others in the process. It's useful to go back, but I won't try to cover all of them.
The one implication commented on today by the minister is that this budget includes programs to provide jobs and opportunities to improve equity and access and meet the needs of both rural and urban British Columbians. In the area of affordable housing, it deals with the consequences of dwindling supply and increasing demand. We've talked about the supply and demand of houses. Has the minister any way of following that up, as she also mentioned it today? What has been the number of jobs and opportunities created as a part of this program? She referred to that both last year and again today as one of the assets the ministry has undertaken. I think it's a very useful asset, and I'm wondering if she can tell us what that has implied or involved.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The program the member is referring to is Homes B.C., supported by B.C. 21 investment. It is estimated that the $20 million created 4,000 jobs in the province.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that response.
Moving along, our provincial budget, which the minister has referred to, has provided an exemption from the property transfer tax for first-time home buyers. It is estimated that as many as 25,000 B.C. renters will now be able to purchase their first home, freeing up badly needed rental housing stock. Can the minister indicate whether we have reached that 25,000 mark? How many first-time home buyers have been able to take advantage of what was projected to be available for some 25,000 persons?
Hon. J. Smallwood: That exemption is the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance. While we don't have the statistical information here with us today, we'd be happy to discuss it with the Ministry of Finance and make the numbers available.
V. Anderson: I'm just trying to sort out some of the.... Here we are.
[ Page 14121 ]
An Hon. Member: Are we going to pass this today?
[4:00]
V. Anderson: We might. Yes, we might do that today.
One of the questions I want to follow up on was whether the minister might.... She talked about the non-market rental housing last year in relationship to market rental housing. The quote I read says that the area brought forth in the study was about the market and non-market. We raised this with the minister last year, and I'm wondering if she is able to indicate what she thinks the effect of this increase in non-market housing has had on market housing. She has helped to bring approximately 1,000 non-market units on line. Has this added an incentive to market housing? Has it said to market housing that there is no need or opportunity, because the advantage has already been taken away from them? Does she indicate what she thinks is the positive effect on housing as a result of adding these units to the housing market?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member should keep in mind that the group of tenants that non-market housing serves is a group who cannot participate on equal footing in the marketplace, so there's not a competition. The marketplace is not serving them. Second, the number of units that have been brought on, regrettably, are not sufficient to meet the need. There continue to be waiting lists for the individuals we serve.
V. Anderson: Last year we talked about the residential rehabilitation program, which is a cooperative program federally and provincially. It was indicated that B.C.'s share of the funding last year would have been $5.4 million, or 21 percent of the 1993 total. What would be the B.C. contribution in this current year if it was $5.4 million last year in that rehabilitation program?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The money that the member references is the federal contribution. It is their program, and there is no provincial contribution. We are not cost-sharing. There is no provincial role in that program.
V. Anderson: The minister has discussed the availability of Crown land in the province for residential housing. Can she indicate what the focus is of trying to encourage more Crown land to be available for housing? Are we saying that it should be increased? To what extent should the availability of Crown land be available for housing throughout the province?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't have a comment in that area at this time.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's "at this time." That's the runner for the next part of the commercial; we'll see what comes later. It raises the questions that we might look at.
I'm wondering if the minister would like to say something about the B.C. housing corporation and its role, because we haven't touched on that directly under the circumstances. What is her role in relation to the activities of the B.C. housing corporation, which is, as I understand it, a corporation in its own right? Would she like to say what her role is in relation to the work it undertakes?
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm not sure if the member is aware that B.C. Housing has a board that it is responsible to. The board members, including the chair, are appointed through OIC and sit with the confidence of the government. Our ministry has a very good working relationship at all levels with B.C. Housing, and the general manager sits on our executive.
V. Anderson: The general manager sits on the executive.... What is the input in that discussion between the government and the management board in relation to policies, priorities, standards of accepting people and the choices that people make? One of the realities that we hear very often from people is: "I've been on the waiting list, and every time I get up to the top of the waiting list, I get bumped down again, because another priority comes in." Naturally, after that has happened to them a number of times, they're concerned that someone is pulling strings and getting favours or knows someone they don't know. That happens often enough to be a concern.
I'm wondering how the public can be made aware of the reality of how that process works so they can continue to have confidence in the system.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Applicants on the waiting list are prioritized according to need. It is possible that an individual would be on the waiting list for some period of time and that someone with a higher need coming in would fill a vacancy prior to that individual.
In the last year, and with Homes B.C., the role between the Ministry of Housing and B.C. Housing has been that the ministry develops the broad housing policy and B.C. Housing implements it.
V. Anderson: Homes B.C. has developed a broad housing policy, and B.C. Housing implements it. Could you explain a little difference between the policy and the implementation? Are you suggesting that the board of the B.C. Housing Management Commission cannot establish policy and that they can only implement the policy that is given to them by the government, which may change from time to time?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The B.C. Housing board and the B.C. Housing Management Commission are responsible for the ongoing management of existing stock. The development of broad housing policy or strategy for the province has been the mandate of our ministry.
V. Anderson: One of the things that the minister has promised -- and I know she's talked about it with municipalities and others -- were new programs. Perhaps we haven't really discussed specific programs, like the programs for the homeless and the homeless at risk, and bridging programs for home-ownership. Perhaps we could take a moment to look at what has happened in each of those three areas -- at what has happened in actual fact, besides what you hoped would happen. What is the projection of not only what has happened to date but what has happened for this coming year in those three: the homeless, the homeless at risk and the bridging program for new home ownership.
[ Page 14122 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm not sure I understand the question. We've already talked about the unit allocation. We've talked about the role of communities and community groups. Perhaps the member could be clearer with the question.
V. Anderson: I'm asking if we might have some indication of what projects are underway for homeless, the homeless at risk and the bridging programs. The homeless and the homeless at risk are probably heard of more often than the bridging program, which is lesser known. I doubt if many people are aware of what is really talking place in any of those three areas.
Hon. J. Smallwood: We'll make available the list of commitments to the different program initiatives -- the homeless at risk and the non-profit.
The bridging-to-home-ownership program has some financing tools to enable steps toward home-ownership, a limited equity or the equity co-op model. We've got a couple of projects that are being actively investigated and pursued at this time, and in the next short while we'll be in a position to make announcements as those projects are far enough along the road.
V. Anderson: Each year we're going to hear more about what's happening, and we're still going to hear more about that particular area.
Last year we discussed the new programs fairly extensively. Brief discussions may have been held by others relating to manufactured homes and more security for those who live in manufactured homes that they own and who own or rent the pads the homes are on. Related to that was an increase in the mediation process so that those people could work out problems. Could you highlight for us what has happened in that particular area as a result of the activities today?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The committee has dealt with mediations that have affected over 200 people in the province. The results of the mediation are about 80 percent agreements and 20 percent by recommendation. The process they have been engaged in -- as I am sure the member is aware -- is to first set up the committee to make recommendations with regard to: how the committee would function, the setting up of local park committees, rent review guidelines, standard tenancy agreements, standard park rules, administrative process, office setup, computer processing forms and the mediation process itself. They are also engaged in an education process and have been taking public speaking engagements. I have attended a number of these myself. While I think it fair to say that they are still working out some issues, they have already provided a significant resource to that sector of the housing community.
V. Anderson: I know there's been a great deal of concern by many seniors in those pads. Has the minister been able to evaluate whether the seniors in those situations, even with these things in place, have any more comfort of security in decisions that they have to make at this particular point? Would you say there is still that insecurity and uncertainty among seniors who are living in those situations?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think the indications behind the statistics that I have just shared with you are a number of improved situations and the development of very supportive communities.
[4:15]
V. Anderson: Last year the minister indicated, in response to some questions, that she would be forming the Public Housing Tenants' Advisory Committee. Could she indicate to us the nature of that committee, the number of people who are on it and what its functions have been to date?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We will get the information for you. I have met with that advisory committee. We have representatives from the Public Housing Tenants' Advisory Committee on the board of B.C. Housing, and they have been a very positive and strong voice on that board. They are an active group, and at the same time are really missing Margaret Mitchell and the leadership which she provided.
V. Anderson: I would agree with the minister that we have all missed the leadership that Margaret Mitchell provided in her very forthright and clear presentation of her concerns. The minister indicated last year that there's an interministerial housing committee dealing with needs between ministries. I'm wondering if the minister could update us on the work that is going on and some of the results of the interministerial committee.
Hon. J. Smallwood: My apologies; could the member ask the question again?
V. Anderson: I was wondering about the nature of the interministerial committee on housing and some of the programs that have been influenced because of it. You commented a little while ago about concerns that overlap with Housing and Social Services. What is the effect of the interministerial committee on the overall program, not only in housing within your ministry but in the overlap of improving housing with the others?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The committee that you are referencing is a special needs housing committee. We are in the process of looking at the committee's recommendation, dealing with the need for an internal or governmentwide special housing strategy. The work is not concluded, so I am not in a position to put forward their report or their recommendations.
V. Anderson: One interministerial program which the government instituted a year ago was the multiculturalism initiative, and that is one of the other concerns. Each of the ministries has been asked to provide a multiculturalism report on the effectiveness of multiculturalism within their ministry. I'm wondering if you could indicate the nature of the multiculturalism report that has been done by the Housing ministry.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The ministry has developed an equity action plan. I have a copy and will make that available to the member. The development by the ministry's advisory committee on equity.... Through rather extensive consultation within the ministry, corporate goals and a plan of action are established. It's all spelled out in this document. Perhaps it would be best to simply make that available to the member for reading.
V. Anderson: Thank you to the minister for that. One of the concerns that we're hearing now.... I think perhaps the minister is only indirectly related to it, but we were discussing
[ Page 14123 ]
it last year. Let me just quote: "Our ministry works with the Ministry of Health in developing their policy framework for supportive communities for seniors, with the aim of supporting seniors living in their own homes." One of the concerns we're hearing more directly is the in-home care of seniors, which, it seems, is being downgraded, particularly at this time. Seniors who have been receiving home care, if they are not now listed as being in medical necessity of home care, are having it taken away from them and downgraded in a great fashion. We're getting a great deal of concern from seniors about home care. It's a cooperative relationship because these people are living at home, and it's that home support that enables them to stay there. Otherwise, they have to move out, which compounds other housing problems. I wonder if the minister could comment on that, even though it may not be totally related to her ministry.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I suggest that the member ask those questions in the Ministry of Health estimates.
V. Anderson: I wanted to take a moment to look at the secondary-suite issue, because I know there have been discussions on that and opportunities within discussions with municipal people in looking at it. It's an issue that is discussed each time I go to a municipal convention now. The recommendations that have come from the government in a variety of forms, from the Ministry of Housing in cooperation with Ministry of Municipal Affairs, are a concern. I'm wondering if there are some new resources that the Ministry of Housing has provided to community people or to municipalities in order to help them work through this very difficult issue of attitudes so that it meets their needs most effectively. It is an issue we're all going to have to deal with, not only in the urban area but in smaller communities as well, although it may be dealt with differently in the urban and rural scenes.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The additional resources are provided in the work that is underway with the Minister of Municipal Affairs to develop secondary suite building codes. Our ministry, in support of the task group that I outlined earlier, is completing a survey of how local governments deal with secondary suites. It will be a good database with which we will be able to support initiatives in specific communities so that each community doesn't have to reinvent the wheel if it is their intent to try to deal with the enhancement of the supply of affordable housing.
V. Anderson: A couple of questions came out of the minister's original statement this term. One of the things she emphasized a number of times is her concern for children. I appreciate that, because I think it's a fundamental concern. One of the realities in looking at adult concerns, which is often the way we approach families, is that we may be underutilizing our concern for children.
I remember the comment of a young girl whose family moved into housing in the False Creek area and her excitement when she came back to school. She commented that for the first time, she had a bedroom of her own, which she had never thought of having in her life. She was so thrilled by this opportunity.
It's the same kind of thrill that many children have, but so often they seem to be the secondary ones that are considered. It's almost a byplay; they get an advantage because the adults have been supported. I'm wondering if the minister has a comment on the kind of program which not only shares affordability but also puts some emphasis on communities, municipalities and others to be concerned about children.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm very happy that the member introduced this particular topic. The area of highest concern for me.... While I certainly acknowledge the sentiments of the young girl whose excitement you shared, I'm afraid there is an increasing number of young people who would be happy with any shelter in this province. There are increasing numbers not only in cities and towns in British Columbia but across Canada and in North America generally.
In an attempt to help support young people in finding housing, we have a couple of initiatives underway. In some communities we have supported a housing registry that specifically supports youth who are homeless or at risk of being homeless. The member can well imagine that it's extraordinarily difficult for a young person to find accommodation. Often when they are able to find accommodation, they find themselves sharing with a multitude of friends, because those friends are unable to find a place to live.
It presents significant challenges with increasing numbers of young people who do not have the support of families or extended relatives. For those young people, often their choices are to either sleep on the streets or go home with pimps. For our society generally, I think that challenge is unfortunately one that we will be measured against. The success or failure of my commitments to the House and to the people of this province is.... While we have no quick fixes, we certainly are engaged in trying to support young people in finding solutions.
V. Anderson: An area of concern that I know overlaps the Housing ministry and other ministries has come up from people who have been at Woodlands, where they're downsizing or deinstitutionalizing those people. They have raised the strong concern about being able -- for some of them, at least, who have been there for 50 years -- to continue to have housing on the Woodlands site available to them.
I think of one person in particular who has been moved out of Woodlands five times now, I believe. Because suitable accommodation was not available, he ended up back in Woodlands. He has been there for over 50 years. Even when he was living outside Woodlands, he managed to take the bus every day -- even from White Rock -- and get back onto the Woodlands site, because that is the place that is home to him.
[4:30]
Whereas the program of moving people out of that location is extremely helpful and important to some, it is not necessarily helpful and important to everyone. Those who are concerned and work with these persons and family members have been anxious that those who wish to do so should have the opportunity to live on the Woodlands site. I wonder if, from the housing point of view, the minister has a comment about that as a cooperation between the ministers.
Hon. J. Smallwood: BCBC has responsibility for the Woodlands lands. The Ministry of Housing is actively involved with a staff committee dealing with the plans for Woodlands. With regard to housing those individuals who are part of the deinstitutionalization of Woodlands, that is, as the
[ Page 14124 ]
member knows, the responsibility of Social Services. I acknowledge the issues that the member raises and will look forward to the staff work with regard to those remaining individuals.
V. Anderson: In passing, the same concerns have been raised about Riverview. This is where people feel they get caught between different ministries -- one ministry dealing with people with mental handicaps, the other ministry dealing with people with mental illnesses and the other dealing with housing. They are all separate categories. To the community at large, integration between ministries seems to be missing. Whether it is or not, that is not the relevant question, because it seems to be missing. Each time the issue is raised, it is said: "That belongs to the other ministry." For many of the families who have been struggling for many years -- not only under this present government, but even more so, perhaps, in previous years -- the solutions are not coming through as clearly as they might. So it's a very important question that needs to be looked at.
I wanted to turn briefly to the ministry action plan, which I received recently. I thank the ministry staff for making it available and drawing it to our attention again. In the ministry action plan for the coming year, the minister....
I commend the approach that has been put forward here. It attempts to put out, in a very clear and easily readable format, the program that is being planned. I guess if I have a criticism about it, it is that it might be too clear and too readable. It looks like everything will be too simple. The issues won't be solved that easily. I wanted to make that comment, because people also need to realize how complex the programs are and to see some of the difficulties in reaching some of the conclusions that were reached by this particular ministry.
The relationship between the different facets of the ministry -- housing, recreation and consumer services -- also isn't seen too well. I wanted to make that comment before I forgot.
In the minister's opening statement, she made some promises concerning what she was planning to bring forward in this coming year. She simply commented on those, and I am wondering if she wants to elaborate any more on those. She's shaking her head and saying she said all she wants to say, and she doesn't want to say anything more at this particular time.
She made the comment -- and I want to highlight this: "This year we will develop a model housing agreement, a standard of maintenance bylaw and a guide to land leases. This will support last year's enabling legislation, allowing government to lease or sell land below market value to non-profit housing." What I'm trying to ask the minister about is the relationship between these three new approaches that she's planning to bring forward and the question of selling land below non-market value. I'm not quite sure I see the connection between the three. Perhaps the minister could highlight the connection between them. I see that the minister doesn't want to comment any more on that.
The other thing that has come up -- and the minister just mentioned it in passing earlier today -- was the comment that has to do partly with secondary suites. That's their term: gold-plating of secondary suites. Some of the regulations that are coming forth in municipal governments are indicating that such things as fire extinguishers, water sprinklers and those kinds of things need to be done in the upgrading of secondary suites. There is a concern among people that wherever secondary suites are given that kind of recognition, it's going to make it unaffordable for the people who have those suites to upgrade, and therefore that will force them out. Is the minister giving any guidelines to help that upgrading of secondary suites so that they are safe, but not to the point where they are above the standard of most of the homes the rest of us live in? There's a balance here, and this seems to be a real concern in our community, and I heard it across the province at the municipal convention.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The comments I made earlier with regard to the development of secondary suite building codes and the work that is underway with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is in that vein exactly: to provide basic health and safety, fire protection and guidance to municipal councils. I have expressed written concern to a number of councils with regard to the gold-plating of standards, specifically with regard to sprinkler systems. Those types of requirements are discouraging and limit development of suites rather than, in our view, provide support for conversion.
V. Anderson: I want to bring to your attention an article which appeared briefly in the Vancouver Province of April 25, talking about marketing. Just a couple of comments that came from there: "There has been a consistent falloff in apartment starts since 1990, and last year there were only 1,151 starts.... It is estimated that 3,300 rental units were converted to condo use last year."
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
A trend like this is likely to continue. Not only are we losing new housing starts, but with many of the rental units now being converted into condos, it's going in the opposite direction to what my colleague was talking about earlier today. Most apartment owners and investors are holding onto their assets at this moment. The primary deterrent for further sales activity remains the high level of potential capital gains tax payable by most vendors upon a sale. There's a variety of factors in here that seem to be working against rental units being available to the people in the community. I know that the minister has a strong concern and wonders how that variety of factors can be dealt with in trying to bring together the concerns we have for more rental units that are affordable within the community.
The Chair: There is no comment from the minister at this point?
V. Anderson: I have completed my comments, particularly since the minister has completed her comments and is no longer able or willing to respond to the questions that come to her.
Vote 44 approved.
Vote 45: ministry operations, $104,704,376 -- approved.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 4:41 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]