1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2633 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Point of order Statement on Glenshiel Hotel made in writing

by Hon. Mr. Hartley. Mr. Speaker — 2633

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2633

Mr. Chabot — 2633

Mr. Speaker — 2633

Mr. Williams — 2634

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2634

Mr. Chabot — 2634

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2635

Mr. Williams — 2635

Mr. Morrison — 2635

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2635

Mr. Speaker — 2636

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Planning Authority Act 1973.

Mr. Morrison.

Introduction and first reading — 2636

Oral Questions

New equalization of assessment appeal board. Mr. Richter —

Tudor Tavern incident. Mr. Wallace — 2637

Vancouver murder ring. Mr. Phillips — 2637

Safety study for Ocean Falls dam. Mr. Smith — 2638

Purchase of aircraft. Mr. Wallace — 2638

Inquiry into UCS operations. Mr. Williams — 2638

Removal of heavy metals from Hat Creek deposit. Mr. Richter — 2638

Fort Nelson-Fort Simpson highway construction. Mr. Phillips — 2639

An Act to Amend the Park Act (Bill No. 174). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2639

Mr. Smith — 2640

Mr. Wallace — 2640

Mr. Williams — 2640

Mr. Phillips — 2640

Mr. Lockstead — 2641

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2641

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2641

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (Bill No. 175). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2642

Mr. Fraser — 2642

Mr. Williams — 2643

Mr. Curtis — 2645

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2645

Mr. Nunweiler — 2646

Mr. McClelland — 2646

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2647

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating

Act (Bill No. 176). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2647

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2648

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2649

Mr. Wallace — 2651

Mr. Richter — 2652

Mr. Williams — 2652

Mr. Gardom — 2653

Mr. Lauk — 2654

Mr. McClelland — 2654

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2654

Mr. Fraser — 2656

Mrs. Jordan — 2657

Mr. Morrison — 2664

Mr. Smith — 2664

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2664

Division on second reading — 2665

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1973 (Bill No. 183). Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction

and first reading — 2665

Mobile Home Tax Act (Bill No. 181). Hon. Mr. Lorimer. Introduction and first

reading — 2666

British Columbia Cellulose Company Act (Bill No. 179). Hon. Mr. Williams. Introduction

and first reading — 2666

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act (Bill No. 44). Hon. Mr.

Hartley.

Introduction and first reading — 2666

An Act to Amend the Distress Area Assistance Act (Bill No.

178). Hon.

Mr. Stupich. Introduction and first reading — 2666

An Act to Amend the Revenue Act (Bill No. 74) Hon. Mr.

Barrett.

Introduction of amendments — 2666

An Act to Amend the Constitution Act (Bill No. 180). Hon.

Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 2667

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: May I have your attention, please? Yesterday in

question period Members of the House requested that the Hon.

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) table some

documents from which he was reading. We never heard the

documents in full or in extenso that he was reading

from.

In the midst of these documents was a statement which he had

apparently embarked upon making to the House explaining the

transaction involving a hotel which had been the reference of

numerous comments by the Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot).

In examining these documents I found that a statement was

made in them that I would not have permitted had it been made

orally in the House as the Minister had apparently intended to

do. I consequently would have asked him to withdraw such a

statement impugning another Member.

The statement to which I take exception are the words

"deliberate attempt to mislead the House and the public" made

by the Hon. Minister concerning the statements that had been

made previously in the House by the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

Since I would have asked him to withdraw that had he made it

orally, and since the House ordered him, in effect, to table

the documents from which he was reading, I ask him to withdraw

that statement now unconditionally to the House.

HON. W. L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker,

I take it you are asking that the word "deliberate" be

withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. We don't use the words "deliberate attempt

to mislead the House" in this House against any other Member

unless you're prepared to make a substantive motion.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared

unconditionally to withdraw the word "deliberate." I've done

that and I would just like to state that I think in fairness to

the Member for Columbia River, if he was given false

information with regard to the matter in question, with regard

to the date of that advertisement referred to on page

2082 of April 3 Hansard …In the first

paragraph he stated that the ad that he was waving had run for

several months prior to our purchase. And the ad offered the

property for sale for $470,000. Now, he may or may not have

been aware that that ad was almost four years old.

Now if he is prepared — and I think he should be — to withdraw the fact that

he was given false information, and in that way then he did not

deliberately mislead the House. If he was aware that that was a four-year-old

ad, then he deliberately misled the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I take it that you're not saying that he

deliberately misled the House but that he may have been

misled?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's correct.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A point of privilege on

the same matter. I prepared a statement relative to this

situation, Mr. Speaker. It reads as follows:

During the question period yesterday, in reply to a question

posed by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) on the Glenshiel Hotel affair, the Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) read a letter addressed to the Deputy

Minister of Public Works dated July 15, 1969, signed, as

he indicated, by John Relling. Upon objections from some

Members of the Legislature that the document should be tabled,

the Speaker indicated, that it could be filed with the consent

of the House.

The Minister requested leave to table the document. The

question was put and leave granted. Attached to the document

was an undated statement entitled "Statement to the Legislature

on the Glenshiel Hotel," on stationery with the

provincial crest surrounded by the words "Minister of Public

Works, Province of British Columbia."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, there's no dispute of that. I

don't think we need to try and prove it.

MR. CHABOT: No, this is very important. In the prepared

statement, which was never read in the Legislature, the final

paragraph reads as follows:

"The Member for Columbia River has engaged in a deliberate attempt to mislead the Members of this

Legislature and the people of British Columbia. This sort of

behaviour should be beneath the dignity of any Hon.

Member."

I consider this statement to be false and defamatory, and to

be a statement which would not have been tolerated to be given

in the Legislature verbally. The statement was not a part of

the documents requested to be tabled and constitutes an unfair

and unprecedented attack against the Member for Columbia

River.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Yes. It was released to the Press as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I take it that you are stating to

the House that there was no deliberate

[ Page 2634 ]

attempt on your part to mislead the House in the statements

that you made in the House.

MR. CHABOT: I have one more short paragraph….

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to ask that question. Because it's

only fair, if I am asking the Hon. Minister to withdraw that

statement that he made that you also assure the House that you

made no deliberate attempt to mislead the House. Usually you

would have the opportunity to stand up and make that statement

and ask him to withdraw it. Do you wish to ask him to withdraw

that statement?

MR. CHABOT: I'll finish my

article here:

The Minister stated that the National Trust company no

longer listed that particular property beyond 1969. He has made

reference to this just a few moments ago.

The information available to me is that National Trust

Company actively, actively advertised the property for sale

during 1969, 1970 and 1971. The sales sheet that I used in the

Legislature to indicate that the government could have

purchased the hotel in the summer of 1972 at $470,000 was given

to a prospective buyer in July, 1972 by a representative of

National Trust Company.

I have a signed document to confirm this fact.

I wish to reiterate that the Member asked leave for the

tabling of a document. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the undated

statement is not a document and the Minister breached my

personal privilege by tabling his undated statement for which

leave was not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you ask him to withdraw the word

"deliberate"?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I've withdrawn it.

MR. SPEAKER: Then that's the end of the matter.

MR. CHABOT: That's not the end of the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if you wish to take any further steps you

know the procedures for doing so.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have here a signed document

by the National Trust wherein they stated that the

advertisement that the Member for Columbia was waving was

listed on June 27, 1969 and it expired in 1969.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you file that document with the House

with leave of the House?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'd be pleased to.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: All right. We'll leave it. It's up to the

Members what happens to it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On a

point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the Member for Columbia

River please file the document to which he referred as

well?

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member file the document to which

he referred?

MR. CHABOT: I'll file a copy of the document I referred to.

It's a copy of the document which I made available to the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) some considerable

weeks ago. The Minister of Highways has taken a Xerox copy of

it. But if other Members want availability of this document I'm

ready to make it available to all Members of the Legislative

Assembly.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): The document

you've been asked to table is the letter which you said you

have just received from them.

MR. CHABOT: No, I didn't say I had just received….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You did! That's what you said. And that's

the letter I'm asking you to table.

MR. CHABOT: No, no. I didn't. You'd better look at the tape.

I didn't say I received any such….

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Did I take the Hon. Member to say that

he had a letter from the National Trust indicating that this

matter had been advertised after 1969?

MR. CHABOT: No. I said that the sales sheet that I have

here, which I made available to the Minister of Highways

several days ago, of which he made a Xerox copy and which the

Minister claims to have filed in this House, was never filed

yesterday along with the documents. I said that the sales sheet

that I used in the Legislature to indicate that the government

could have purchased the hotel in the summer of 1972 at

$470,000 — which is correct — was given to a

prospective buyer in July, 1972, by a representative of

National Trust Company.

AN HON, MEMBER: No, he didn't say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he did.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The matter will, of

[ Page 2635 ]

course, be….

MR. CHABOT: Did I say I have? I said I have a signed

document to confirm this fact and that document is in the hands

of my legal counsel.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, when I rose on this point of

order the document that I would ask the Member for Columbia

River to file is that signed statement showing that the sales

sheet was handed to a prospective purchaser in July of

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member file that document to the

table?

MR. CHABOT: I'll consult my lawyer and if my lawyer deems it

appropriate…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: …to file it, I will. I'll file it probably in

court…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR.CHABOT: …depending on what my legal counsel tell

me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Member

that this is the highest court in the land when it comes to the

conduct of these proceedings. I ask the Hon, Member if he will

table the document. Is it the wish of the House that the

document be tabled?

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): No, no!

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Oh? What are you hiding?

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. In terms of this kind of

unfortunate incidents involving the heat of two Members, it is

for the House itself to judge in terms of the tabling of

documents — if one Member tables documents, the other

Member should table documents.

I don't think it's right that allegations should be made and a statement should

be left in this House that there is documented proof to counter any allegation

and then a refusal to document the counter allegation. What are we leading ourselves

into — an exchange of innuendo that smears? I think in the good name of all

the Members of all of this House — that all the documents should be filed with

this House as they have been referred to in this particular

exchange.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would agree with the Hon. Premier, if

this statement hadn't been released by his Minister to the

Press and gone all over this province. That is the reason why,

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the Hon. Leader

of the Opposition has said. Just because there has been the

widest publicity given to a statement filed by the Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) in this House, regardless of

what the rights may be between members in some other tribunal,

we in this House are entitled to know what the information is

so that we can make our decision as to whether or not some

particular action, which is permitted under the rules of this

House, can be brought.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, on a point of

order. I would like to lay this matter to rest once and for

all. The salesman from National Trust was in my office in the

summer of 1972. He gave me that document at that time at that

price. I was definitely under the impression that if I chose

to, I could purchase that building at that time for that

price.

I was not a Member of this House. I was not running for

candidate. He was in no way attempting to try and discredit

this government. I happened to keep that document and put it in

my files. I resurrected that document at a later date. At no

time was the salesman involved in trying to do anything except

sell me a building which in the summer of 1972 — in both

his opinion and my opinion — was available for sale at that

price.

That document listed a building which had 80 suites, not 45

suites — 80 suites. The price was $470,000 in the summer

of 1972, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I welcome the statement from the Member for Victoria

(Mr. Morrison); however, a document was referred to by the Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) stating, as I understand it — said twice today — a document

stating that a representative of National Trust had offered that

[ Page 2636 ]

building for

sale last year at the price mentioned by the Member for Victoria. The Member

for Columbia River says he is in possession of a signed document alleging that

National Trust was handling that sale and offering that sale at that price.

Now, if the Member has such a document and because the

dispute exists, that document rightly belongs in the hands of

this House so that the House can make a proper assessment of

the exchange of allegations. If, however, the Member is

suggesting that a conversation that took place between an

unknown salesman and the Member for Victoria, trying to make a

sale, on the page that National Trust, as we understand it, has

identified as a 1969 ad — and that out of that

conversation, the Minister is trying to leave with this House

that he has a document to the effect that National Trust….

MR. SPEAKER: You mean the Member?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member? No, no, the Minister is trying

to leave the impression with this House that National Trust

gave him a document indicating that they were still handling

this — then either one of them is either trying to

mislead the House or they're confused. Now, we need that

document — not verbal conversation. This Minister has a

document — that Member has a document. We have seen the

Minister's document from National Trust, now we need the

document he alleges he has, saying that the Minister's document

is not correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. First Member for Victoria prepared

to table the document that he has?

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. In my

office I have a document from the salesman stating that he gave

me that piece of paper in the summer of 1972. And that document

is lodged with that gentleman's lawyer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, then let's have it in the House.

MR. MORRISON: That's a document between he and I.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh. No, this matter is now in the

House and as far as the matter resting between the salesman and

you — on a point of order, Mr. Speaker — if that

matter rested between the salesman and the Member for Victoria,

then it should have rested there, but the Member for Victoria

has now brought it to this House and he has an obligation to

put that document in the House now.

MR. SPEAKER: I may point out to the Hon. Members that May at

p. 458….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Members that at p. 458 of the 17th edition of May , on citing

documents not before the House — the principle is that

the House may ask that a document be tabled or filed, but if it

is a private document, not one that is a government document,

it cannot be required by the House unless it were required by a

committee investigating the question. And therefore I cannot

require the Hon. First Member for Victoria to table the

document, nor can I, or the House require the Member for

Columbia River to table the document to which they refer.

I think we can now proceed with question period, unless

there is something more.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, before we turn to the question

period — in the Press gallery we have Mr. Ron Thompson

who records so many of the events surrounding this assembly,

and I would like at this time to ask the House to record a

welcome to his parents: Captain and Mrs. Thompson, who are in

the gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, may I

ask leave to file the financial statements of the British

Columbia Liquor Control Board to the end of March 31, 1972?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A very good year.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA PLANNING

Mr. Morrison moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 184 intituled British Columbia Planning Authority Act

Motion approved.

Bill No. 184 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

[ Page 2637 ]

NEW EQUALIZATION OF

ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has

the equalization of assessment appeal board been

reconstructed?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public

bills and orders. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: We are in question period.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Sit down, would you please? l draw to the

attention of Members that we are starting question period.

Would you repeat the first question please?

MR. RICHTER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the

Minister of Finance: has the equalization of assessment appeal

board been reconstituted?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental. In light of the

reconstitution, what will happen to all those cases that were

heard but not adjudicated prior to the reconstitution of the

new board?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the cases that were not

completed by the past board are now being reviewed by the

present board.

MR. RICHTER: A supplementary. Will it require the bringing

back of witnesses to be reheard or will the new board take the

evidence as recorded by the earlier board?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is my understanding that the parties

can work that out. The transcripts are already there and the

information is there.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon Members that it is

really not up to the Minister in these cases to give a solution

to a legal proposition, according to Beauchesne , p. 147.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

TUDOR TAVERN INCIDENT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Attorney General, as the Minister for taverns, if he has had a

chance to investigate the incident in the Tudor Tavern?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I have instituted the

inquiries, and the matter raised by the Hon. Member seems a little more serious

than it did at first blush when he asked the question, so the inquiries will

take another day or two. But I hope to look into the matter pretty thoroughly.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Could I leave it

then that the Minister will himself report back to the House or

should I keep asking questions?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll do my best to inform the Member

concerned before the end of this session and possibly he might

be so good as to speak to me about it in my office within two

days, say, at the outside.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members that when a

question is asked and it is taken as notice, the Minister then

stands up and replies during question period when he has the

answer, without the need for pressing him day by day?

The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

VANCOUVER MURDER RING

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Attorney

General. Has the Attorney General been advised by the Chief of

Police in Vancouver that a murder enforcement ring exists in

Vancouver and has the Attorney General undertaken independent

investigation at the provincial level with respect to this

reported situation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I haven't been, Mr. Speaker, asked

to take any action. I have read the report of Chief Constable

Fisk's submission to the Vancouver City Council, or Police

Commission. Naturally I am interested in the matter, and I

think I should see a copy of the representations that he made

to the City of Vancouver.

MR. PHILLIPS: As the Attorney General knows, this is a very

serious matter. Could the Attorney General advise the House

whether or not the province would be prepared to accept

financial responsibility for the nine-man organized crime squad

which the City of Vancouver has had recommended to it, which

will cost $65,903 and the recommendation that approximately

$300,000 cut from the police budget be restored?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I understand everybody

concerned in the City of Vancouver understands this is a

municipal responsibility and they are arranging their own

municipal budget for the forthcoming year.

[ Page 2638 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Attorney

General not agree that the operation of a major crime syndicate

in British Columbia's major city is grounds for action by the

provincial government forthwith?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the question is

rhetorical. The other aspect of it is that it's in the

jurisdiction of the Police Commission primarily.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't mind saying that

I've sent for a copy of the report even though it is not

directly my concern at this moment. I am still interested in it

and I should be interested in it.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Attorney

General any information that this crime syndicate operating in

the City of Vancouver is from eastern Canada?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm waiting for the report.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

SAFETY STUDY FOR

OCEAN FALLS DAM

MR. D.E. SMITH: (North Peace River): Thank you. My question

is addressed to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

Did the provincial government have an independent consulting

firm examine the safety of the dam structure in Ocean Falls

prior to making their arrangements with Crown Zellerbach

concerning Ocean Falls?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

There was a review by the water resources service staff.

MR. SMITH: A supplementary question to the Minister. There

was a review by the water resources staff. They did not employ

any independent engineering consultant or have a professional

engineer check that project over before completing your

negotiations with Crown Zellerbach?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am not aware of any. I might add that

some B.C. Hydro staff were involved also.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

PURCHASE OF AIRCRAFT

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of

Highways if he has any information he can give the House about

the pending purchase of aircraft for the twin purposes of

government personnel and air ambulance service?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I read Jack Wasserman's column with

interest, too.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

INQUIRY INTO UCS

OPERATIONS

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Rehabilitation

and Social Improvement.

Would he advise the House if his department is making an

inquiry into the financial and administrative operations of

United Community Services — UCS?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): An

investigation — I didn't quite get the question.

MR. WILLIAMS: The one in Vancouver.

HON. MR. LEVI: They made a submission to us about two months

ago and I wrote and asked them if they would explain

specifically the central operation funding. We are waiting to

get a reply. They have assured us that we will be getting

one.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary Similkameen.

REMOVAL OF HEAVY METALS

FROM HAT CREEK DEPOSIT

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a

question to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources in his capacity as a director of Hydro. Has the

government any intentions of opening up the Hat Creek coal

deposit to be used for the removal of heavy metals?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There is no programme at the moment. A

small research grant has been provided the staff of the

University of British Columbia to see the effectiveness of the

coal with respect to this problem. Apparently their experiments

are proving most productive and rather encouraging at this

stage.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

[ Page 2639 ]

FORT NELSON-FORT SIMPSON

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to direct a small question

to the Minister of Highways. Would the Minister of Highways

please advise the House if he has advised the Department of

Northern Affairs in Ottawa with regard to his intentions to

construct the Fort Nelson-Fort Simpson highway, that portion

which lies in British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I have advised them that we are

proceeding and I have contacted them urging them to proceed

immediately with their

section of the work.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would

the Minister advise me as to the date of his correspondence

with Ottawa? Because I have correspondence with Ottawa this

morning saying that they are not aware of what is going on. I

just received word this morning that Ottawa really doesn't know

what is going on down there and they say that British Columbia

isn't building their portion, so would the Minister advise me

what date he had correspondence with Ottawa?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I have also read the letter which was

sent to you by the Member of Parliament for the constituency.

He says that his information is that British Columbia had not

done certain things. I think the wording was that "British

Columbia was showing no interest" which, as you know, is

completely wrong. I've already told you during the estimates

that we are going to go ahead. So anyway, I'll check up and see

just where that mail got lost in Ottawa.

MR. PHILLIPS: Fine, thank you very much. A supplementary

question. Will you be answering to the MP for Prince

George-Peace River? Will you be advising him?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. To the best of my knowledge I haven't

received a copy of the letter, but it was one of our Members

for a northern area who received a copy and showed it to me a

half-hour ago.

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you answer the letter, Mr. Minister of

Highways? Will you answer the letter to the MP? I'd be happy to

give you my copy.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right.

MR. SPEAKER: Will you settle all the details later? No

further questions.

Orders of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 174, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PARK ACT

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Bill 174,

Mr. Speaker, is

An Act to Amend the Park Act , and there are a range of amendments

to the Park statute that might in some respects be considered housekeeping amendments.

Most of the amendments relate to recreation areas which were

a category of multi-use recreational areas established by the

former government. No policies, however, were established by

the former government with respect to recreation areas, and

this amendment to the statute should clarify questions in that

regard.

The more critical aspects of the bill probably relate to the

right of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to amend park

boundaries in the province.

Heretofore, the cabinet could change the boundaries of

provincial parks of British Columbia.

It is the view of this government that the parks of British

Columbia are too important to be allowed to be dealt with in

that manner. Rather, they should be dealt with by the entire

Legislature, so that if these great wilderness heritages of

ours are going to be disturbed, then it's only with the

approval of the Legislature that they shall be disturbed or

amended.

The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council does have the power to

expand the parks and that we deem reasonable.

Other important parts of this statute as well are schedules

A and B which list the various provincial parks as part of this

statute. This covers a wide range from Wells Gray Park to many

of the new ones established by this statute.

Schedule B deals

with the new parks of British Columbia, established by this

government at this time.

There are some new parks where boundary changes or some

further studies on an interdepartmental basis are still needed

before the boundaries can be firmly established by the House. I

expect that those parks will come before the next session of

the Legislature.

The pamphlet that was distributed to the House earlier upon

first reading, Mr. Speaker, covers a range of the new parks of

British Columbia as proposed, and what we call a new era in

parks in British Columbia. The range is from Elk Lake in the

Rockies to the Atlin Lakes near the Yukon frontier, to the

[ Page 2640 ]

Tlell Estuary in the Queen Charlottes, to Desolation Sound

in the northern part of the gulf, to Carp Lake near Prince

George, probably outside of the lower mainland and southern

Vancouver Island, the most important urbanizing area in the

province and an area that did not have firm recreational

reservations within day-use distance of that major city. There

are changes in Assiniboine Park, changes in the north-west as

well — Tatlatui and Kwadacha Wilderness.

Some 1.6 million acres are involved in these schedules of

new parks, Mr. Speaker, and I suspect that when I look back on

my career in this particular portfolio, that my proudest

moment, on reflection, might be the preservation of this amount

of parkland at this time, through this statute.

I believe that many of these parks that we're preserving

through this statute are of national and continental

significance. We're lucky in British Columbia to have such a

rich mix in terms of landscape, in terms of a land base with so

few people, in fact, on the landscape.

It seems to me that generations before us did a far better

job than we've done in this generation, in terms of preserving

the wilderness landscape of British Columbia. When you look at

the early parks that were established decades ago by former

Legislatures, and relate that to the population of the province

in that day, then they look as pretty bold moves for an almost

frontier province.

Unfortunately we can't say the same of the last 20 years. We

lost some 2 million acres of parkland during the last 20 years

in a time when our own population increased tremendously.

Just in case a change in government occurs again, it's this

statute that may prevent some future administration from making

the same kinds of mistakes that the former administration did,

with respect to the preservation of wilderness land.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Just a couple of

questions regarding not the designation of existing park areas,

but the proposed new park areas, particularly those in

north-eastern British Columbia, of which we have two —

the Tatlatui park area and a wilderness area described as the

Kwadacha wilderness area.

Within the wilderness area which will be set up along the

headwaters of the Muskwa River into the Muskwa River area and

the Tuchodi River area, this park, as closely as I can tell

from looking at the map, superimposes boundaries over a number

of big game guiding territories that have been established for

years. It is a tremendous wilderness area, I agree with the

Minister.

There are also probably some of the largest game herds left

in British Columbia — the most extensive, as far as

species is concerned, in this area. A number of big game guides

have made a living by guiding hunters into this area. Now, if

we designate this as a wilderness park, will the big game

guides be permitted to hunt in the area, or will their licences

be revoked or cancelled? Would the Minister, when he closes

debate on this bill, give an indication to the House what his

intentions are, particularly with respect to the Kwadacha

wilderness park area?

I notice that the Tatlatui area is a park. I'd also like to

know if, in that park, big game guiding will be allowed to

continue. I know that guiding goes on in some park areas, but

would the Minister just indicate to the House the position of

these big game guides? Because certainly a number of them may

have their livelihood affected detrimentally by the enclosure

and superimposing of park boundaries upon territories which

they have held and guided into for years and years. I would

like the Minister to comment on that when he closes debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, we strongly support

this bill and appreciate the awareness that the Minister has

always shown, both in opposition and in government, on behalf

of parks.

I would just like to ask one question regarding Desolation

Sound. The Minister was good enough to answer a question

regarding Prideaux Haven, which is in the Desolation Sound

area. This was a very beautiful part of the coastline which was

up for sale. I wonder if, in closing the debate, the Minister

would just tell us if that was purchased or what kind of a deal

we made on the whole question of Prideaux Haven, which was in

danger of falling into the hands of foreign ownership, I

believe. In asking for these details I would commend the

Minister for the foresight he took in dealing with this

particular part of the coastline.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr.

Speaker, we too support this new breath of fresh air into the

park system in the Province of British Columbia.

What the Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) has said about

the use of some of our wilderness areas is interesting. May I

ask the Minister if, in addition to considering the matter of

big game operations in these areas, he would indicate whether

the resource use permit that is provided for in this

legislation may, in fact, encourage the use of these wilderness

areas by guided tours, and whether or not, under the Parks

[ Page 2641 ]

Branch, we may see a programme of the government, or

sponsored by the government, which will encourage greater

camera safaris into some of our wilderness areas? In this

country we seem to overlook that many of the wild game species

which occupy our wilderness areas are themselves in danger of

extinction.

I think that we can learn a lesson from what has happened in

Kenya, for example. Kenya took sizable steps many years ago to

preserve animal species which were in danger of extinction and

has set aside thousands upon thousands of square miles of that

country as a game park reserve. Yet, having made that

reservation, they have recognized the opportunity that is

presented by such a reservation to encourage people from all

over the world to travel to Kenya for the purpose of viewing,

sometimes at rather close hand, these animals in their natural

habitat.

It seems to me that as well as preserving the species, as

well as maintaining as wilderness areas large tracts of this

province, we can, under a carefully controlled programme,

ensure that people are attracted to come and see in British

Columbia what may not be available to be seen anywhere else in

the world.

I'm certain that this is the kind of new commercial

opportunity which must commend itself to this Minister and to

this government — a commercial opportunity which can have

great benefits for British Columbia, and great benefits for

people around the world and great benefits for the animals

themselves.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I

certainly want to add my voice to the support of this bill.

However, I followed all of these arrows and I was looking for

some green spots in the South Peace River area — I

thought that there might be something where it might have

stopped around the Monkman area and around Sukunka Falls. I

kept following all these red lines and, lo and behold, they all

ended up somewhere else.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the Minister would just give me some

assurance that on the next map that comes out, if I follow all

the red lines, one of them will stop in that great area that

must be preserved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very happy,

of course, with the Desolation Sound Park particularly, since it's in my constituency.

I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that I have many, many areas in my constituency

that have been alienated from the public forever. Literally thousands of acres

have gone into the hands of private or foreign owners, some of the like of which

we will never have again in this province. This is one of the reasons

I'm so pleased to see that this area of Desolation Sound was able to be preserved.

I'm proud to be a Member of the government that has preserved this area for

future generations. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A

quick question to the Minister. First, as was stated by the

Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams),

we definitely approve of this policy of increasing the size of

parks in the province. We approve of this bill.

The Minister has made much of the fact that park acreage did

decline during the previous administration. He's perfectly

correct there and we, like his party, objected strenuously to

that during the election campaign. Perhaps he'll give us some

information, though, as to whether the increase which he is

putting in — something around 20 per cent — in

actual fact brings us back to where we were in 1951 or 1952. 1

don't think it does, from my rough, mathematical calculations

on a per capita basis, bring us back to where we were then.

Perhaps he'd like to indicate whether or not this is very

much an interim step and when we can expect another few million

acres or perhaps less, perhaps more, in the future so that we

can get back to the situation that we were in before.

This is particularly true in terms of wilderness areas which

I think should be areas…or parks, if you'd like to call

them that. But I would say "wilderness areas" because I mean

areas which are not considered to be parks for people but parks

or areas for wildlife to be preserved as a bit of a sanctuary.

That is probably the type of area which is most in need of

protection at this time due to the inroads of logging roads,

four-wheel drive vehicles, Honda motorcycles which can take on

just about any mountain track.

I just wonder whether you'd like to comment on this,

particularly in terms of protecting large areas from the type

of people-park use and also in terms of parks generally,

getting the area back to where it was or perhaps even improving

the situation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Dealing with some of

the points covered by the Hon. Members, the question of the big

game guiding areas is, I think, a matter for some discussion

between the department and the people and their rights. I think

that there will be ongoing discussions in relation to that.

There's no intent to take precipitate action in

[ Page 2642 ]

that regard.

Desolation Sound and Prideaux Haven: I'm afraid I'm not up

to date on the latest information. Negotiations were going on

and I haven't had any advice from the department yet as to

whether some satisfactory arrangement has been made. But I

certainly hope so. We hope to accelerate programmes in the Gulf

generally. This is one of the areas that has been neglected in

the past and an area in which we've got to catch up

considerably. The Ruckle farm on Saltspring is just the first,

I hope, of several steps that might even be taken on an

international scale in the Gulf and San Juan Islands near

Victoria here.

The question of guided tours and camera safaris may have

some appeal. I think there's a need generally for a wider view

of recreation in the province and by the department. I'm sure

that will be so.

Monkman Pass. I think we indicated on a question on the

order paper that the intent was to establish a park at Monkman

Pass. But we wanted to be sure we did exactly the right thing

and carried out detailed surveys. They'll be carried on

throughout this summer. I expect that there will be a proposal

before the next session of the Legislature to designate by

statute the Monkman Pass Provincial Park.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It seems to run through a few things, I

don't know.

Desolation Sound is also an interesting situation because

it's the first time the provincial Crown has declared a

salt-water area as a provincial park. We did that by

order-in-council. We plan on discussions with the federal

government in that regard. It will probably be the first step

in establishing salt-water or ocean areas as actual park areas

within the Province of British Columbia.

The question of the increase in acreage that this brings

about and whether it brings us back to 1952 — remember

1952. Well, unfortunately it doesn't. We thought that we might

be able to make that great leap, but our various studies have

indicated that we need to carry out more analysis with respect

to other proposals. We hope to get back to 1952 in 1973

sometime.

It isn't a matter of just sacred precincts, though It's a

matter of integrated resource management and a more

sophisticated approach to preserving recreation areas and other

assets of the province in the time that we have.

I think that covers the main points raised in the debate,

Mr. Speaker. I move that the question now be put.

Motion approved; second reading of Bill No. 174

Bill 174 referred to a committee of the whole House at the

next sitting after today.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Second reading of Bill

No. 175, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MUNICIPAL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Thank

you, Mr. Speaker. In moving second reading of this bill, I

would point out that the sections basically deal with a variety

of subjects. I would suggest that it might be more easily dealt

with in committee stage.

I would point out and I apologize to the House that through

— I think the term is "inadvertence" — some

amendments have been necessary due to the fact that in the

original bill the Court of Revision dates were not moved back

along with the rest of them. There's an appeal

section and I've

put in some more amendments today to cover the two appeal

sections on the Court of Revision dates. I apologize to the

House for not attending to this at the time.

I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree

with the Minister that it's probably better done in third

reading,

section by section, but I have a few observations to

make.

We generally approve of the amendments. I was wondering

where the idea came from to put the municipalities in business.

I think that most of the municipalities now have got their

hands full financing what they were originally set up to do. In

fact, they appear to be behind. I'd like to read an

article

that I saw today on this subject. It's from the Vancouver

Province :

"On the surface, anyone who believes Municipal Affairs

Minister Lorimer's. Municipal Act amendments are going

to send some B.C. cities rushing into the retail gasoline

business or the operation of food markets must be imagining

things.

"In the first place most lower mainland mayors are cool to

the idea of exercising the amendment giving municipalities

'full power to engage in any commercial, industrial or business

undertaking.'

"They point out municipal treasuries haven't surplus funds

for business ventures and most of them are opposed to the idea

of competing with private businesses that are already paying

municipal taxes.

"On top of this, municipal borrowing power is

[ Page 2643 ]

limited by the

size of the tax assessment base in each area and all borrowing

must be approved by the provincial inspector of municipalities.

Also there has to be a referendum on such spending, which would

give the public veto power over what is considered unwise

investments.

"Mr. Lorimer admits that there has been no demand for

widening municipal powers in this way but says he has done it

to overcome some simple hindrances preventing municipalities

from establishing such things as trailer parks.

"It certainly seems one must be imagining things to

interpret the amendments in a different way.

"But let's keep on imagining.

"The amendments also provide for election of all or some

aldermen on a ward basis, if the cabinet approves. Since the

cabinet is sponsoring the legislation it's unlikely it would

ever disapprove.

"Division of some municipalities into wards would give the

NDP an opportunity to elect party adherents on a scale that the

election-at-large system has always denied them. Last

December's Vancouver civic election is an illustration of the

NDP's failure.

"In some centres the ward system might even give the party a

council majority. In other words, the present election-at-large

councils whose spokesmen are today rejecting the idea of

involving municipal taxpayers in private business enterprises

might be replaced by those whose political faith convinces them

it is a good idea.

"Then, of course, there's the problem of money. But

what's to prevent a council budgeting for a surplus and then

deciding to use the surplus to get into what is presumed to be

a profitable enterprise?

"The same week the amendments were aired Vancouver city

council discovered a $1.2 million windfall in its budget. What

would prevent an NDP-dominated council from deciding to use the

money for ‘any commercial, industrial or business

undertakings' it thought advisable?

"Is this just imagining things?"

There's one other thing I'd like to comment on, Mr. Speaker,

on these amendments. As I understand it, if an alderman or a

mayor wants to represent a municipal council on a regional

board he must indicate so when he runs at the elected level.

First of all, I think that we're creating here a fourth level

of government. I'm not sure why this is all necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I would review for you and the House the way

this has been happening in the province. I refer to regional

directors from municipal councils. First of all, they all go

through the process — the aldermen and the mayor involved

— the process of the ballot box to get onto the municipal

council

Then a motion is passed by the mayor and the aldermen that

they send one of their members who has been duly elected to be

their regional representative on the regional board and I can't

see how….

I'm wondering if the other thing could happen here. Could

you have an alderman run for alderman and regional director and

win on the regional director ticket and lose on the aldermanic

ticket? If this was to happen there would be no liaison

whatsoever with the existing elected council of that

municipality. I certainly want to ask more, probably at third

reading, but maybe the Minister could comment.

I would also like to tell the House what Mayor Phillips of

Vancouver had to say about this. He agrees and thinks it is a

good idea. I might say that I completely disagree with his

observations because I don't think he knows what he is talking

about:

"He noted the changes introduced Monday in the Legislature

by Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Lorimer would not directly

apply to the city because it has its own charter." —

We're quite aware of that. — "However, Lorimer made it

clear he hoped Vancouver would look at the proposed amendments

with a view to making similar changes to its charter. 'A

separate election would confuse people at first because right

now they don't know what the Greater Vancouver Regional

District is,' Mayor Phillips said. He said, 'The separate

election for regional board members is desirable because it

would force people to get to know what the GVRD is and that's

going to be important as time goes by.'"

Well, I don't believe in forcing any people and I can't

understand the esteemed Mayor of the City of Vancouver

suggesting that the best part of this is that it would force

people to know what the GVRD is. I think they know all right,

and for that reason I don't agree in any way with the remarks

of the Mayor of Vancouver on that subject. They can't even get

a good percentage out at the polls when the elections do take

place.

I'll have further things to say at third reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to join

in the comments made by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) and

to support many of the things that he says, and in the course

of which propose some questions which the Minister may wish to

answer when closing the debate.

With regard to this election of regional board members,

would the Minister please indicate whether or not he is

approaching a fourth level of government for British Columbia?

Heretofore the regional boards have been appointed from the

member municipalities and clearly occupied a position whereby

the regional

[ Page 2644 ]

board could not claim direct representation from citizens.

Therefore its allegiance and its whole purpose was

complementary to that of the existing municipalities. I would be

concerned that once regional board directors become elected to

that position there will be the tendency to view a regional

board as a separate level of government.

While this may have its advantages in some of the rural

regional districts, nonetheless, I think for the metropolitan

areas it could have serious disadvantages. If we are going to

approach metropolitanism in urban government then I think it

should be done straight on and not by any slow process whereby

suddenly we find that metropolitan government is upon us.

There seem to be some anomalies with regard to the current

proposals for the elections of regional board members. The

opportunity is to be afforded the municipalities to have

elections every two years, at which time a person standing for

election could offer himself and be chosen as the regional

board representative. But the regional board directors, Mr.

Minister, only serve one year terms. That's the situation now.

I would like you to indicate whether you propose in your

amendments to overcome this difficulty so that if a

municipality does move to elections every two years, the

membership on a board on a one-year basis is not going to

require some in-between election.

It's difficult enough now and becoming increasingly

difficult in the larger municipalities to control the size of

the ballot at regular elections and to control the rising cost

of holding elections, by-elections, plebiscites, referenda and

so on. I would think that any change in the legislation which

would encourage multiplicity of elections should be

resisted.

It should also be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that all people

who seek election to municipal councils may not be able within

the time available to them to serve as a regional director. I

wonder what the situation would be if none of the candidates

for municipal election offered themselves for service on a

regional board.

The experience to date is that in most cases mayors of

municipalities have themselves been appointed by their own

council to the regional board and there is perhaps good reason

to question the wisdom of this system. But nonetheless, it is a

decision made by the municipal council and often the mayor of

the municipality, having taken on that senior position, is the

best able to commit himself virtually full-time to the

responsibilities that fall on him in local government. If he

doesn't want to assume a regional responsibility then perhaps

he should consider whether perhaps he should be the mayor.

If you take the District of North Vancouver as an example, the mayor has been

the chairman and has served on the regional district

for a number of years. But out of the six aldermen on that municipal council

only one besides the mayor would have been able to afford the time and have

the opportunity to attend the meetings of the regional district. As the Minister

knows, those meetings are increasing in frequency and increasing in duration.

The regional district is taking on bigger and bigger responsibilities and therefore

more and more time and attention is required by the regional board.

Men and women who offer themselves in local government are

to be congratulated for taking on that responsibility. They

shouldn't be put in the position of doing that and then finding

that because they go on the regional board they are obliged to

spend full time in their job.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I hope your remarks will be

limited on this because we have to go through all this again in

the committee stage.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I make my remarks now

then perhaps I won't have to make them in committee. If I make

them now then perhaps the Minister would be good enough to make

a note, bring in amendments and then I won't have to make them

again. That's the purpose of doing them now. If I wait until

committee the Minister may not have the time to amend the

statute. But I'll be very brief. I thank you for that

admonition, Mr. Speaker. I have just two more simple

comments.

Would the Minister indicate whether his department has taken

into consideration in the selection of the election dates the

continuing problem of the lame-duck council?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: You haven't read the bill. The

section dealing

with shifting the dates on which the elections are to be held.

By pushing it farther back than the end of the fiscal year, you

only extend that period when…

HON. MR. HALL: …the

section now or is it just general

principles?

MR. WILLIAMS: Just general principles. I am asking whether

his department is considering the problem of the lame-duck

council by reason of the time when the elections are held.

And lastly, would the Minister indicate specifically the

need to authorize local governments to go into private

business? Under the Municipal Act today there are

opportunities for the municipal council to pass bylaws

permitting them to go into businesses which may be conducive to

the public interest of the community — operation of

marinas and things of that

[ Page 2645 ]

nature. Why are they being given the right and therefore the

encouragement to go into other private commercial

operations?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, some

Members of the government seem a little twitchy about

discussing parts of this bill. It's difficult to discuss it….

AN HON. MEMBER: Not me.

MR. CURTIS: I agree, Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible

indicates that he is not too upset. The House Leader (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) is certainly twitchy. We had many hours of debate on

other bills in second reading. I'll attempt to keep my remarks

to the principle of the bill to the best of my ability —

and I won't be up for four hours.

The question of regional district representation is one

which I know is of concern to the Minister and obviously has

been of concern to members of his department and to Members of

the government for quite some time, and my inclination is that

the change proposed here is a good one.

I think, though, the Minister would recognize the danger of

falling into what might be called the "metro trap, "

— metro Toronto and other metropolitan areas —

where one finds a growing and continuing debate between those

who have been elected at large to serve on a regional board or

a metro board and those who remain in the city proper. I think

the metro Toronto example over the years has shown the fallacy

of this approach. Indeed, so much time has been spent debating

who should be doing what and who might be gaining a point on

the other that very little government business — that is

metro or city government business — has been accomplished

from time to time.

There is an oddity here, I would think, in the move to

provide for the election of regional district directors by the

electorate at the time of the civic or municipal elections.

This is a multi-purpose board as we know, and yet councils

presumably would continue to appoint at their first meeting of

the year — the statutory meeting — various

representatives to single-purpose boards such as the library

board, a water board in certain instances, an inter-municipal

committee and so on.

These bodies in some very definite instances are committing public funds. So

I am a little confused at the determination of the government to provide for

the election at large of regional district directors on the same ballot as municipal

directors, and yet their apparent willingness to permit the other point to carry

on on water boards or library boards or cemetery boards

— whatever it might be.

I join with the previous speakers for the Social Credit and

Liberal Parties with respect to the concern felt in the

community at large, I would think, on the subject of

municipalities entering into business. I would hope that the

Minister would take as much time as is necessary in closing the

debate, Mr. Speaker, to spell out in some detail exactly what

he and the government may have in mind. May we have some

particular examples?

The comments in the House and outside have not been

sufficiently detailed to indicate to municipalities, to local

property owners, to taxpayers, to tenants, to those who are

concerned about civic and municipal government as to precisely

what this may lead to. I would hope that the Minister will not

brush aside these requests from three Members in the last few

minutes and that he will give us as much detail as he possibly

can on that subject.

I think I'll refrain from further remarks until we get to

committee stage.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no need

for the Member of the Liberal Party to leave when I start

speaking. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a few words on this particular

bill, my interest in municipal affairs having gone up since my

brother was elected alderman.

The first thing I would like to comment upon is the lack of

information from the Minister when he introduced this bill on a

number of matters which I thought would be matters of

principle. First of all, this entry into the commercial area

— or at least into the municipality to do business. I

thought that matter would be something dealing with the

principle on which the Minister might like to comment. I am

disappointed that he has not done so.

The second point I'd like to congratulate the Minister on is

the acceptance of the principle of the heritage building and

heritage land concept. I'd like to congratulate him on this

because this was started off years ago in Britain — if I

may briefly digress — and the National Trust in Britain

is now the third largest land-owner in the country after the

Crown and the National Forestry Commission, I believe. So it's

something which can do a great deal to preserve not only

buildings but land. I might add that it's an entirely voluntary

thing in Britain and we don't have the compulsion that exists

in some British Columbia statutes yet to be enacted.

The fact is that Victoria is one of the oldest — next

to New Westminster, of course. The Minister was about to make

that comment I am sure — communities in British Columbia.

There is a large number of buildings which would qualify for

the type of

[ Page 2646 ]

protection that this particular Act envisages. I think

that's great.

We have the Belmont Building nearby being redone — not

a terribly old building but nevertheless a very attractive one

with historic significance and in which the Minister's

neighbour, the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) is of course renting most of the

space. There's the Emily Carr House and a large number of

buildings in this area which should be protected. There are

many that have gone to the wrecker because they weren't

protected and we didn't have adequate public attitudes, I

guess, as well as legislation dealing with them in the

past.

It's a great pity that so much has been destroyed. I commend

the Minister, especially on behalf of Victorians, for having

put in this type of principle in a bill which will allow more

to be done in the future.

The regional board again worries me. Whit happens if the

elected member of a particular community which makes up the

regional area who is elected at large disagrees with his own

council? Presumably he can do so because he's elected at large

and is not elected or put forward by his own council. There's a

problem there that may crop up and that I think is worthy of

note.

My own personal views are actually similar to those of the

Mayor of Victoria (Mr. P. Pollen) as far as our own local area

is concerned. I think we could go more in terms of a larger

city and less in terms of a fourth layer of government; in

other words, improving the municipal structure rather than

moving into a fourth level of government. But that again

perhaps is too broad a subject to be debated at this time.

I trust the Minister will indicate at least two things.

First of all, the question of the municipalities going into

businesses — what really does he have in mind? How is it

going to be limited? Things of that nature.

Secondly, will he deal for the first time with the problem

of the regional board members? It's not clear to me how well it

will work. I think that some statement by him is certainly in

order at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Fort George.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

would like to compliment the Minister for his progressive

movements, the first one permitting municipalities to go into

some commercial activities as they see fit.

I would like to point out that our municipality has actually

been engaged to a certain extent in this type of activity. In

the past 10 years we have had about 2,350 fully-serviced lots

on 1,500 acres developed by the city, an industrial site

developed by the city, and they are also involved in lease

arrangements and so forth

I gather that this has been permitted to a certain extent in

the past and they are going to expand from this. We note that

the new development corporation does also have provisions to

permit municipalities and regional districts to get involved in

this type of commercial enterprise.

I think it's very noteworthy to start the ward system for

municipalities so that you don't have the entire city being run

from one particular street or from one particular part of

downtown or uptown area; so you do get a much better

cross-section of representation.

The joint facilities permitted for recreational facilities

with schools is a very good step forward so that recreational

facilities are going to become really and truly a

community-oriented activity rather than each individual civic

group deciding that it belongs to them when in fact it does

belong to the community and it should be utilized as such.

We also have a much better proposal here for advising the

public of public hearings. When you see that municipalities now

will be required to mail notices to people in the area that is

to be rezoned, I think that is a very good idea. In the past

years where you have had a public notice in the paper with a

particular legal description, people were just not able to

determine whether or not their property was adjacent to a

particular legal description. I think that this is going to be

a very good service to the general public.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Minister for

this and I would appreciate a further explanation on the form

of election that one of the Members has mentioned.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just

a couple of brief questions. We will be asking more questions

in third reading about a number of the specific instances.

There are some good changes contained in these amendments.

But I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister might comment on the

possibility of having alternates — maybe the second

highest person in the election could be named as an alternate.

I see a situation where the seat on the regional district may

be vacant for some time and the area may not get its

representation. I'll let you answer when you get up, Mr.

Minister.

I was going to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, who asked for

these changes with regard to the municipalities entering into

commercial ventures? I guess it must have been the Member for

Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) from the sound of it. It certainly

wasn't the UBCM or anybody like that.

I'd also like to ask the Minister if he'll tell us if he's

prepared to guarantee to bail out any municipality that goes

bankrupt because of imprudent

[ Page 2647 ]

investments. I see a very, real danger in that, Mr. Speaker.

The municipalities really — and the Minister knows this

— have their backs up against the wall as far as

financing goes. They don't have any alternate methods of

financing.

If they do get into some form of investment which proves to

be costly and not profitable, then where's the money going to

come from for that municipality to reimburse its taxpayers?

They certainly don't have the means to do it themselves. So the

question is: will the Minister guarantee that the provincial

government will bail out any bankrupt municipalities?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To start with, I

might point out that the reason I didn't go into any lengthy

detail on opening was that since I've been in this House,

there has never been debate on second reading on this

particular bill, due to the fact that we're dealing with

probably 25 different subjects. However, it wasn't because I

was trying to avoid the responsibility of discussing the items

with the House.

The purpose of the bill generally is to give the local

governments more responsibility. I for one believe that those

people who are elected at the local government level are just

as capable and responsible as those elected in the provincial

or federal House. I'm not worried one bit about some council

going out and spending a lot of money on some haywire

operation. There are other safeguards in any event.

The question of who asked for the rights to go into

business: there were a number of municipalities that did. The

areas concerned by and large are the question of mobile home

parks, industrial sites, marinas and things of that sort

— some area which might give some service to a local

situation. Instead of reciting everything down, I have enough

faith in local governments to appreciate the fact that they

will be doing whatever they may want to do for the good of the

community which they serve.

The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) read out an

interesting story. I missed it in the paper myself. In any

event, they went onto the ward system. Apparently, if there's a

ward system, the government is going to interfere and put in

all New Democratic Party members in council.

Well, I might point out to you that that would be a fine idea. But the authority

here is with the local council as to whether or not — it's all optional — they're

going to have a ward system. It's my belief that if a local council wants to

have a ward system or wants to have an election every two years, why shouldn't

they make that decision? Why should that decision be barred to them? I don't

think it makes sense. I think they should have the right to determine

their own methods of electing their people.

I think the next question was how the election would take

place or why elections should be held for the municipal

representatives on the regional boards. There are a number of

reasons. One of the basic reasons is that the whole purpose of

democracy is that those who represent the people should be

elected by the people. At the present time, in the rural areas

they do vote for their representatives but in the urban areas

they don't. They vote for a group of people and the

representative is appointed, generally by the mayor, although

it is presumably by the council. That's the way it operates.

The situation is that the people who are being affected by

decisions of the regional districts by and large don't know who

their representative is. There's no way of avoiding that.

As to how the operation works, there's a separate ballot for

the regional district representative. If you want to run for

council and regional district, your name, appears on both

ballots. If you don't want to run for regional district, your

name doesn't appear on the second ballot. It only appears on

the council ballot. To qualify as a regional district

representative, you first must be elected onto the council.

There's no one elected onto the regional district that isn't

elected onto council.

You might say that none of those who ran for regional

district won a council seat, or something of that sort. What

would happen then is that there would be a by-election. It's

the same as if no one ran for council or there was one vacancy

on the council ticket — there would be a by-election.

It's the same in this case. That's the way the operation will

run.

The lame-duck council — I think that's a valid

question whether there will be a lame-duck council. It's an

extra two or three weeks. We'll have to look at that and watch

that.

I now move that the question be put.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 175 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading of Bill No. 176, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, this bill is quite short and

simple and non-controversial. I made it only 1½ pages long so

you'll all be able to read it before we debate it, which will

be a bit of a change.

[ Page 2648 ]

(Laughter).

Some may say there's no principle in it but there are

principles in it. In moving second reading of the bill, I'd

like to take a little time and explain the situation as it has

occurred.

First of all, in December I announced the decision the

government had made in regard to an amalgamation of the areas

and extension of boundaries in the Kelowna area. At that time I

also announced that there would have to be additional

legislation brought in at the next session before the

amalgamations could take place. This is the legislation that I

suggested at that time.

I think we might deal with the history of the Kamloops area

first of all. Kamloops is a fastgrowing centre and areas of

population have grown up around it. As a result, certain

pockets of areas requested that they be incorporated as a

municipality. A vote took place in each area. A vote took place in Valleyview. But the vote didn't take place in the

region. Kamloops was just as involved as Valleyview in the

future of that district.

A vote was held in Valleyview and it was created as a

municipality. Likewise Dufferin and likewise Brocklehurst. I

suggest that what we're doing here is basically bringing back

the situation to where it was and where it should have been

— that those municipalities never should have been

incorporated, sitting on the borders of a major town.

It seems to me that what the government is doing here is

taking some responsibility in seeing that an area has come to

the stage where it is absolutely essential for the government

to step in and correct an obvious ill in an area. The result of

this is that the community will be planned as one unit. The

same applies in Kelowna.

In Kelowna the situation was a little different in that

there have been no municipalities developed. The City of

Kelowna was strangled by the growth of urban areas outside the

city limits, across the street. Facilities in Kelowna city were

being used by the outside areas, as in the Kamloops area. I

suggest that the future of Kelowna was threatened because of

lack of planning in the area. I think that Kelowna is one of

the most beautiful cities in the province. In the Rutland area

and some of the areas surrounding Kelowna, the lack of planning

is a little too bad.

The requests of Kelowna for extension of boundaries were not

granted. As a result, the city has been strangled and the

industrial and commercial areas have been built to a great

extent outside the present City of Kelowna.

The question is simple. As I see it, the question is whether or not the provincial

government should accept its responsibilities in dealing with these matters

as it sees fit. Or should the matter be carried on and on in an unfair situation

which presently exists? I suggest that the government has a responsibility to

react positively in situations of this kind.

I have put these amendments into an enabling and validating

Act for the sole reason that if there are future requirements

of this nature they will have to be brought before the House to

be debated. If we had done it through the Municipal Act ,

it would have then been simple afterwards to put through any

amalgamation of this type that may be required. Under this

method, before amalgamation of this nature can take place it

will have to be brought before the House for debate.

I now move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,

I'm not going to speak at length because I too am in favour of

enlarging boundaries of municipalities.

In the Okanagan we have three main cities — Kelowna,

Vernon and Penticton. Penticton chose, when it became

incorporated, to include a lot of the benches and the farmland.

Kelowna didn't. Naturally problems developed in both

cities.

Great problems developed in Penticton because of the

responsibility they had for this agricultural land and the

irrigation districts and so forth. I'm not minimizing that at

all, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister. But I am saying this, that

the whole history of municipalities in this province is one

where local people have had something to say about it.

I think it's like any marriage. When you're joining people

together in groups, whether it's man and wife or whether it's

larger groups in municipalities, you do it by the right of

choice. Then the marriage has a great chance of being

successful, as yours has, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister's and

mine and many, many others. But it would not have been

successful, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, if it had been a

shotgun marriage.

That's what's happening in Kelowna. This is a shotgun

marriage.

I think too, when you gave these people the vote — I

don't think one little area should be able to stay out of it,

just because that little area voted against coming in. But I

would think that in a large area like the proposed new City of

Kelowna — which is the finest city not only in British

Columbia but in Canada and any place else. Everybody knows

that. I'm not boasting. Everybody knows that. Penticton's a

good suburb of Kelowna and a very fine place to go. There are

great peaches there.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a good place to come from.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right. It's a good

[ Page

2649 ]

place to come from. I chose to live in Kelowna, having been born in New Brunswick.

As a young man I went to Alberta and there spent 10 delightful years. There

I met a school teacher who was born on Vancouver Island but teaching in Edmonton.

That was not a shotgun wedding — it was one by mutual consent and I will say

that it's been a happy one. But within two or three years she had me come to

her native Province of British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, no. It's getting better every day.

That's the reason why I feel younger every day — because

of my good wife. That's right.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If these lawyers would keep out of some of

these marriages, things would be happier, perhaps. (Laughter).

If these lawyers would keep out of some of these Acts of the

Legislature, things would be happier too — and people

would be able to understand them better.

There's a place for lawyers, but I'm not going to say where

that place should be. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BENNETT: So under the influence of that happy

"marriage by consent," she not only brought me to

British Columbia but in the few years she got me to be Premier

of this province and kept me here longer than any person else.

I'm having some difficulty in retiring, but retire I will.

There's a time and a place for everything, although I'm not

making an announcement of the definite day today.

What I am saying is that in Kelowna, where I know the people

so well, where I know the people in Rutland so well and the

other areas so well, I would strongly suggest through you, Mr.

Speaker, that the Minister would take a second look there.

Don't force them into a shotgun marriage. Don't demand any 60

per cent vote either — 50 per cent plus one. Let the

whole district decide — the whole new city.

If you can't get 50 per cent plus one to vote for it, then

you're off to a bad start, Mr. Minister. There will be

difficulties and instead of the marriage working well, friction

will develop. I don't want to see that happen in that wonderful

area in which live.

I think that if you gave the vote you then would go up there

and tell them about the adjustments that would take place. Tell

them about the period of adjustment that will take place

between the rural areas and the city and that there will be

these adjustment grants for them to work into the city, rather

than giving them a forced marriage like that. Then I think it

would be acceptable.

Mr. Minister, I am not opposing it in principle; all I am

opposing is a principle that says we will do it by a shotgun

marriage while I am in favour of giving the people a

choice.

In the long period that I have been in public life —

32 years, Mr. Speaker — it has been proven to me that you

can trust the people in victory and in defeat. Being elected in

that one area with large majorities 11 consecutive times is

something that I will always appreciate and for which I will

always thank the people of that area.

People can be trusted in the Kelowna area — not only

Kelowna city but Rutland and all these areas. These people can

be trusted. You don't need to put a shotgun at their heads, Mr.

Minister. If you go up and explain it properly — 50 per

cent plus one — most likely they'll accept it. But if you

don't, friction will develop and that's not good; that is

bad.

Trust the people. Don't say that the Minister and the

government know best. Trust the local people. Every person in

this province has one vote. We trust them at election time.

They generally choose correctly, Yes. I think we were in long

enough. I think there is a time for a pause. Yes, I'm not

afraid to say that. There's a time for a pause.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The trouble there is it's taken them long

enough already.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I didn't say that, my friend. But many of

the people of the province are saying that.

I appeal again: our whole society is built on the right of

choice — so give the people in this large area a chance

to vote in the whole area, with no little district allowed to

stay out. If 50 per cent plus one passes, go up and explain

it.

That is the only appeal that I'll make, Mr. Speaker. I'm not

speaking at length and I'm not speaking with any heat. I'm

speaking in a reasonable way as I would want to be spoken to if

I sat in the seat of the Minister there.

When I was Premier we took many second looks. Take a second

look here.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that we

have often raised in this House and indeed outside it as well.

The first is the original question, the original decision of

the Minister coming, I believe, nine days after his party

campaigned in municipal elections on the slogan of

"Neighbourhood Government." We then get "Big Brother" in

Victoria in the person of the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer) making decisions affecting municipalities in

the interior which he claims he had

[ Page 2650 ]

to make because he couldn't trust them to come up with a

sensible decision.

Apart from the political irony of having had an NDP

"Neighbourhood Government" campaign in other parts of the

province followed up by the centralist decision from Victoria

of this Minister — apart from that, which I think would

make it well worth commenting upon, there are other principles

involved that I want to discuss at this time.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) has a thin skin. He feels

that this may be hitting close to home.

But what a violation of NDP principle as enunciated by your

candidates. What a violation of the idea of having local people

making as many local decisions as possible. It was really

supreme irony and it's been followed up, of course, by a series

of centralist and socialist decisions and bits of legislation

which goes' again to show that sometimes some of the people who

have been supporting you and who have even run for you have

been pretty seriously misled.

With regard to this story of the amalgamation of these two

communities, we've always said that you should make every

effort to get your point of view across.

If you think, Mr. Minister that your point of view is the

right one, as you apparently do, you should make every effort

to get it across and then perhaps, as is required apparently by

statute, according to the judicial system of this province, you

should then call for a vote.

Now under those circumstances, if you try hard and it's a

good policy and you have a vote, the chances are I'm sure that

the good people of Kamloops and Kelowna and any other

community you're interested in would probably agree. If they

don't well you can go back to the drawing board. You can try

and persuade them. If you can't persuade people what's good for

them, something is probably wrong with your eloquence.

The second thing I would like to raise at this time is how

you ever drew those boundaries. There are enormous areas in

there and I've discussed this with people in the municipal

councils of both communities. I was up on the weekend in the

riding of the Hon. former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and I

discussed it then with elected municipal officials.

They really don't know how you came up with those boundaries that take in some

10,000 acres of prime agricultural land. I just didn't seem to make a great

deal of sense. You might want to answer that because that is one of the real

problems they worry about. Here you have decisions made in Victoria about boundaries

which the people who have been involved with this and

concerned with it and close to it on a day-to-day basis simply didn't find rational

or realistic at all.

We then get onto the question of the law. Oh sorry, before

that I should have mentioned the advisory group that you've got

set up in Kelowna. They've been asked to advise, they've been

asked to negotiate and yet there is no way that they can finish

that by the end of this month. I asked you, Mr. Minister, a

couple of questions in the House, through you Mr. Speaker, a

short time ago about what will happen if the matters which

they've been given to work out by the end of this month are

still pending at that time. What provision will be made for

continuing these negotiations following the disbanding of the

advisory committee?

You didn't answer me at the time and perhaps this is the

time. Deal realistically with that problem because, let's face

it, you've got a proper problem and it's on the ground up there

in Kelowna and you haven't made any effort to answer that

question up to now.

If we're into the area where we're dealing with retroactive

legislation to wipe out the decisions of the courts. I think

you should make some effort to deal with that.

Now on this question of the legislation, I also asked you,

Mr. Minister, not so long ago about the decisions made by

people in good faith on the basis of the existing law. People

have made decisions which have cost them money. Not only money,

of course, but their time and effort and a great deal of

concern as well.

These people have made decisions and they've acted in good

faith on the basis of what the law is. I asked you the other

day what you would do with this bill if the interest bill

passes; what you do in terms of compensating them? What would

you do in terms of helping them out? And you again just simply

didn't answer. Now that surely is an area that you should be

answering at this time. We don't like retroactive

legislation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You had better check the records.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I asked you to give me some names and you

couldn't give me any.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I'll get you the names. You just

would not say — and it was ruled out of order, as you'll

remember, on the grounds of being a hypothetical question. But

at this time it's no longer a hypothetical question.

I want to know your attitude toward claims which will result

coming out of retroactive legislation such

[ Page 2651 ]

as you are asking us to pass at this time — or at

least to approve in principle at this time. You haven't

answered that question, Mr. Minister, go back and check the

record. You'll find that you haven't answered it.

In any event, we come to the question of retroactive

legislation. I would have thought, under the circumstances,

where you had a clear decision of the courts dealing with this

question telling you that you had to go back and arrange for a

vote, that you would have done so. There is no reason given yet

by you or anyone else in your department or any Member of the

government which indicates why it is necessary to follow this

course of the retroactive legislation, rather than following

the court ruling and going ahead with a vote.

Now as I said, you could do all the educating you wanted

before the vote. You could have had the boundaries of the areas

concerned drawn much on the basis of your amalgamation schemes.

You could have had that done. You could have arranged a vote,

and you could have allowed local democratic processes to work

in that area.

You've chosen not to do that. You've chosen what we think is

a bill which is bad in principle, mainly because you don't like

the decision of the courts to wipe it out — to wipe it

out by way of legislation. Obviously, we can do that. This

House can pass retroactive legislation. But let's not forget

the other night when dealing with the matter of zoning, and a

matter of compensation, how the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) railed away against the former government because

they passed retroactive legislation when dealing with the Deas

Tunnel property.

How he poured scorn on the heads of Social Credit because in

an area which is not dissimilar to this they passed such

retroactive legislation to get around the decision of the

courts. Well if there was money involved, if you were trying to

save the government money, we might not approve of it at all,

but at least we'd know that there was a reason there —

and I was thinking in terms of money that was involved in the

case of the tunnel.

In this area, we really have seen no justification for

retroactive legislation except your own self-confessed

inability to persuade people in the area that what you're doing

is good for them. If that's the case, if there is no real

reason, if there's no need for such legislation, if there's no

good reason for ignoring the decision — in fact not

ignoring the decision of the courts, but by retroactive

legislation wiping out the whole judicial process as it has

taken place on this issue — then I think you should not

be passing this type of legislation.

If you have a good reason, put it forward. But up to now, Mr. Minister, you

haven't and, until you do, I don't see how a bill of this nature can be approved

in principle by this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill is rather an

unfortunate one I feel because of the many principles that it

raises. First one of course, is that the Minister bungled the

situation he was trying to deal with, whatever the merits of

that situation, in that he exceeded the jurisdiction provided

in the Municipal Act . This always, of course, lowers the

confidence that the opposition must have in the decisions of

that Minister. So regardless of whether the amalgamation of

these two particular areas is good or bad, the manner in which

the matter has been handled has been most unfortunate.

The other point that we feel very strongly about is the

whole question of freedom of choice and the rights of citizens

to chart their own destiny. The Minister has said earlier this

afternoon that the reason the municipalities can now go into

business is that he places great faith in municipally-elected

individuals, and I think he's right. But here again we have

this contradiction in Bill 176 that, on the one hand, the

Minister is accepting the responsible attitude of the vast

majority of municipal office holders and, on the other hand,

he's telling them what's good for them in two particular parts

of the province. We think this is rather contradictory.

The situation also, as I understand it — and we can go

into this more in

section discussion in committee — but

the two examples that are involved here, Kelowna and Kamloops,

are not similar. Maybe the principle of amalgamation is similar

but there are points, we feel, which make the situation not

comparable between the two cities.

The whole question of amalgamation of course has developed

from the modern problem of people settling in peripheral areas

around towns and cities where, by either being unorganized or

being in a small municipality which can sponge off a larger

municipality, you have the smaller areas carrying an unfair

share of taxation. Some smaller municipalities, in fact, have

an excellent tax base but are being serviced from neighbouring

municipalities in various ways. Or if they're not being

serviced, there is great disharmony in the whole area because

of the question of the use of fire and ambulance and so on.

At that point, Mr. Speaker, I'd say I'm not unsympathetic to

the Minister's wish to create a better-integrated and perhaps a

more just and fair distribution of services in these two

areas.

We would certainly agree with the Leader of the Official

Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett) that this action of the Minister

represented a very serious precedent. It opens the door, in the

opinion of this party, to Ministers — making unfair use

of their authority in this. I'm not only referring to those

[ Page 2652 ]

measures which exceed their jurisdiction, but even within

the Act, or if this action had been within the Act, we still

feel that it negates a basic principle — that

municipally, provincially and federally each citizen of this

province has one vote and that collectively all these citizens

have the right to choose the path that they will follow in

terms of their local government.

Sometimes, through referendums, this can be a very

frustrating experience, if only by virtue of the fact that such

a small percentage of people turn out for referendum votes and

you find that 10 per cent of the total population is deciding

for the other 90 per cent.

You can rationalize and theorize and complain all you wish,

Mr. Speaker, but the fact is that if one particular level of

government or if the municipal level of government loses its

choice to decide, however poor the turnout at the polls, on a

matter as important as its organization of its own local

government, this, we feel, is a very serious precedent, as has

been said by the Minister in regard to these two areas.

In summation, I would say that we sympathize with the kind

of goal that the Minister was trying to reach — a better

and fairer distribution of services in these areas. But, set

against that well-motivated goal, we have to question not only

the fact that he exceeded his jurisdiction, but the fact that

it sets a very serious precedent which could be extended to the

detriment of citizens in all municipalities, Therefore, on that very basic and fundamental principle, we

have to vote against this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in

speaking to the principle of the bill, within the bill two

specific areas of population are set out. I think the main

concern I have is the principle that is set by the bill.

In dealing with the two particular areas, I find that this

is not quite so much a matter of a division of unorganized

territory between two other organized territories. In the

valleys, particularly the Okanagan Valley and the southern end

of the Okanagan Valley, I can see some peculiar problems

developing, where there are two municipalities with an area of

unorganized territory in between, of setting the particular

boundary. I must corroborate and agree with the suggestion of

the leader of the official opposition in this respect, that by

giving a vote to an area they can get a more amicable agreement

as to which community they are going to want to join up with. I

agree that for better planning, better management and better

administration, this would distinctly be to their

advantage.

I can see this principle applying to a number of other areas within the constituency

that I represent all the way from the Princeton area through to Christina Lake.

We are going to have more and more amalgamation required for their own good

and development and so on.

In speaking to this principle that we are going to set in

this bill, I would hope that the Minister will — and I am

sure he will — take to heart the suggestion made by the

Hon. leader of the official opposition. I'm sure that he gives

these areas this opportunity first to place their confidence in

a vote, and I agree with the 50 per cent plus one procedure,

then if they turn it down on that basis we have the further

legislation in which we can go along and bring about an

amalgamation. I would be very happy to support the bill on that

particular basis.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In dealing with the

principle of this bill maybe I can categorize it as being

unprincipled. We have a government in which the opening speech

in this session promises a bill of rights. It is government

which has talked about the right of the citizen to sue the

Crown. Yet here we have an instance where a Minister of the

government, having taken an action by order-in-council and

having been thwarted because a citizen was able to get him

before the courts of this province, is now coming before this

Legislature and saying: "I don't care what the courts have

decided. It doesn't matter that I acted outside of the law. I

want you to remedy what the courts have done and to confirm the

decision that I made in the first instance."

I am afraid that this doesn't bode well for the long-awaited

bill of rights and the rights of the citizen to sue the Crown.

As a matter of fact, it is probably an extension of what we

have seen in other legislation before us this session. The

right to access to the Courts has been denied. Here we have a

case where, when there is access to the courts available, the

Minister brings this bill in in order that he can have his way.

I think, based upon that alone, that the bill should be refused

second reading.

As a matter of fact, in the previous bill which we debated a

few moments ago the Minister in his response talked about the

democratic procedures and the democratic processes and why we

should give powers to municipal councils. After all, they were

democratically elected and could be expected to fulfil their

roles responsibly. Yet here in this particular bill we have

evidence that he is not prepared to allow democratic processes

to apply when dealing with the amalgamation of groups of

municipalities.

It is a complete contradiction of the position he took in

this chamber within the last half hour. Why?

[ Page 2653 ]

What is the reason for this precipitous action on the part

of the Minister? He thinks best — that's right. Elected

to office we now have a Minister who for reasons best known to

him and to his staff says: "This is what is going to happen and

we are going to make it so, regardless of what the law may be.

If the law is against us, we'll change the law." That's really

"big stick" government against local government — the

kind of thing we used to see so often under the previous

administration, and which the Hon. Minister, when he was in

opposition, used to criticize.

I would hate to see you establish any more commissions in

this province, but because of the government penchant for

establishing commissions and having them give advice to the

government, I would have thought that the Minister this year

would have been bringing in amendments to the Municipal

Act to provide for the creation of a municipal boundaries

commission.

We do have some serious problems in regard to the size and

number of local government areas. We have the same thing in

school districts. The Minister has serious problems with regard

to the expansion of existing municipalities, without even any

thought of amalgamation. I would have felt better if the

Minister had said we will establish a commission composed of

people who will go into these various regions of the province

and report back on the changes that should be made, in order

that we have municipal areas of proper efficient size. We would

have the same thing with school districts. So we would have a

basis upon which decisions of this kind can be made.

That commission would also adopt some of the changes that

were brought into this House by the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) in Bill No. 42, where once

having made a study of the problem and determined what if any

changes in boundaries there should be, we would hold public

hearings in the region to ensure that the citizens were fully

informed of the commission's view and of the desirability of

change.

Then they would have an opportunity of discussing the

matter rationally on the basis of well-founded opinion and

information rather than, as is the case now, largely on emotion

and local parochial interest. That would be a logical and

reasonable approach to the problem which the Minister

apparently has with these two groups of municipal areas, and

one which the Members of this House could support.

What we have here is only a continuation of existing and completely unsatisfactory

techniques for making efficient the areas of local government. Until the Minister

sees fit to offer some positive explanation as to why these amalgamations have

been chosen and why he has not taken the step to consult with people who are

involved and get an expression of their opinion, then we will continue to oppose

this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I would very

much like to endorse the remarks of the last speaker, Mr.

Speaker. You know, John F. Kennedy felt that he had a

socialistic missile crisis in Cuba. I'll tell you what we have

in B.C. — we have a socialistic mentality crisis.

You are treating the democratic principle of the rule of law

as though it had rabies. You are consistently denying the

rights of citizens to one of the greatest and most noble

freedoms for which men and women for centuries have laid down

their lives.

That is the freedom of having ready access to an

independent, non-political, dispassionate, objective,

fair-minded, justice-producing and equity-producing forum, one

that is quite beyond the might of political power, and beyond

the might of political pressure and it's called a court,

c-o-u-r-t. Courts are found in free societies, and conceivably

we are considered to be a free society. They are supposed to be

used in a free society, and they have an irreplaceable function

in a free society. They have a function that I say is best

weighed in philosophical, moral and ethical values, and even

considered by some in spiritual values.

Yet in British Columbia, which is proudly called British

Columbia because the forefathers of this province in their

wisdom, over 100 years ago by proclamation, brought to B.C. the

common law of England, and it has a history of checks and

balances running way back to Runnymede and 1066 and all

that.

But with this bill you are not only ignoring and not only

treating with disdain access to the courts, but even worse than

that, you are absolutely denying people the right and the

heretofore sanctity of the court's decision. I put this to the

government, Mr. Speaker: where can there be any certainty in

the law hereafter? How can any person have assurance that the

legal process will not be avoided by

an Act of the

Legislature?

You know, even the former administration in their worst days…and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

illustrated this point during a debate earlier in this session

about when they brought in Bill 77 in the late Sixties. They

went ahead and overrode a court order, and provided an award

below that which was determined by an arbitration and confirmed

by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, by a judgment that

was not appealed. The former administration saw fit to bring in

a bill awarding a lesser amount, and a considerably lesser

amount, in a Highways expropriation case.

But even the former government had the good

[ Page 2654 ]

grace to withdraw that bill and not put it through to final

reading. The fact that convinced them to do that was in the

face of the very principle of what I am talking about today.

How strange it is to me to find that the opposition has cowed

under to principle here today.

Either you go ahead and believe in the system of justice and

jurisprudence that has developed over the past 900 years or you

don't. You don't go ahead and suddenly say, by the snap of a

political finger, "we are overriding the courts." This is a

terribly dangerous principle, Mr. Speaker, and I would

certainly ask the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) — which, regretfully, I appreciate he will not

do — I would ask him to withdraw this bill.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

I think good sense was made by all of the other speakers. I

am certainly in favour of a 51 per cent vote. I am certainly in

favour of permitting these people to exercise their democratic

right. It's their democratic right. You're not exercising a

democratic right here in forcing it onto them. It's their

democratic right to make that decision.

Dealing with the remarks of the Member for South Okanagan,

the Hon. Leader of the Loyal Opposition, I agreed with him in

the 51 per cent. Sure that was a good idea, but I marvelled at

his inconsistency when he so strenuously supported something

well in excess of 51 per cent for fluoridation. So it would be

a nice thing if we had had some consistency from him on that

point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver

Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I was moved by the brief

Grey. I would like to remind him of one principle he failed to

common law — that the first, most unbreakable, inviolable

and enshrined principle is that parliament is supreme.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just don't

understand what this government has against the vote,

democracy. There isn't anything wrong with allowing people to

exercise those democratic rights, as has been said by previous

speakers. The votes have been taken before in this matter in

areas — North Shore I think had a vote — but the

people weren't ready at that time for amalgamation.

However, in other areas such as Mission and the Abbotsford-Sumas area the people were ready for it, and it

was presented in such a manner by the people who were in

support of amalgamation that the vote went through

successfully.

I think we should let the people decide, and certainly I

agree that the Minister should take a second look and bring the

bill back, and let the people decide. Let them have their vote

even now.

The court is supreme, Madam Speaker, and I don't understand

how a court order can be wiped out so easily, just with a brush

of the pen. Madam Speaker, I think when a person makes a

mistake, even if he is a Minister of the Crown, he should

accept that he made a mistake and admit that he made a mistake,

and then do something about it — not pass legislation to

erase that mistake, by all means.

The courts have said that the Minister made a mistake. He

knows that he has made a mistake. People in the area have said

that he made a mistake, Even though that mistake is legally

wiped out, Madam Speaker, the mistake is still there, and there

is nothing that you can do that will alter that.

Madam Speaker, on the one hand just a few moments ago, in

this House, the Minister said that he wanted to give local

elected representatives more responsibility. On the other hand,

about 15 or 20 minutes later…I am not drawing your

attention to the clock, by any means; I was just referring to

the Minister's comments. It doesn't do any good to draw your

attention to the clock any more in this House anyway.

Madam Speaker, just a few minutes later he takes away the

responsibility of the locally-elected officials, and the people

as well. I just don't understand how this Minister can stand

for democracy in one bill and stand against democracy in

another bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Kamloops.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I have been waiting very

patiently for several days for this debate to come up as I knew

it would. I was quite interested in some of the remarks that

have been made so far. I'll do like the Member for South

Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and stay with my own region. I

agree with him it's a beautiful city; we are planning to take

it in on our next boundary expansion.

I agree with my colleague from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

when he says that through the fabric of the law comes the idea

that parliament is supreme.

Someone in the Kamloops area had to make a decision that was

obvious over the years could not be made on a regional basis.

Whether the decision would be rational or irrational doesn't

matter; the decision would never have been made.

I have been living in the Brocklehurst area for 16 years,

and I wasn't given a vote on the amalgamation

[ Page 2655 ]

of Valleyview. With a nice little residential area and a

very nice commercial area and a nice industrial base, of course

they would want to stay separate. They didn't have a choice in

the corporation vote of Brocklehurst where I live — which

is a bedroom community containing only one industry which the

provincial government was keeping for themselves, the oil

refinery.

Then when the vote came up for the incorporation of

Dufferin, which I understand was covered fairly well in this

House in years past, we had a situation where 761 people were

incorporated on 7,000 acres, which is more land than the cattle

get in that dry country, where feed isn't very good.

We had quite a few problems. In these surrounding areas we

were known as parasites for a long time. I couldn't understand

how the people in any of these surrounding areas, incorporated

or not…because there are other areas.

Westside is now over the 5,000 population and sitting within

view of the other four incorporated areas which are within

touching distance of each other. I bought the land in

Brocklehurst to live on because Kamloops had none left, and

after Valleyview and Dufferin were incorporated on either side

and Brocklehurst to the north, there was nowhere that Kamloops

could expand for either industry or residential use.

Many attempts were made through the regional district,

through group meetings of mayors and councils, to try to come

to some common decision on such things as water and sewers and

other things that were needed to put them on a basis that every

area could afford. Thousands of dollars were spent in studies.

All had to shelved because one of the communities would opt

out.

Once again the cries of "parasite" and various types of

disturbers were flying. I couldn't understand how we in the

outer areas could be parasites when all the shopping and all

the offices at that time for insurance and services of all

kinds were in Kamloops and all of us were spending all our

money in that city.

The only way that I can feel that we were in any way using

the facilities of Kamloops without proper payment was in

recreation. We didn't have recreation facilities and Kamloops

did, and we and our children made use of them over the

years.

The boundaries of the city are going to be, I understand,

just slightly under the acreage of Surrey in size. But it gives

control and planning now for this: area that they've never had

before.

I wish I'd kept the old papers because they covered these meetings of the various

areas quite well when they had combined meetings. Almost every one of them ended

in a fight and name-calling. The Mayor of Kamloops, I believe, has been referred

to as a "bulldozer;" the mayor of my area, who I think is a very nice person,

has been classed as a "fence-sitter;" the Mayor of Valleyview and some of the

councillors have been called "isolationists."

If the time had ever come around when they had got together

to agree on possibly having a vote, the small percentage of

those who, for their own particular political or other reasons,

wanted no part of this would have done such a good job over the

two or three months in selling the whole idea of amalgamation

down the river — the Thompson in this case, which I

understand is getting polluted with other things — that

there would have been no hope of the people in that area coming

to a rational decision.

Kamloops has a dual taxation system. The story would have

gone around, as it always has, about the domination of the

downtown core of Kamloops. There would have been the usual

stories of the rise in taxes.

What happens on this amalgamation of the area — which

is a true amalgamation and not a boundary expansion of the City

of Kamloops — is that we now have an industrial base; we

now have land which can be used in future for industry; we have

an advisory committee of 15 people drawn from all the councils

— and they nominated their people and regional district

representatives. Perhaps we can get some sanity into the

area, These people have done a tremendous job. I wouldn't want to

say that they were all in favour of amalgamation; there were

some who definitely were not. But they realized it had to come,

just as I realized it had to come at two ratepayers'

association meetings in Brocklehurst before Brocklehurst

incorporated.

The main reasons brought forth by all speakers at that

incorporation was that one day this whole area would be one

city. When this happens we want an organized council to stick

up for the rights and the needs of the people in the

Brocklehurst area. This I agreed with and I supported the

incorporation of the area on the day we voted.

If we were to go to some system now that decided that we

would be another four or five years as separate areas, it would

mean that we couldn't refuse incorporation to Westsyde with

over 5,000 people, where people are hauling water in their cars

for three or four months a year for their use — we

couldn't have reasonably refused incorporation to the Dallas

and Bamhardvale area, where there are three private water

systems — one water improvement district and 60 families

without water. This is the type of madness that has been going

on in that area and I believe the only way to correct it was by

legislation from this House, where all of these matters could

come out in the open and be discussed.

A vote in that area perhaps would work well; but in the last

municipal elections in Brocklehurst, 11 per cent of the

population turned out to vote. I know that if a vote were held

there would have to be a one

[ Page 2656 ]

or two-month period which would give the people that I

consider professional saboteurs the chance to wreak their

havoc, to talk about the dual tax system of Kamloops, the

domination, "your taxes are all going to go up" — every

excuse that they could possibly put into the reasons why they

felt that amalgamation should not go through; at the same time

concealing in many cases their real reasons.

The people of the area would not know what they were voting

on. It would be impossible for them to understand once these

people had finished sowing their seeds of distrust — and

there's enough distrust there now.

We're now in a position where there is a population of

52,000 and two separate surveys are within 5 per cent of each

other saying that we will have a population of 100,000 people

in 10 years' time. An expansion like this has got to be planned

for from one central area, services have got to be planned for,

commercial and industrial areas have got to be properly laid

out. Even though I'm one of the "parasites" from the outlying

area, I am looking forward, Madam Speaker, to the day of

amalgamation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaking to this bill

on the amalgamation of Kamloops and Kelowna areas, I'd like

first of all to point out to the House that there's a great

principle involved here in municipal government, and that is

that always in the( past in this Province of British Columbia

people gathered together and came and requested amalgamations

or incorporations and then a vote was given. In this case the

Minister has seen fit that he knows better than the local

people in both these areas and he has ordered a forced

amalgamation and boundary extension in the other case.

I take strong exception to this. I don't think this is the

way for municipalities to operate. I think it's a bad base to

start from and it will cause trouble for a long time to

come.

I might say that I certainly am in favour of the overall aim

but not the method that is being attained here in this bill. By

that I mean that possibly some time in the future this should

happen, but only when the people affected have their democratic

right given to them — and that is by vote.

Now there are two different problems here, as mentioned

earlier by another speaker. I'll deal first with my version of

Kamloops where we are getting three incorporations into the

City of Kamloops. This