1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd

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)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 7145 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statements

1986 B.C. Ferries Fares. Hon. A. Fraser –– 7145

Mr. Lockstead

Merger of financial institutions. Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7146

Mr. Lauk

Oral Questions

Outflow of workers from B.C. Mr. Skelly –– 7147

Ombudsman documents. Mr. Lea –– 7147

Mr. Howard

Municipal Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 62). Hon. Mr.

Ritchie.

Committee stage –– 7148

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mr. Michael

Hon. Mr. Pelton

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Rose

Mr. Davis

Securities Act (Bill 37). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Committee stage –– 7160

Mr. Ree

Mr. Veitch

Mr. Lauk

Mr. R. Fraser

Mrs. Johnston

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Mowat

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Howard

Appendix –– 7170

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we're very honoured in having

in our galleries today His Excellency Roger Denorme, the ambassador of

Belgium, on a formal visit to Canada's evergreen playground.

Accompanying him is Mr. Jean Lecomte, who is the consul-general of

Belgium in Vancouver. We indeed regret, gentlemen, that we're imposing

Ottawa weather upon you, but we bid you, notwithstanding that, the

warmest of welcomes.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, visiting British Columbia

today is a goodwill delegation from Suzhou in China: Mr. Zhou Dayan,

deputy mayor of Suzhou; Mr. Lin Hua, vice-chairman of the standing

committee of Suzhou Municipal People's Congress; Zhou Sangyi,

vice-chairman of the Suzhou municipal council of China's People's

Political Consultative Conference; Li Yaonan, deputy secretary-general

of the Suzhou municipal people's government; and Guan Ruihua, deputy

section chief of the foreign affairs office of the Suzhou municipal

people's government. Accompanying the delegation, of course, is Murray

Glazier, alderman from the twin city of Victoria. Welcome to British

Columbia.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I see in the gallery two recently

re-elected aldermen for the city of Victoria, Geoff Young and Murray

Glazier. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them today.

Ministerial Statement

1986 B.C. FERRIES FARES

HON. A. FRASER: As all British Columbians know, next year

we'll host the world and millions of its people at Expo 86 as we

celebrate man's finest achievements in the field of transportation and

communications. Expo will be a magnificent world's fair, and it will

provide a tremendous boost for our tourism and hospitality industry.

Its long-term effect as the catalyst of our government's strategy for

renewal — a strategy based on the concept of partnership — will be to

increase investment and economic activity across our province.

The success of that strategy — and it's already at work — will stem

in large part from the fact that our government has made sure that we

have a first-class transportation infrastructure in place. British

Columbia today enjoys a system of highways, local airports and ports

that is second to none. We're well along in construction of the

Coquihalla Highway; the Annacis bridge, that magnificent feat of

engineering and construction, is close to completion; in a matter of

days our new advanced rapid transit system will be up and running,

serving thousands of commuters. All of these transportation-oriented

projects created thousands of jobs and generated millions of dollars in

economic activity at a time when these things were most needed in our

province. They represent the kind of public sector investments that we

had to make in order to equip our province to meet the new challenges

that face us in a new and more competitive world.

Our transportation infrastructure has many elements; included, as I

said, are highways, ports and a network of municipal airports developed

successfully under our provincial air transport assistance program.

Another important component, one that has served our province and the

people of British Columbia in fine fashion for many years, is B.C.

Ferries. As the largest ferry fleet in the world, it is an integral

link in our transportation chain, serving the B.C. coastal region, the

Queen Charlottes, Vancouver Island and the mainland. In terms of

service and value for dollar, you can't find a better bargain anywhere.

The present fare structure, for example, between Vancouver Island and

the mainland stands at $19 for an auto and its driver, and $4 for each

passenger or a walk-on. In contrast, the fare from Sidney to Anacortes,

on the Washington state ferry system, is $24.35 for a car and its

driver, and $5.65 for a passenger.

With Expo 86 on the horizon, the Ferry Corporation is gearing up for

a major increase in both domestic and visitor traffic as a result of

the fair and the very aggressive marketing programs of the Ministry of

Tourism. Today, Mr. Speaker, I have some good news for all those people

who will sail on the ferry system in 1986 — I am pleased to announce

that fares on the B.C. Ferries will not increase for 1986, and it's

certainly good news for British Columbians and visitors and tourists

alike. I'm delighted to be able to make this announcement, and also to

say that the Ferry Corporation will continue to recognize British

Columbia's senior citizens by offering free travel Monday through

Thursday on all its southern routes.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: By the way, Mr. Minister, they send their

regards from Bella Bella — and the subsidy that they didn't get for

their airport.... I thank the minister. Well, I'm not sure....

I listened intently to his announcement, and he didn't say anything

that we haven't already read in the paper. I'll just go through this

very quickly. The minister mentioned the theme of Expo. We on this side

of the House hope that Expo is a complete success, and that that

particular fair will not drain the provincial coffers too much. I guess

we won't get the bills until after Expo is over and until after the

next provincial election.

Certainly I welcome the minister once again telling this House that

his many, many projects include job creation for thousands of British

Columbians and people from other provinces in Canada and all over the

United States. However, I would much prefer to have seen all of those

jobs go to British Columbians.

While we're discussing highways, I would as well like to remind the

minister that there are many parts of this province where highway

projects are sorely needed. I can think of areas in my riding, but

right now I'm speaking on behalf of the opposition for the whole

province.

Those jobs in highway construction provide local work opportunities

for our local contractors, and I would hope that instead of looking at

megaprojects that usually involve huge overruns, such as the Coquihalla

Highway, the minister would start looking at the roads and highways and

byways on a community-by-community basis. I know that we'll go through

this in some detail during the budget debate next spring.

Last but not least, the minister has once again announced to this

House that there would be no ferry fare increases, because of the $12

million surplus. But, Mr. Speaker, I must remind the members that there

have been fare increases on

[ Page 7146 ]

that ferry system every year since 1977, I believe

–– 1976, I think the minister said. Furthermore, the scheduling has

been reduced this winter. I understand that there are nine vessels

currently tied up, not being used. I will welcome the minister's

announcement when he tells us that there will be increased scheduling

during Expo, which will help us quite a bit.

[2:15]

I want to remind the minister that the subsidy to the B.C. Ferry

Corporation has been reduced quite severely over the last three years,

from $54 million to about $40 million at the present time. I know I am

going on here a bit, but this is quite important, I think. The ministry

has increased the fleet by 12 additional saltwater vessels, which are

going to require an increased subsidy. The city of Prince Rupert has

requested better service from the lower mainland, Tsawwassen to Prince

Rupert. People on Vancouver Island, specifically my colleague here,

have requested reduced fares to Vancouver Island. I would suggest to

you, Mr. Speaker, reduced fares for all of our people on the coast.

So there is a lot of work to do, and while I welcome the minister's

announcement, I want to tell him we are by no means happy with his

performance over the last year particularly.

HON. MR. SMITH: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to introduce today somebody who is

well known in this chamber and also in the province, Mr. John Fraser,

the MP for Vancouver South, who is here today sitting on the floor. He

has many friends in this chamber. He is a man who has served his

country with distinction, a man who has served also on the Trilateral

Commission, a member of the lzaak Walton League, an internationally

known angler and environmentalist: my friend John Fraser.

MR. ROSE: I might also request leave of the House...

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: ...to welcome my old friend and colleague John

Fraser to this House: the member for Vancouver South, elected I believe

for the first time in 1972. We had a very warm and close personal

relationship. We've always, I hope, mutually admired each other's

positions, although we didn't always agree. I hope that Mr. Fraser

doesn't suffer too much of a culture shock at first entering this

chamber. I'd like to welcome him over here, if he'd care to come. But I

wish him all the best for the renewal of the Conservative Party in

British Columbia.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition were

not here, I would ask for leave to welcome the member for Vancouver

South too.

MR. REYNOLDS: I ask leave to make an introduction, Mr.

Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I won't welcome John Fraser,

because unlike my colleague down here who was in the House with John, I

agreed with everything he did. But I have another introduction I would

like to make, Mr. Speaker: a gentleman who is the son of my former

neighbours in Delta, Peter and Kate Rodenkirchen, a gentleman who is

now a constituent of mine in West Vancouver, a very successful

businessman in British Columbia, Manfred Rodenkirchen. He is in the

gallery.

Ministerial Statement

MERGER OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, this morning Security Pacific

Corp. and the Morguard Group Ltd. of Toronto announced that an

agreement has been reached under which Security Pacific Bank Canada,

headquartered in Toronto, will be merged with Morguard Bank of Canada,

a commercial bank headquartered in Vancouver. The successor bank will

be named Security Pacific Bank Canada and will be a wholly-owned unit

of Security Pacific. The head office of the merged bank will be in

Vancouver, British Columbia, and Mr. John Pierce, president and chief

executive officer of Morguard, will continue in his capacity as

president and chief executive officer of the new bank.

Security Pacific Bank Canada and Morguard Bank of Canada, with

combined assets of $500 million Canadian, are both Canadian

schedule B

banks formed in 1981 and 1982 respectively. This merged bank will have

a combined staff of about 75 employees, and branches in Vancouver,

Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal. Headquartering this new merged

bank in Vancouver is a positive step. It's an indication of job

creation, new jobs coming onstream. It is this new bank showing

confidence in the B.C. economy, and an indication of our efforts as a

government to make every effort possible to ensure that Vancouver

becomes a major financial community in western Canada.

MR. LAUK: Only in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, would the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have the temerity to stand

in the House and say that a bank merger shows confidence in the

economy. The system of banks and credit unions in western Canada is

trying to survive in an economy that is on its knees, particularly in

British Columbia through the programs of this government. Mergers are

for survival. They're not a demonstration of confidence. They want to

survive.

This government is hard pressed to point out the policies it has

implemented in the last five to six years which support the western

system of banks in Canada — a system that emerged, I might say, because

the former Premier of this province, W.A.C. Bennett, and other business

people in western Canada, particularly in British Columbia, were sick

and tired of the dictatorial tyranny of the eastern chartered banks.

Eastern chartered banks have done more — before this government came to

power — to cripple the economy of British Columbia than any other

single financial structure of Canada. What's taking place now is a

concerted attack on the part of the chartered banks, which use the

federal government and the Bank of Canada as their handmaidens, and can

rattle their chains and force the mergers and closures of banks in

western Canada. For the minister to have the temerity to stand up and

say this is a demonstration of confidence.... No other minister in any

other legislature in this country would

[ Page 7147 ]

dare to say that. He hopes his back-benchers will

believe him; we don't.

Oral Questions

OUTFLOW OF WORKERS FROM B.C.

MR. SKELLY: I have a question to the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development. In the last four quarters there has been a

net population outflow from the province of British Columbia which is

the highest and most persistent in the province's history. In the third

quarter of 1985, the population outflow has reached 2,046 persons. The

second quarter of 1985 had an outflow of 2,292, and the first quarter

had an outflow of 1,557. In the last quarter of 1984 there was an

outflow of 554 persons. There is a growing outflow of population from

the province of British Columbia. Will the minister tell us what plans

he has developed to stem the population outflow from the province in

terms of job creation and attracting industry to the province of

British Columbia, so that the sons and daughters of British Columbians

can live and work in the province?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we began the program of

economic renewal on March 14 of this year with the budget which was

introduced to this House and which contained a number of incentives to

ensure that new business comes to British Columbia and that businesses

which are already in British Columbia have the opportunity to grow,

expand and develop new business in our province. Tax adjustments and

reductions in the budget will amount to $1 billion over three years,

all of which will go to the business community — small business,

primarily — which will be the engine which drives the economic growth

of this province. In addition to that, this Legislature approved the

establishment of the office of the commissioner of critical industries,

which has had success now on three major occasions: the reopening of

two major copper mines in British Columbia; the reopening, under

employee ownership, of Victoria Plywood; the recent approval by the

employees of the reopening under employee ownership of Sooke Forest

Products; and also Lamford in New Westminster.

We've seen the opening of a new copper mine in North Island, a major

new deposit, the first new copper mine that has opened. We're seeing

all of the indicators — retail sales, housing sales, automobile sales,

housing starts — on the increase. There are more people working in

British Columbia now than there have been in many years, since probably

1981 or so.

Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate is still unacceptably high. But

the programs and goals of this province and of this government will see

that improve dramatically over the next few months.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, in the last month 20,000 additional

people became unemployed in the province of British Columbia, as a

result of this very policy that the minister was talking about. In

addition, since the budget came down, 5,000 people have left the

province, looking for opportunities elsewhere in Canada or elsewhere in

the world.

My question is: in specific terms, what plans does that minister

have to deal with the problem that has made British Columbia the

embarrassment in this country, the sick province of Canada, a have-not

province? What specific plans does this minister have to deal with the

problems that are driving British Columbians away from this province,

and driving British Columbians out of their jobs?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There's only one real embarrassment that

I can think of, and that's the performance of the Leader of the

Opposition, who continues. day by day, to attempt to destroy the

confidence of British Columbia. But he's being unsuccessful, and he'll

continue to be unsuccessful.

Mr. Speaker, I've mentioned the programs that are in place. I'll be

happy to have my ministry send down briefing notes on all of the

programs which are in place, including the venture capital corporation

program, which by the end of March will have $150 million of new

investment in small business in British Columbia, the special

enterprise zone legislation, and the critical commissioner's

legislation. I'll put a package together for the Leader of the

Opposition, Mr. Speaker, and I'll make sure you have it in your office.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell me what

statements like this, by a senior economist with Employment and

Immigration Canada, do for the confidence of British Columbians and the

confidence that we enjoy elsewhere in the country? "Realistically, when

we are answering the question, 'Where are the jobs?', a one-word answer

is Ontario. That's what people in British Columbia and Employment and

Immigration Canada are telling sons and daughters of British Columbians

who are being forced to leave the province to get jobs.

Mr. Speaker, my question to this minister is: if Ontario can do it,

if Manitoba can do it, if other provinces in Canada can do it, why has

this minister reduced British Columbia to a have-not province?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if British Columbia is a

have-not province, I would be pleased if the Leader of the Opposition

would send a letter to his counterpart in Manitoba, the Premier of

Manitoba, and advise him that, since Manitoba is the bright spot of

Canada, perhaps it's time we stopped sending equalization payments

there.

OMBUDSMAN DOCUMENTS

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Attorney-General. Yesterday in question period, in answering a question

asked on a previous day.... I quote from the Hansard Blues:

I'm able to report to the House that correspondence

and documents went missing from the office of the Ombudsman when Mr.

Friedmann left. A month ago, in early October, the acting ombudsman's

office made a request to Mr. Friedmann for the return of these

documents. That request was not successful; the documents were not

recovered from Mr. Friedmann. A demand was then made upon him by

registered mail, which was not successfully served upon him, and formal

demands have been made upon him within the past couple of days by

counsel that the acting ombudsman has retained to recover those

documents.

My question to the Attorney-General is that if what he said

yesterday is true — that Mr. Friedmann on leaving office took

confidential documents and documents that rightly belong in the

ombudsman's office — then why, instead of asking the acting ombudsman

to act, is the Attorney-General not acting? Because this clearly comes

under the Criminal Code of Canada.

[ Page 7148 ]

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker, I've had legal advice that, under the Criminal Code of

Canada,

section 296, the breach of trust

section — called theft by

conversion — would be the proper Criminal Code

section to lay charges

under. I'm asking the Attorney-General, as chief law enforcement

officer, why, when it clearly falls under the Criminal Code, does he

leave this up to the acting ombudsman? I'm sure the Attorney-General

agrees that justice delayed is justice denied, that Mr. Friedmann

should not have this dark cloud over him and that he should have his

day in court to clear himself or to be found guilty, whichever is the

case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member may be seeking legal opinion, but

the Attorney-General is certainly qualified to judge that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would call

to order the international banking expert over there who is heckling

me. I'm not one of those who ascribes criminal activities to persons

who are alleged to have removed documents. I did not purport to have

made a police investigation into the matter of the former ombudsman's

removal of documents. The ombudsman's office is staffed independent of

me and my office, and the ombudsman, under his act, is responsible to

this chamber and enforces his own act and engages his own counsel. I

don't step in unless I receive from the acting ombudsman a complaint of

criminal activity, or some person appears before a justice and swears

out an information. None of those things have happened. I see no

reason, for the moment, to have a criminal investigation. I understand

that the present acting ombudsman has retained counsel and that steps

are being taken to recover these documents. So I appreciate the concern

for justice that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has expressed

in this chamber, but I'm quite content that the acting ombudsman has

the matter very much in hand.

MR. LEA: If there was a bank embezzlement, would you leave it

up to the bank manager? I mean, you cannot leave a citizen out there

with this dark cloud over his head. You can't make statements in this

House that Mr. Friedmann took documents from that office, and then

leave it dangling with the acting ombudsman. This is clearly a job for

the Attorney-General. Either lay charges under the Criminal Code, or

get up in this House and say that none of it is true. You can't have it

both ways. And I'd like to know why, if Mr. Friedmann took those

documents, it does not fall under the Criminal Code of Canada,

section

296, Theft by Conversion — which means that when the ombudsman took

those papers he had the authority to do it. It's when he converted them

to his own use that it falls under the Criminal Code, and if that

happened, then charges should be laid. You can't hide behind the skirts

of the acting ombudsman.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon. members, questions should be

brief and precise, and they should also be questions.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I don't know from whom that member

obtains his interesting legal advice. It's very imaginative and

intuitive indeed; but if every removal is to be said to be a breach of

trust, if every taking of documents is said to be a conversion, if

every removal is said to be a break-in, then the criminal law is going

to be invoked at the whim of any critic. In order to have a case under

the criminal law, you have to prove that a taking is without any colour

of right, and you have to do so beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't

swoop in and use the criminal law for what may be a matter of less

culpability. But the matter came to my attention, you will remember,

Mr. Speaker, as a result of a request that was made by the NDP member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I made an inquiry, but not an investigation. I

would hope that the member is not urging me to invoke the criminal law

every time there is a complaint or an inquiry.

MR. HOWARD: A few days ago the Attorney-General said that his

deputy had diligently searched the records of his ministry and those of

the ombudsman's office as well. Could the Attorney-General tell us

whether that search of the records of the ombudsman's office was done

with the agreement of the acting ombudsman?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, the Deputy Attorney-General caused a

search to be made. When I received his report, I understood that he had

gone there himself, but he did not. Through officials of the

ombudsman's office, at his request, that search was made. So in that

respect, I correct any misapprehension that the member was under. But

my deputy did not actually physically go in and look at files in the

ombudsman's office. I think probably that was more appropriate conduct

for him.

MR. HOWARD: I see. Then what the Attorney-General told the

House the other day is not a true statement, and I am glad he has

corrected that. But even so, if as he says people in the ombudsman's

office made those records available for his deputy to search, what does

that mean of the oath of office of the acting ombudsman and people in

the ombudsman's office that all documentation brought to the attention

of the ombudsman is confidential and not to be revealed to anybody? Did

they not violate that oath by making that information available to the

deputy?

HON. MR. SMITH: The question is not only nitpicking and

irrelevant, but the asker of that question obviously believes he's in

some marvellous pursuit of some important fact for this chamber. I can

tell him that the Deputy Attorney-General, when investigating — as he

was — a claim made by the former ombudsman of criminal activity, a

break-in, had a duty and an obligation to find out what was in the

files to support that. He did that in a sensitive way by requesting

cooperation from the ombudsman's office to make that search, and that

was done.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 62; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 through 7 inclusive approved.

[ Page 7149 ]

section 8.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With leave of the House, the Chair, in dealing

with

section 8, will call each proposed

section of the Municipal Act by

the number listed under

section 8.

Leave granted.

On proposed new

section 943.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment under my

name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Proposed new

section 943 as amended approved.

Proposed new

section 944 approved.

On proposed new

section 945.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment under my

name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: Actually, I wanted to talk on proposed

section

945. Do we do the amendment and then get back to

section 945?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I suggest you do the amendment; then you can....

MR. MITCHELL: Do it as amended?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you wish.

MR. MITCHELL: All right.

Amendment approved.

On proposed new

section 945 as amended.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to ask the minister a few questions on

community plans. I know he's very familiar with the one I'm going to

bring up; I've brought it up here on many other occasions. That's the

community plan of Sooke. That particular community plan has gone

through numerous public hearings. It's gone through the various stages

within the CRD. It has been central to two regional directors who have

campaigned for or against that particular community plan. The community

plan, as supported by the majority of the voters of that community and

adopted, has been well discussed. It has been endorsed by the Capital

Regional District, but the minister continues to refuse to sign that

particular piece of legislation.

It's very nice to have, in the statutes of our province, certain

procedures under the Municipal Act. It is very nice to have, enshrined

and passed by this Legislature, certain procedures. But when those

procedures that are endorsed by the community — democratically in two

elections — continually are frustrated by the minister, I think that

the legislation that is on our books is not being lived up to. I too,

maybe like the minister, share some disagreement with that particular

community plan, but the community plan is the wishes of the local

community. All I can say is that if we are going to allow communities

to make decisions, then we also should give them support and not

continual frustration. I feel that the minister is listening to a

minority or a person who is continually defeated when he campaigns on

it. I don't like to get onto the personalities. I feel that if we do

have a procedure that is on the books, we don't use the power of the

minister to frustrate the particular piece of legislation, so he can

get his personal views through with the idea that maybe somewhere along

the line he'll change the legislation so he can get his own way one way

or another.

My question is: when a community plan is well debated within the

community, does go through all the legal hurdles, will the minister

have the decency to sign it and put it into legislation?

[2:45]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, that member should recognize

that one of the more important functions at this moment, of course,

concerns job creation. That plan was turned back because it didn't give

recognition or did not provide sufficient property for industrial or

commercial development as we deem the community required. It went back

to have that reconsidered. The director for the area has agreed to

locate and identify on the plan sufficient industrial land for

development and job creation in that community.

Since that time, there has been a study into the possibility of

incorporation. As yet, I have not heard back from the community in

respect to what they want they want to do with the plan. I don't

believe that I've heard anything from them for approximately 8 or 12

months.

The answer to your question is that we must concern ourselves with

the industrial and commercial future of our community, and the plan did

not take that into consideration.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm absolutely shocked when I

hear a minister of the Crown stand up and give the garbage that he just

gave. The worst part about it is that he is my buddy MLA. What he's

saying to this House — and it will be recorded in Hansard — is

that the community, in their plan, hasn't provided sufficient

industrial property. There is industrial property in the Sooke area,

within that community plan, that is lying vacant.

I say it again and I say this very plainly: if the community decides

that they wish to preserve waterfront land for residential, then they

have the right to do it. Any modem community.... They build industrial

parks away from environmentally sensitive areas, and they build a

proper industrial park and provide the job opportunities that this area

needs.

Maybe 100 years ago when industry was serviced by sailing boats,

then you used waterfront property. But this is 1985. I quite believe

that if you look at the Oak Bay community plan, you'll find very little

industrial property along the waterfront. For the minister to say to

the community, "You have to put industrial property in Cooper Cove, in

a residential area, or I'm not going to sign your plan," is ludicrous.

This goes on and on. The minister uses this garbage that jobs are

not being provided because there's insufficient industrial land. When

every piece of industrial land that is

[ Page 7150 ]

presently zoned and available is full, and industry

is working, then I would say that he may have some basis for his

statement. But that is not the fact in Sooke, and I imagine that if he

is doing it in Sooke or doing it in my riding, he is doing the same

thing in other parts of this province.

In that particular area the waterfront property should be preserved

for residential use. No freighter is going to land on those beaches;

there are no places for landing goods or for industry. They are going

to bring it in by truck — and he knows it. The only use of that land is

to build a building on it, and it will be served by the highway.

We should have some proper, planned industrial parks, which I have

called for in this House and which there have been studies on. The

previous minister of industrial development, after his study, said

there was no need for additional industrial land or industrial parks —

which I disagree with. I say there is a need, but they should be placed

in a less environmentally sensitive area; they should be placed in an

area away from the waterfront.

The present plan has been adopted by the community, after many

meetings and debates and studies, and they want to preserve the

waterfront for residential use. Right or wrong — I don't care what the

minister thinks — that is their decision. They have complied with every

section of the Municipal Act, and still that community plan sits on the

desk of the minister. He keeps saying they didn't provide enough land

for industry. I say that when the land that is there is full, there is

other land that should become industrial land, but I stress again that

it should not be the Cooper Cove area — until such time as maybe Sooke

Forest have some additional need for it. At the present time there is

no need for it.

There is nothing on the books.... The only chance.... There are a

few people who own undeveloped land. They may be able to flip it with

new zoning. They are the only people who are going to gain by it. The

community is not going to gain. Cooper Cove is still the entrance to

Sooke. Until the minister, my buddy MLA, comes out and looks at it, and

remembers that.... When we toured it with Bill Vander Zalm, the present

minister of municipalities gave those living in the community the same

assurance that Bill Vander Zalm gave: that he would preserve Cooper

Cove for residential use; he wouldn't allow it to become industrial.

And now, as a kind of smokescreen, he's saying that we're not providing

enough land for jobs. It's wrong.

I ask the minister to sign that plan quickly. Then you can hold your

head up, and you're going to be my buddy MLA — at least you did

something. Instead of frustrating the people out there, do something

positive.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the only fuss we're hearing

about the Sooke plan now is from that member. I know Cooper Cove and

all of that area very well, as a buddy MLA. Maybe the reason why we're

not hearing very much is that the buddy MLA is communicating constantly

with those constituents. But I will be pleased to let them know that

you are still around and interested.

Proposed new

section 945 as amended approved.

On proposed new

section 946.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The amendment on the order paper is under

this section. [See appendix.]

Amendment to proposed new

section 946 approved.

Proposed new

section 946 as amended approved.

On proposed new

section 947.

Amendment to proposed new

section 947 approved. [See appendix.]

On proposed new

section 947 as amended.

MR. BLENCOE: I have already said most of what we want to say

about the concept of this procedure that the minister is introducing.

We, and I particularly, feel very strongly that we still don't have a

very sensible approach to regional planning in the province of British

Columbia. The other day the minister took a very personal view of how

we approach this issue. He talked about planners, in their professional

duties, frustrating the opportunities for municipalities to participate

in regional planning, to be able to make decisions for a region and

plan its overall future objectives.

Mr. Chairman, we have to once again reiterate that we feel that in a

progressive society, particularly in urban societies, where you have

municipalities in very close proximity to each other, you need regional

planning; you need a process whereby those municipalities have, to some

degree, some responsibility to cooperate in a regional plan. It's our

belief that the constant....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could.... I know this

is not a very important issue for some, but to us this is an important

issue.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the

member is debating last year's legislation. He's not on Bill 62; he's

talking about a regional plan that was removed with Bill 9. This is

Bill 62, not Bill 9.

MR. BLENCOE: And that, Mr. Chairman, is what I'm saying: that

omitted from this legislation is the regional planning concept. We have

here that municipalities may refer certain things to other

municipalities, but there is not in law or in legislation or in a

planning document any obligation on the part of those municipalities to

try to cooperate in a regional concept. We continue to have the

balkanization that we have today in many jurisdictions, again

particularly in urban areas, and we feel that it is very important,

particularly in areas like the Capital Regional District and the

Greater Vancouver Regional District, that there be a planning overview

of the needs of those regions for long-term objectives and long-term

direction, particularly in economic development. What we have and what

we will continue to have by regions and municipalities in those regions

is a fighting among themselves for industrial development: smokestack

chasing, rather than coming together in a regional concept to try to

agree on what kind of regional development in industry might be

established in those regions.

[ Page 7151 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate

that we are not dealing with regional plans as such, community plans,

and the omission of something from a

section that is not relevant to

this

Section 1s not debatable in committee stage. We're dealing with

the specific section, and not second reading debate.

MR. BLENCOE: Without referring, then, to the term regional

planning, it's our position that any planning in the province of

British Columbia must promote cooperation between contiguous

municipalities to ensure that economic development is encouraged; that

those municipalities in a region cooperate in the area of trying to

create jobs, and that they come together in a planning function that

has an overview of their needs. Without mentioning the other past

legislation, it's our view that this bill falls short of that concept.

Now this minister has gone on philosophical bents against planners

and what they do to development, etc. I'm not going to repeat his

arguments; we've heard them. He has a blind spot when it comes to

planners and the whole process. Now he's having to backtrack a little

bit — we know that — and he's talking about the idea of computer

planning or some variation of some theme, because he recognizes that

with what he did to planning in the province of British Columbia last

year and again in this bill, we don't have before us a solid planning

document that's comprehensive, that isn't a grab-bag of technical

amendments. Look before us: how has this come into this Legislature?

Look at the amendment procedure, and it's all over the map. We need to

look at the whole process of how we establish planning policies and

legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. The Chair is having

some difficulty relating your comments to the procedure of adoption by

a council of a community plan. The

section deals with the actual

passage procedure, once a plan has been placed before council.

[3:00]

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you. I recognize you're pointing out the

relevancy, and all I am suggesting is that in this legislation (

a) the

process has been, to say the least, not the best, and (

b) in this

particular

section we continue to avoid the question of regional

planning, regional overview, with the objective of establishing

cooperation between contiguous municipalities. It is an issue, and it

is something we will continue to speak on, despite this minister's

having a blind spot in terms of what planners can do on a regional

basis and what municipalities can do in a cooperative framework. To say

and suggest here that they may wish to refer their plan to another

municipality does not ensure that those municipalities establish an

overall plan for developing their region. We need planning legislation

that ensures that that sort of things happens.

Proposed new

section 947 as amended approved.

On proposed new

section 948.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I move the amendment standing under my name

on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Proposed new

section 948 as amended approved.

Proposed new

section 949 approved.

On proposed new

section 950.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I move the amendment standing under my name

on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Proposed new

section 950 as amended approved.

On proposed new

section 951.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I move the amendment standing under my name

on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Proposed new

section 951 as amended approved.

Proposed new sections 952 to 954 inclusive approved.

On proposed new

section 955.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I move the amendment standing under my name

on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

On proposed new

section 955 as amended.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, just a very short note on

subsection (8) of the advisory planning commission component of this

legislation. I wonder if the minister could give us his reasons for not

allowing elected officials to sit on the advisory planning commission

and vote.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, it's just plain common sense

why not. If a council is going to appoint a committee to advise them,

how on earth can they avoid any problems of conflict if they're going

to then come back and advise themselves? An advisory committee is

intended to advise the council. If you're going to have council members

or even staff members serve on that advisory committee, then I would

say there's conflict. The change still allows for those people to

attend the meetings for resource purposes, but, Mr. Chairman, it's just

plain common sense: if you're going to appoint an advisory committee,

they should be purely that, and not be influenced by the people whom

they are supposed to advise.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister is aware

of the internal workings of many municipalities and how their

committees and commissions work. Is the minister aware that there are

many...?

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Will you just let me continue, please? Is the

minister aware that there are many committees and commissions in local

government where elected officials do sit and they do vote? One of the

reasons they do is to have continuity and contact with the community.

Also, is the minister so concerned that one or two aldermen or a mayor

[ Page 7152 ]

sitting on an advisory planning commission could

outswing the votes of eight to ten others? What's he so worried about?

I suspect, Mr. Minister, that you don't understand the workings of

local government.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We forgive him. He is young yet; he knows

not what he does. He's still learning, and someday he will see the

light. But I'd say you're improving a wee bit.

Mr. Chairman, I guess, unlike that member there, I'm motivated

greatly by the people at large — the public, the people to whom we are

responsible — not by a few elected people only, or by a special

committee only, but by the people at large. If I see a possibility of

conflict that affects a constituent — an individual out there — where

they feel that there has been an injustice, because the decision that

is being made affecting them is made by a council that was advised by a

committee that some of those council members sit on, then that is

totally unfair and should not have been happening. Therefore, to the

member again, it is just plain common sense.

Yes, I understand the workings of such committees, but I understand

more the needs of the people at large out there that are being

regulated.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think it's most interesting that

this government minister would dictate to local governments who they

can put on....

AN HON. MEMBER: No, we're not dictators.

MR. BLENCOE: Let me finish; then you can respond.

That you would indicate who cannot be on a particular appointed

advisory planning commission at a local council because you perceive

there might be some conflict of interest.... So you set up in this

legislation the rules that those people, because they might be in

conflict, cannot vote. I expect then, Mr. Minister, that you will be

recommending to cabinet that in this Legislature the provincial members

of the government should not sit on such committees as Public Accounts,

because the very thing you're advocating for local government and

dictating to local government.... You are being totally hypocritical,

because here in this Legislature you dominate the most important

committee of this chamber, the Public Accounts Committee, and I would

suggest if there was ever a conflict in the province of British

Columbia, it's that one. Yet here you are pontificating and preaching

to local government that you want to protect them from conflicts of

interest. That's absolute sheer hypocrisy, Mr. Minister. You sit on

Public Accounts, you try to thwart the opposition in its job in Public

Accounts, and now you're going to tell local governments where there

might be a little conflict: "You can't sit and vote on the advisory

planning commission." Hypocrisy. Apply those same rules in this

Legislature and I might even support you, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member has exposed his

weaknesses — that is, his lack of knowledge of the system. The Public

Accounts Committee is not an advisory committee. There is quite a

difference. That's just like saying I will just advise myself. Why

appoint a committee in the first place? There is a distinct difference

between that standing committee, the Public Accounts Committee, and an

advisory committee. Also, as to your comment in respect to who may be

appointed to that committee, that is entirely up to council. All we're

saying is that we will not permit, under this legislation, members

themselves or staff to sit on the advisory committee to advise

themselves, because that would be conflict.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can't just let this go by.

This, in a way, is very symbolic of this government's attitude to local

government. Those people are elected to local government. Those people

are accountable at the polls for their decisions, and if they so desire

to have somebody from council — with the community they serve, in terms

of the appointees — sitting on the advisory planning commission and

participating with their.... You see, what you are doing, Mr. Minister,

is saying that the elected person in some way is different from the

community person. In terms of living in that community and making

decisions for that community, I suggest there are a number of elected

officials who see themselves as being very equal. I would suggest, Mr.

Minister, that you get your hands off local government, and stop

dictating to them what they can do or cannot do. Let that local council

make the decision, and if the community doesn't like what happens or

what the decision is, then you know what the result is — as you will

know what the next result is of the next election in the province of

British Columbia. They'll kick them out, and quite rightfully so, if

they don't like their decisions. But hands off, and stop dictating. In

the last two or three years, under your administration of municipal

affairs, we've seen a constant encroachment on local autonomy and local

decision-making. We cannot stand for it. It's time you laid your hands

off and let local government make the decisions for themselves.

This, in many aspects, may be a small component of this section, but

it is very symbolic. It's symbolic of a government that continues to

say it knows better than local government, that it knows better than

those people elected by the people in those communities to make the

decisions. It's time this government let local government govern

itself. Hands off, and let them make the decisions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Just a comment. I can't ignore it. The

member for Victoria has made a suggestion which should be well reported

across Canada. He wants to amend Canada's constitution. He wants to

provide municipalities with legislative authority. He said: "Let

municipalities govern themselves. The province should have nothing to

do with it; hands off municipalities. Let municipalities govern

themselves." Perhaps the member isn't aware that they do not have any

such authority. Municipalities are created by provinces. They are

subject to, of all things, the Municipal Act.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, thank you for telling me.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I didn't think you knew. The Municipal Act

is an instrument of this Legislative Assembly. The municipality is

there because the provincial government didn't have its hands off; it

created them. The member for Victoria thinks that municipalities are

creatures of government that simply occurred and now that they're there

should govern themselves. He says: "Don't tell them what to do." Well,

if we were to repeal the Municipal Act, what would your municipality

do? It would have no authority to function. The municipalities require

the Legislative Assembly and the province to advise them how to

perform. Municipalities can

[ Page 7153 ]

pass bylaws, but they don't have any statutory

authority to do as you would have them do. You've suggested the

province should keep hands off municipalities; they should be permitted

to govern themselves. That's an interesting concept, and I suppose that

at some point, somewhere in history, that did occur, when cities were

states, or city-states. That's not the situation in our country or our

province.

[3:15]

The subsection of 955, as amended, to me makes uncommonly good

sense. If you are to appoint someone to advise you as a council, you do

not put your own council members on that advisory committee. It makes

uncommonly good sense. That's why the member for Victoria doesn't

understand it at all. If a council member could be appointed to such a

committee, without prohibition, the entire committee could be made up

of council members. That would be possible, if it were not prohibited.

That is, have the little group be in control at all stages. Have the

council members be responsible not only for the decisions but for the

advising. Don't let citizens have an opportunity of offering such

advice. Keep it within the little group.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Victoria may have

the floor when the Minister of Health is finished, if he has anything

to say. But in the meantime, if the member would refrain from

discussion across the floor.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I would commend to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs that he take most seriously the

suggestion made by the member for Victoria that we look in the future

towards some form of self-governing municipalities in British Columbia.

It could be a most interesting exercise to see if indeed there is a

place for self-governing cities or municipalities within B.C. The

member may have stumbled on a good idea, although of course he wouldn't

recognize it.

Proposed new

section 955 as amended approved.

Proposed new sections 956 to 964 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 965 on the order paper in my name.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, I believe the orders say there

is an amendment, a new

section 964.1 — on page 17 of the orders.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I move that

amendment in my name.

Proposed new amended sections 964.1 and 965 approved. [See appendix.]

On proposed new

section 966.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, in looking over this

section 966,

there is reference to signs being placed throughout the municipality,

and it goes on to say that local government has the express authority

to regulate signs, including prohibiting signs.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Now under

section 966, I am wondering what the restrictions are. It

is not quite clear in the section. What are the restrictions on signs

located on property that is individually owned? I am thinking as an

example of a drive-in restaurant. You make reference here that the

legislation allows an individual landowner to locate a sign on a parcel

if the sign relates to the use of that parcel. Is the person who owns

the drive-in restaurant free to put up any size of sign he wants? Can

he locate it as close to the edge of the property as he wants? Can he

put it on top of the building if he wants? Can it be any size or colour

that he chooses? Or are those types of questions left entirely with the

municipality? I am not quite clear on the intent of that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, no, the owner is not free to

put up any size or colour in any location. It is governed by local and

municipal bylaw. Each municipality, of course, has its own regulations

in that regard.

MR. MICHAEL: But the municipality, I take it, cannot prevent

an owner from putting up a sign on his property that identifies the use

of the parcel in question. They can't refuse, but they can restrict.

They can make the size as small as they may wish to, and the setbacks,

and all those kinds of things.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: There is nothing to say they can't have a

sign. The bylaw merely regulates the size and, of course, the location

of the sign. But there is nothing in here that says they cannot have a

sign, as long as it's within the regulations as specified in the bylaw.

HON. MR. PELTON: Another question to the minister, Mr.

Chairman. When they speak of different classes of highways under the

first part of 966, is there any conflict at all within that? I was of

the understanding that on a highway which comes under the control of

the provincial government, the signs are regulated by the provincial

government. Is there any conflict in there?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, we're dealing here only with

municipal highways, not provincial government highways.

Proposed new sections 966 and 967 approved.

On proposed new

section 968.

MR. R. FRASER: I'd like to ask the minister some questions

about 968, the floodplain elevations. As the members know — and as

everybody in the province is aware — we have had some flooding problems

in British Columbia. Pemberton Valley is one. Floods have come not only

once, but twice in a very short period of time, and enormous amounts of

damage have been done, not only to the homes and property of the people

there but also to the land — when rivers go on the rampage and rains

start to fall, and natural hazards occur.

I would like the minister to assure me and the House, if he will,

that between himself, local governments and the Ministry of Environment

there's absolute control over the building and development on

floodplain sites, so that we can protect the taxpayers from flood

damages and things like that, and

[ Page 7154 ]

protect the residents from facing these unfortunate

natural occurrences.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, they have to comply with

the municipal bylaw or by order of the Ministry of Environment, and of

course this would be indicated on their community plan. But yes, they

would have to comply with that before they could get a building permit.

MR. R. FRASER: Was that 'either/or', or was the Minister of

Environment — the province — responsible for the final decision?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The regulations are usually spelled out by

Environment, and in many cases the local government may, in their

bylaws, utilize those. However, the regulations as spelled out by

Environment will appear on a community plan. So I think the answer here

is that the bylaw would be complementary to the regulations as spelled

out by Environment.

Proposed new sections 968 to 973 inclusive approved.

On proposed new

section 974.

MR. BLENCOE: Re the temporary zoning, I presume there are no

public hearings with temporary zonings?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You're not allowing any public hearings. Perhaps

you could give some reasons why there would be no opportunity if an

issue becomes controversial.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The community or settlement plan usually

goes to public hearing, and that's where these things are all dealt

with. If there's going to be a temporary permanent zone in the

community it will show up on the plan, so why go to the expense and

frustration of repeating the exercise? It is not necessary here.

MR. BLENCOE: My colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

has already indicated that we think it's a good idea to have temporary

zoning. I've known of situations where it was useful. But I am

concerned that without an opportunity for some kind of public response

to the local government's flexibility in temporary zoning, it may be

subject to abuse. I'm wondering if the minister has any thoughts on the

potential for abuse, and if perhaps somewhere there should be the

ability of the public to have a say about temporary zoning if it

becomes an issue.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, I don't think there'll be any abuse. I

have full trust in the ability and integrity of our locally elected

people to make sure it's not abused.

Proposed new

section 974 approved.

On proposed new

section 975.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I move the amendment standing under my name

on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to ask the minister what he is

doing in the amendments. I just want the minister to earn his high

salary today and explain to this House exactly what is intended in the

amendments on development permits.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The amendment to 975, like all amendments

in this bill, is the result of the openness of this government in

developing this particular piece of legislation. Not only did we allow

from July to September for all municipalities, regional districts and

anyone else affected by this legislation to come forward with any

proposals that would improve on the bill; we then went to the UBCM

convention in September, and I stood before all of the electoral area

directors and answered all their questions and received some good

suggestions. I believe the following day we did the same thing with all

municipal people. This is one of the sections that come under scrutiny,

and as a result of our discussions we came up with an amendment which

we feel improves on it.

[3:30]

Development permits are not something that we wanted to do away with

at all. The development permit concept is good for the municipality,

for the people of the municipality and also for the developer. So there

is no intention of doing away with them. However, there was a need to

put an end to some abuses that were taking place that ultimately were

bringing about some unnecessary costs on the taxpayer of the province,

or should I say the home-buyer or renter.

So what the amendment does here is allow a development permit to

apply to areas that go beyond the original suggestion of heritage

areas, hazardous areas and so forth. We have now agreed that with this

the community plan will show just where a development permit area is

and what regulations go along with the development permit, which gives

some certainty and continuity to the whole business of developing a

community. It does away with such things as developers moving into a

community not knowing that they would have to have a development permit

until after they got started, and then when they are well into

investment and construction, not knowing exactly what is going to be

asked of them next. So what we are really saying here is that before

you go into a community, you will know precisely whether or not you

must have a development permit, and you will know precisely what is

expected of you as a result of that development permit.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you for the explanation, Mr. Minister.

Excellent.

One of the useful things about development permits currently is that

councils who are concerned about design and having the best-looking

communities in the province.... Then consequently when you have

good-looking communities and good urban design, of course you continue

to attract investments and people come to that community. It's an

attractive situation.

Is it your intent in this

section to limit the concept of

development permit in terms of not allowing a council to control urban

design? That is one of the more useful things that development permits

have been used for, particularly in areas that are very conscious about

urban design. Anything that erodes that in terms of flexibility, I

think, is a detriment. Perhaps the minister could comment upon

development permits and urban design control.

[ Page 7155 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the council may decide to put

whatever they wish in as regulation requirements, whether it is style

of building, height of building, location of building, awnings, colour

of building. They can put in whatever they like, but they must put it

up front. They cannot have a developer running back and forth

constantly being told no, you have to change this or you have to do

that. They will know up front.

So the answer is that there is no limit, but it must be identified

in the plan so that the investors and developers know ahead of time

what they are facing.

MR. BLENCOE: I am pleased to hear that. The minister tends to

take the side of the developer. I like to see us take the sides of all

those involved in this process: the developer, the community,

everybody. I don't think it is one side against the other. I am pleased

that the minister is still saying that the council in its wisdom can

say to a developer that there are certain things they require.

One of the frustrations that has happened in public hearing

processes over developments is that the council and the community have

seen a project, the design looks terrific in the public hearing

process, but when it finally gets built or is in the community, it

looks nothing like what was presented to the council or to the

community in the public hearing process.

I think we've always got to make sure that balance is there and that

honesty component with that community in terms of what the developer is

going to build. I am pleased to hear that that aspect will remain.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, there was never any question

about honesty here, but rather certainty. There was never any question

about whose side I am on; I am on the side of the people. If that

member would use....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aren't they people?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, in his terms, they're not people.

Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned about the consumer at large. If I refer

to developers, I'm referring to people who have a part to play in

developing our communities. If we're going to have some elected body,

for whatever reason, getting in the way and causing delays, etc., and

making unnecessary demands, then it's the consumer out there who pays

the bill.

Let there be no question in your mind, Mr. Member — through you, Mr.

Chairman — that I'm on the side of the people. I'm not questioning the

honesty of anyone here; I'm just calling for some accountability, for

some certainty and for an opportunity for people to know beforehand

what they're getting into. I think that that is something that is long

overdue.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has made a very

important statement. He's in favour of the developer. He's in favour of

everybody, he says. Of course, I think we all are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Except you.

MR. BLENCOE: Hey, it's Christmas coming. Come on, be nice.

Mr. Minister has said that he wants processes that aid the

development industry because they create jobs. The one thing the

development industry needs, Mr. Chairman, is rules that are clearly

understood. Again, I go back to the concept that when the developer

approaches a region, and he's got a number of municipalities, and

there's no overall kind of planning approach and rules, that developer

and that investor gets a hodgepodge of rules, conflicting approaches to

investment and development and conflicting approaches to zoning and

regional planning.

The minister has fallen right into the very thing that I'm trying to

talk about. Unless, in a region, we have some uniformity in approach to

development and industry and job creation, which a regional planning

approach can help with, we're not going to get the thing that the

minister has just said he's in favour of. The minister has just

admitted that he wants that; yet he won't introduce a planning

component that will help the province of British Columbia and those

regions to do that. The minister finally had to admit it today.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, when we get into regulations and

permits and overall planning.... The area that I come from, of course,

is the lower mainland of British Columbia, called Vancouver, or part

thereof, and it's been my experience there that the development permit

application process has been extraordinarily difficult, and when it

always seems so easy to charge the developer or the builder — and

developing and profit and working and all those things were such bad

words a little while ago — what we fail to remember a lot of the time

is that the ultimate consumer is the man who pays the bill.

In the city of Vancouver, where the planning department has had free

rein for years, where everybody who has tried to build accommodation

for all income groups has had an extraordinarily difficult time getting

permits, where they have spent literally thousands and thousands of

dollars on designs — all of which is paid for by the ultimate consumer

— there has been, in my view, a terrible misuse of power by the city

officials in Vancouver. They have taken people over and over the coals,

to the point where people in the construction and related industries

are afraid to even talk to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're just about as bad as Victoria.

MR. R. FRASER: They may be as bad as Victoria. We talk about

design; everybody's interested in urban design. I can remember, Mr.

Chairman, when the black tower in Vancouver was being built, and

everybody said how terrible the black tower was. It strikes me that

it's an advantage to have buildings with different shapes and different

colours; why should we have them all the same? It's my view, along with

the minister and most of my colleagues here who have any understanding

of how people get accommodation and how they get office space, that

different tastes apply to different people. We should have the right,

as citizens, to choose whether we live in a building that is one colour

or another. I mean, it's unbelievable.

That's why the development purpose process is so important, and

that's why I'm so pleased to hear the minister say that, in fact, the

rules are going to be clear. If they are clear, the ultimate user will

win. That's the consumer, that's the

[ Page 7156 ]

voter, and that's the citizen who is paying us to

do the job right. That's what we're doing, and that's why a clear and a

definite process is so important and why I support it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

MR. ROSE: Now wait a minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. The member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry that you have sort of lost your sight in

your left eye. Your right eye seems to be perfect, 20/20.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has two right eyes.

MR. ROSE: Without abusing the Chair, it might have two right

wings as well, but I haven't searched it; my arm's length relationship

with the Chair doesn't permit that.

I would just like to agree with the member for Vancouver South (Mr.

R. Fraser), not on some of the things he said but on some of the

others. Any of us who has ever been involved in any kind of subdivision

or development knows the myriad of regulations and delays that you get

stuck into. I don't think anybody here, provided the public interest is

protected, would say anything against speeding up the process. I think

the endless duplications and the delay and the expense required by all

these things are a burden to many people. No, I don't agree that all

developers, or all subdividers, are nefarious knaves — being one

myself, on occasion; I'd be hard pressed to punish myself too long on

that subject.

In a recent very simple kind of subdivision we found: firstly, there

was a faulty survey, so we had to have that all done over again;

secondly, we found that you had to have an engineered water system for

$4,000. Anybody who ran a backhoe could have designed that damn thing,

blindfolded, for half the money. So we were forced into this kind of

expense that almost discourages people from developing. Of course, who

is the ultimate beneficiary of all this added expense? The purchaser.

So anything we can do in that regard — again, protecting the public

interest — I think should be encouraged.

I don't know that we shouldn't have buildings in keeping with the

general condition or tone of the neighbourhood. Maybe a black tower

isn't appropriate in some places. Maybe a big Greek Parthenon residence

is not appropriate on Granville Street, and you do need set-back

provisions, and you do need a number of these other things.

For instance, I was required to have a completely up-to-highway

standards, dead-end road of 400 feet — ridiculous! — ending in the

ocean. That's where some of the cars will end up that speed down it on

Saturday night. They are ridiculous standards for flumes and drainage —

and to protect whose interests? Well, the Ministry of Highways, mainly.

Delay after delay for approval. Waiting two or three years. These

horror stories are not uncommon.

I think that any of us who have had anything to do with either

development or developers, or anything to do with municipal government,

know that there must be some way of streamlining this thing, not just

so the rip-off artist can come in — even if it is the provincial

government up on Riverview Heights charging $60,000 a lot — but the

ordinary citizen, who might be able to provide, in our urban centres,

reasonable lot and land prices that don't price houses ultimately....

It's not because housing costs have gone up themselves; it's land costs

that have gone up. One of the main reasons that land costs have gone up

is that we haven't released enough of it so we can kill and destroy the

manufactured shortage...but because of excessive regulations. If

there's something in this legislation — and I'll be guided by my very

knowledgeable and learned colleague.... Anything we can do to assist

the average citizen in providing him with a dwelling at a reasonable

cost, then I'm for it.

[3:45]

MR. R. FRASER: I agree with many things that my colleague

across the floor said. But with respect to professional involvement,

which he spoke of briefly, the House should be reminded — and everybody

should know — that the reason that professional involvement is required

is that they have knowledge that the general public does not possess;

that is why you have them. I would not like to say that all of my

engineering colleagues are perfect, or that every doctor is perfect, or

that every lawyer is wonderful, but in the main, and by a very wide

margin, you'll find that professional people don't cost you money; they

save you money, because they know what they're doing, or they're

supposed to know what they're doing. When it comes to....

I agree with you, my friend, when you talk about the city requiring

the streets that are built. It's unbelievable. In front of my little

office, which carries such heavy vehicles as half tons and automobiles

— and even my old car doesn't need that big a road — the pavement on

that little side street in front of my office....

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Actually it's more fun when the little people

are....

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: It's not a bad old car for the road.

The street in front of my office, Mr. Chairman, is about nine inches

thick of asphalt paving. It is totally unrealistic; a big cost to all

the landlords. And then when it comes to billing and the city doing

things, you won't believe the things the city will do. You look out the

window, and between the new curb and the old sidewalk there's a little

strip about a foot and half wide and twenty feet long, and they say to

the owner of the building that they will fill it in for $118. I'm

paying for that through my taxes, because five people were working out

there for a day and a half to put in a yard of concrete, which costs

$118 — or very nearly that much. It's unbelievable, the waste of money,

when we get involved with that. But engineers and architects and

lawyers and other professional people are supposed to save you money,

and that is the point I wanted to make with my colleague — and my

learned friend.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: I want to assure my honourable colleague that I had

no intention of defaming his colleagues in the engineering field. I

know he's an engineer himself, and I know that profession performs with

the highest integrity. I feel, though, that they do have a monopoly on

certain acts and

[ Page 7157 ]

services. Maybe they should, but as long as you

have a monopoly, then I think you people in private enterprise probably

have about as much competition as we have among the oil companies, or

among the various medical or dental fees.

Just because you hire somebody who is a professional doesn't mean

that you necessarily get the most efficient and economical job done

promptly. I realize there's a need to employ more of them. Fifty

percent of the engineers in this province are unemployed now. They've

gone away because B.C. Hydro has fired a lot of them. They need work,

and nobody disputes that or minimizes it; but sometimes you do have a

monopoly. I'll tell you a little story about the monopoly that I heard

about and encountered one time. I'm indebted to the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who told me a little bit about the Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) a little while ago. I'm quite sure he

wouldn't mind if I revealed this. He said that a directive went out

that the civil servants under his branch were counsellors; they were

there to assist people.

Once upon a time I had to probate a will belonging to my own father.

I did this because I felt that anything a lawyer could do, I should be

able to do on my own behalf. Do you know, when I went to the Court of

Registry, I felt they were there to protect the lawyers. First of all,

I couldn't get the forms I needed. I had to get them from a lawyer, a

good friend and my predecessor in this House. Then I went back about 16

times to get the documents finally correct, because the Court of

Registry would not assist me.

So what I am saying is that civil servants.... Sure, you've got to

have rules, but public servants I think are there to assist the general

public, whether it's providing expertise in engineering or law or

whatever. Whatever we pay those people as public servants, as citizens

we should receive a benefit from them. I wasn't maligning the engineers

or any other particular group of professionals; I once had aspirations

to be a professional myself. Some people say, "Well, I'm sorry you

didn't succeed," but nevertheless....

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't say that.

MR. ROSE: No, I know you didn't. You didn't even think it.

Both myself and the minister of external trade belong to the same kind

of fraternity, believing in gray power.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of comments.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody referred to the difficulty citizens

sometimes have in certain areas of government. I would recommend to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) that if you have the

opportunity, or if your officials would like to see how it can be done,

visit the offices in Richmond and speak to the director of licences and

permits, Mr. Bob Switzer.

Upon taking on the task of being responsible for that area, Mr.

Switzer decided — and his staff concurred — that their role would be to

act as consultants for the people who make application. The staff's

entire purpose is to see that the person is successful in getting their

project completed, consistent with all the rules and regulations.

Rather than going to a counter and not being told what's wrong with

your application, they act in a consultative role. They will sit down

with you and explain where your application may be at fault, and assist

you in correcting it, rather than referring you back and forth like a

yo-yo. So I would recommend to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that

if you'd like to see how it can be done, take a short trip over to sun

valley in Richmond and they'll show you.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted with those

words of wisdom. It tells me that our program of new directions for

municipalities is really catching on. The thrust of this legislation

and this ministry is to change from being regulators to being

facilitators. I'm delighted that indeed it is catching on. Yes,

Richmond is a classic example of that, and a municipality that we will

all benefit from. So I appreciate those comments.

MR. R. FRASER: Just one thing back to my colleague across the

table there: monopoly means there is only one, and there are thousands

of engineers, meaning there is no monopoly on engineering services. So

that's not a problem.

Secondly, you quoted large numbers of engineers being unemployed,

like 50 percent, which is wrong. There is a large amount of

unemployment in engineering, some 10 percent to 15 percent, which is

high. But one of the beauties of being in engineering, and the

difference between Quebec and B.C. Hydro, which I'll tell you about....

It's very important. You can travel, you are mobile, and you can work

overseas, so when the work is here, you can stay here; when the work is

elsewhere, you can go elsewhere. You can always come back. That's the

beauty of the whole thing.

Now when it comes to what the governments did in Quebec and B.C.

years ago with Hydro and with their engineering firms, Quebec

contracted out almost all of the engineering work in that province, and

B.C. had an in-house circumstance. The end result is that the B.C.

firms are considerably smaller than the Quebec firms, even from a

relative population point of view. Those engineering firms now in the

province of Quebec who were built up on government projects as outside

consultants, contracting outside, are now working all over the world

and bringing lots of money back into Canada. I would like to think we

will do that here.

Beyond that, I was very pleased to hear that the municipality of

Richmond is doing the very thing that people in the municipality should

do: help the consumer. It strikes me as phenomenal sometimes. I heard

one of our Vancouver civil servants in the planning department get up

and say: "We turn things down because we are working for the people."

Well, I don't agree with that. They're not working for the people;

they're working for themselves. They have a job in City Hall, and their

job is to help people who make applications to build things and create

things and build housing if necessary, or whatever they are building. I

am really pleased to hear that Richmond is doing so well with that.

Proposed new

section 975 as amended approved.

On proposed new

section 976.

HON. MR. PELTON: If I may, I would just like to make a

comment on this particular section. I begin by saying that I certainly

have no objections to intensive agricultural permits, but I would just

like to get it in the record that it does state in here that intensive

agriculture involves a commercial enterprise or an institution who may

want to raise poultry, livestock or fur-bearing animals, etc.

Farther along it says that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will

set the regulations. I would like to speak just on behalf of part of my

riding where there is a great deal of

[ Page 7158 ]

agricultural land, and where the agriculture and

the urban land.... There are a lot of areas where it comes together. I

would just suggest to the minister, appreciating the fact that his

ministry wouldn't be directly involved in this, that it would probably

be efficacious if the municipalities could consult with the Ministry of

Agriculture when the regulations are being drawn up as to the setbacks

and various other items which will apply to these intensive

agricultural areas.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, in response to my colleague's

comments, the regulations will be developed by the green zone committee

in conjunction with the municipalities, so we will have full

participation in the development of those.

Proposed new

section 976 approved.

On proposed new

section 977.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I have certainly enjoyed listening

to some of the discussion today regarding developers. I suppose before

I ask my question of the minister relating to

section 977, I would just

like to make one comment to my colleague the first member for Vancouver

South (Mr. R. Fraser), who made a remark in passing that these red-tape

entanglements and extra costs are passed on to the consumer. Mr.

Chairman, this is not always the case. It is a myth that is in the

minds of many who are acting in the regulatory field that, well, you

don't have to worry about these extra costs. You don't have to worry

about this requirement of having to build this road up 18 inches or

make it to these particular standards. You just pass it on to the

consumer. That's not a fact at all. It is passed on to the consumer if

the market will bear the cost, but many times, particularly over the

last few years, let me tell you that developers in the province of

British Columbia have not been able to pass these on to the consumer

and have indeed had to swallow the costs themselves and have indeed

encountered very substantial losses in the development field....

[4:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

Section 977 relates

to the cutting of trees, and possibly the member would confine his

remarks to that aspect.

MR. MICHAEL: I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you

brought that to my attention, because I was just leading into that

particular area of discussion. I think those who are concerned about

red tape and bureaucracy had better have a very close look at 977, Mr.

Chairman. I would ask the minister to comment and perhaps assure the

House that this will not be used in a manner that is going to load a

lot of extra costs on someone wishing to develop.

I read this 977, and I see the heading "Tree cutting permits." It

goes on in subsection (3) to say: "The bylaw may allow the local

government, at its discretion, to require an applicant to provide at

his expense" — this could be the developer's expense — "a report

certified by a qualified person...." Now I'd have to ask you first of

all, Mr. Minister: who is a qualified person? Let's suppose you are

sitting in Paxton Valley, Myrtle Valley or the north shore of the

Shuswap, and you are out to do some development, and you go to the

approving officer, and he says: "Well, you've got a few trees here, and

we've got a line around it saying that this could conceivably perhaps

cause a landslip problem. You're going to have to bring in a

certification from a qualified person."

It goes on to say: agreed upon by both parties." The rub right there

immediately is that the inspector says you're going to have to get a

report from an engineer. What type of engineer would be involved in

something like this?

AN HON. MEMBER: A geological engineer.

MR. MICHAEL: "Well," the developer says, "a geological

engineer, Mr. Inspector. I'm sorry, but there's not one within 350

miles of here. You'd have to go down to the lower mainland to bring one

up."

"Well, that's too bad, but that's what the regulations say. It says

right here: '....a qualified person agreed upon by both parties.' I'm

one of the parties, and I'm insisting it be a geotechnical engineer."

To me, Mr. Minister, surely common sense should prevail in whether a

person cuts a tree down or not on his own property. I think we're

entering into an area here of bureaucratic red tape that could be very

costly to people wanting to do some development. It's not only the cost

of bringing the geotechnical engineer up from the lower mainland,

probably.... What's a reasonable rate for engineers — $150 a day, $500

a day, $800 a day? Then there's the travel back and forth. Along with

that, once you hire the engineer, he goes back to his office and now

he's got to write a report. Of course, there's the delay of him

arriving in the community to do the study; then after he does the study

he has to go back and write the report. I can see this could cause

delays of several weeks and people wanting to get on and do something.

I'd like to hear the comments of the minister as to what kind of

obstacles we're putting in the way of people wanting to get something

done in the way of development or whatever. It appears to me that this

is just another roadblock, red tape that I don't think is necessary to

be written into the legislation.

I will admit, Mr. Minister, as with many items of legislation along

these lines, that there is the magic element of righteousness. Well,

there could be a tree by a creek that if you cut it down it might

erode, and on and on it goes. That's what I see in legislation from all

ministries, not just yours, and not only in provincial government but

indeed at the federal level as well. There's that element of

righteousness: it might happen. I'd like to hear the comments of the

minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: When you read this section, it says that

the bylaw "may," so there's no commitment there that they must, just

that they "may....at its discretion." So that softens it somewhat. We

have had a number of areas where there has been indiscriminate cutting

that has created flooding problems, and that's the reason for this.

As far as the qualified person is concerned, it doesn't say that

they have to be a licensed engineer or whatever. You could have a

qualified logger locally who would be just as capable of providing a

report in this circumstance. Of course, along with this legislation

will come a committee which we plan to appoint that will be monitoring

the move over to the new regulations under Bill 62, so that if indeed

there is an area that proves to be a hardship in any way, shape or

form, they will identify it and we will deal with it.

[ Page 7159 ]

1 think that the member should feel quite relaxed that indeed the

use of "may" or "at its discretion" does not bind the council. Also, by

simply saying "qualified person" you are not bound to a high-priced

engineer or whatever from 200 or 300 miles away. There could be a

highly qualified logger right in the area. I'm sure that there is

enough common sense in our council chambers in the outlying areas in

particular to deal with this in a very commonsense way. But I would

want to assure the member that if indeed it does prove to be a problem

as he has described, then this committee will identify it, and we will

deal with it.

Proposed new sections 977 and 978 approved.

On proposed new

section 979.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Proposed new

section 979 as amended approved.

Proposed new sections 980 and 981 approved.

On proposed new

section 982.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Proposed new

section 982 as amended approved.

On proposed new

section 983.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Proposed new

section 983 as amended approved.

Proposed new sections 984 through 990 inclusive approved.

On proposed new

section 991.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Proposed new

section 991 as amended approved.

Proposed new sections 992 and 993 approved.

On proposed new

section 994.

MR. DAVIS: My impression is that local government includes

the Islands Trust and includes areas within the Greater Vancouver

Regional District such as Bowen Island, which would then come under

this legislation. I'd like to know from the minister whether that's

true or not.

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: Yes.

Subdivisions — let's say on Bowen Island as an example of Islands

Trust territory — often require that a roadway be driven through the

parcel to be divided, and traditionally Highways has insisted on a

66-foot swath — perhaps now it's 20 metres. In some instances that

considerable width doesn't make sense. Perhaps this roadway is going to

serve a single resident. I'm really inquiring to see whether

section

994 modifies the requirement by Highways or indeed displaces the

requirement in Highways legislation and sets out itself what the

requirement is. I see that this roadway could be 20 metres in width or

it could be some lesser amount. There is a suggestion that it could be

as little as 8 metres in width. Is this to be the governing legislation

for subdivision in an area such as Bowen Island?

I'm thinking also of a requirement around the Gulf Islands and Bowen

Island, where every 500 metres there has to be access to the water. The

access by definition previously was a 66-foot-wide swath, even if it

was down over a vertical cliff to a depth of several hundred feet to

the water. Nevertheless there could be no lesser amount of land taken

from what could be a highly desirable development.

Does this clause allow for roadways, pathways, whatever, of lesser

dimension than 66 feet or 20 metres — say as little as 8 metres in

situations such as Bowen Island?

Proposed new sections 994 through 996 inclusive approved.

On proposed new

section 997.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper. [See appendix. I

Amendment approved.

Proposed new

section 997 as amended approved.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

section 11.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

[ Page 7160 ]

Bill 62, Municipal Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

[4:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

SECURITIES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 37; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 55 inclusive approved.

section 56.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 56 as amended approved.

Sections 57 to 131 inclusive approved.

section 132.

MR. REE: Although I shall be voting for this

section 132, I

would like the minister or his staff to really take a second and hard

look at this and possibly bring back some changes in the next session

of this House.

Section 132 prohibits any person involved with being investigated or

called as a witness for any investigation, or involved in any

investigation in any way, shape or form, from communicating that fact

or the nature of the investigation to anybody else in the world except

with the consent of the commission — or to his lawyer, his counsel. He

cannot even go home and tell his wife that he is being subject to an

investigation. If he did, he would be committing an offence. This is

not new to this Securities Act. This has been in place in the previous

Securities Act that is being repealed. It has been in place in other

Securities Acts prior to that. It came out of Ontario with the Ontario

Securities Act, which was picked up holus-bolus by this Legislature in

1967 and applied in British Columbia.

I think this

section is terribly onerous for anybody. I don't think

it has any common sense to it, and I would certainly recommend the

minister and his staff to study this and have this

section amended,

with common sense applied and in the appropriate aspects of the law.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the comments

made by the member. The intent is that where persons are giving

evidence before the commission, dealing with the security, the evidence

is to the commission, and is confidential. It can be discussed with the

legal counsel for the witness. But the concern is that a situation

doesn't develop where the witness then goes out and discusses his point

of view, the evidence, etc., with another person — and mainly have

repetitious evidence coming before the commission.

In saying that, I can appreciate what the member is talking about.

It seems to me that we could look at that, in the future, to see

whether it is too onerous. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if the

member, being a lawyer, would like to give some thought to an amendment

there, I'd certainly be prepared to look at it and possibly consider an

amendment at a later date.

MR. REE: I appreciate the minister's comments, Mr. Chairman,

and I appreciate that the intent is there to facilitate an

investigation. But I have a great deal of difficulty in understanding

why the Securities Commission should have extra power, over and above

any other authority in an investigation, to prohibit people from

talking to others. I would suggest that the Securities Commission

authority with respect to its investigation should be similar to that

of other investigative bodies. An actual amendment to that

section

could be quite simple: to have the

section deleted.

MR. VEITCH: I'd like a little definition of the term

"counsel." I note that the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk), who is a lawyer.... He may not be my counsel; I wouldn't think

he would be. He would counsel people on these sorts of things. I might

also receive counsel from the hon. minister himself; it might be good

or bad counsel. But to the best of my knowledge, he is not a member of

the bar; he's a member of another profession. Do we not receive counsel

from many people? We are assuming that this is a lawyer; this may not

be a lawyer. The hon. first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser)

is an engineer; he may give me counsel on some aspects of this — and be

good counsel, if it had to do with an engineering situation. What is a

counsel? Does it have to be a lawyer?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member, no,

it doesn't necessarily have to be a lawyer. In most cases, I would

think, it would be a lawyer, because you are dealing with evidence

going before the commission. However, it could be an accountant or an

engineer: a person giving counsel. There is no definition as to what

"counsel" implies in this legislation.

MR. VEITCH: Would this not partly defeat the intent of this

section? Could I not receive counsel from a myriad of people — an

engineer, a doctor, a lawyer, an Indian chief, whomsoever? Could the

information not be spread inadvertently, information that you obviously

don't want to have spread, to protect persons or corporations or

individuals? Ought we not to amend this and include the definition of

"counsel"?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the assumption, of course, is

that he can disclose it to his counsel, whoever that counsel may be. We

will assume that the counsel would not then go and discuss it

throughout the community. The counsel there refers to giving him

guidance as to his position, his evidence, etc., before the commission,

and it doesn't deal with the fact of what qualifications the counsel

has. But I would suggest that the evidence before the commission is

confidential. We would hope that the discussion of the person with his

counsel, whoever that might be, would not be an open invitation to

announce it to the world.

MR. VEITCH: If I as an accountant am counsel in this

particular situation, may I not seek counsel from someone

[ Page 7161 ]

else, in order that I make a proper decision? Would

we not, then...?

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: Not the second member for Vancouver Centre.

Counsel most other places; not there.

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: Yes, I wouldn't accept counsel on banks,

necessarily, from that member.

Would this not at least mitigate the effect of this

section and what

you're trying to achieve, Mr. Minister?

MR. LAUK: I would like to answer the hon. member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch), seeing the minister doesn't seem

disposed to do so. An allegation of wrongdoing under these sections

does not mean guilt. It's an allegation — and an investigation. It is

not practical, during an investigation, to have a person or corporation

who is being investigated be represented by anybody other than a

lawyer....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: No, I'm serious about it. You've got to listen.

...because the question of privilege and non-disclosure between a

lawyer and his client is stringent on lawyers. It is practically

non-existent with other professional groups. The penalty for disclosure

by a member of the bar is disbarment. That's why these matters can be

disclosed to either the accused or his counsel — meaning a lawyer....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, he's wrong. You'd be doing a disservice to

those under investigation to allow disclosure to anybody other than a

counsel. He's probably not wrong, if I know.... But it seems to me the

practice should be.... It's not required statutorily. Clearly, if I

want to appoint my Aunt Minnie as my counsel, and she has got proper

instructions in writing or otherwise, then that information will be

disclosed. But it shouldn't be, because the strength of nondisclosure

is in the solicitor-client relationship.

Section 132 approved.

Sections 133 to 137 inclusive approved.

section 138.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 138 as amended approved.

Sections 139 through 143 inclusive approved.

section 144.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, of great past concern to investors on

the Vancouver Stock Exchange has been the lack of governance by the

stock exchange of its members with respect to information to potential

investors. In many cases cease-trading orders have not been fast enough

to prevent the loss of investors' investments due to clear, deliberate

misinformation. I'm not sure that the

section even comes close to

resolving that problem. I'll give you an example. On a Wednesday a

company which has a share listed on the stock exchange may issue

through its officers a press release designed to mislead the public. It

is not technically a fraud under the criminal provisions of our law,

but it is deliberately designed to mislead the public. There are a few

cases being investigated by the stock exchange, but they're well after

the fact. I want assurances that these things are being monitored

sufficiently to cease trade immediately upon the issue of a press

release. As a matter of fact.... I'll wait until the ministers have

stopped conferring.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, could we have order, please?

MR. LAUK: The more appropriate measure would be that the

commission or superintendent, or their officers, preread or vet press

releases and information emanating from the company before they are

released to the investing public. In that way the commission can get

the jump on the.... It makes no sense to try to save the horses when

the door is closed, as they say. The point is that when this

information reaches the public, everybody has made his investment, and

then three days later there's a cease-trading order and an

investigation — it's too late then. The pre-vetting of press releases

and information together under

section 144 for a cease-trading

order.... If the information is not cleared, you could allow the

information to go out with this cease-trading order — give them an

alternative. But prevent the innocent investing public from getting

hammered, as they are altogether too frequently in VSE stocks.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman,

section 144 is basically the

same as the previous legislation, and as the member knows, the

Vancouver Stock Exchange and the superintendent don't pre-vet news

releases. It's an almost impossible task. Unfortunately, the member was

not here when we passed

section 73. I don't want to review that

section

— it has been passed — but that does address the concern that the

member has. It's the halt-trading orders section, and it deals with

where the superintendent or the commission consider there is

unexplained or unusual fluctuation of volume of trading, where becoming

aware of information, they can bring in a halt-trading order. I think

that if the member takes the time to read that section, he will find

that it does address his concern under

section 144.

MR. LAUK: I was aware of

section 73, and the debate that I'm

undertaking at this time is totally out of order under under

section

144. There's no need for the minister to bring that to the attention of

the committee. Everybody's well aware of that. I want to repeat that

neither

section 73 nor

section 144 solves the problem that I'm getting

at, and I wonder what steps the government has in mind to solve that

problem.

[ Page 7162 ]

There's no sense halting trading after the suspicious information

has been released to the public. By then, a market.... Somebody could

lose his life's savings within 20 minutes — and everybody knows it —

based on that false information. He's never going to get it back.

What's wrong with a pre-vetting system of information requiring

undertakings by the company to stand behind the information being

released?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is quite

aware that we cannot pre-vet all news releases of any company that

wishes to put them out. I think that besides

section 73, which deals

with unusual fluctuation or information, we can put in a cease-trading

order.

MR. LAUK: It's too late.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, it catches it far quicker than usual,

because that

section is unique in Canada. I don't believe other

jurisdictions have it. The other deterrent, Mr. Member, with regard to

misleading information, of course, is the penalties that we've

increased substantially under this act, so that if somebody does abuse

the privilege and abuse the act with regard to a misleading press

release, then they're subject to some of the far stiffer penalties that

we've put in this new legislation.

MR. R. FRASER: There was a comment made by a member opposite,

Mr. Chairman, about protecting the public, and I think that that's a

useful thing to do. I think we want to do as much in that regard as we

possibly can, because we don't want people losing money on paper

companies of any kind. It strikes me from time to time, though, that

because we put in all the rules and all the regulations, the

documentation coming out on all stock now is so voluminous that it

isn't read. I wonder if it wouldn't be more harmful to have too much

information than less.

I know they all get sent out, and everybody gets it, and there you

are, but who reads it? Are they really being protected by all these

massive rules and regulations that we insist on people putting forward?

Section 144 approved.

section 138.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, on

section 138 there were two

amendments. I will consider that the first one was passed, and I will

ask the minister if he will move the second amendment standing under

his name on the order paper to

section 138.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I thought, in

moving the amendments in

section 138, that I covered both of them, but

if not, I'll move the second amendment standing under my name on the

order paper to

section 138. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 138 as amended approved.

Sections 145 to 153 inclusive approved.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

section 154.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, a question to the minister. The

commission or the superintendent may impose any conditions it or he

consider necessary. Could we have a "for instance" of any conditions?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Surrey has

stumped my staff, but I think it's fair to say that a "for instance"

may well be where the superintendent or the commission are concerned

with the decision he's making. In just responding to the applicant he

wants to clarify something or put a — as it says here — condition on

it. If the member would give us a moment, I'll try and get an exact

"for instance" for you from my staff.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: A very simple one has now been brought to my

attention. The superintendent or commission may well say: "I will not

renew this man's licence until he goes back and re-takes the securities

course." That would be a condition on the decision.

Sections 154 through 158 inclusive approved.

section 159.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I move the amendments standing under my name

on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendments approved.

section 159 as amended.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, this is a very comprehensive

piece of legislation. It affects investors and would-be investors, both

at home and abroad, who would invest in our province. I guess, Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister what the attitude of his staff

is going to be when they start preparing the regulations under this

act, because this is really where the whole meat of the act is going to

be.

[4:45]

This country has been blessed with regulations before. We had

an act

called the Foreign Investment Review Act, which was supported by the

NDP in Ottawa, who didn't want any investment in this province. The

attitude of the staff when preparing these comprehensive regulations is

going to have a major effect on the amount of investment that we're

going to get in this province, because....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I hear a lot of yakking over there

from the socialists, Mr. Chairman. I wish you'd draw them to order,

because they wouldn't.... If they were government, certainly the

regulations under this act would make them so onerous that nobody

would.... Well, no one would come here to invest anyway, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister to explain to me what

the attitude of his staff is going to be with regard to

[ Page 7163 ]

drawing up these regulations. There are regulations

regarding the listing and trading of securities and the records. That

alone can be quite onerous and involve a lot of unnecessary detail in

hiring a battery of lawyers and a battery of accountants to do a very

simple operation. That is one of the detriments that we have in the

small business industry not only in Canada but in this province as well

— the regulations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yack, yack.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I hear the ombudsman's friend over there

making noises that sound to me like a goofy bird. But that's not

unusual from the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams).

There are regulations regarding the trading of securities other than

on a stock exchange that are recognized by the commission. So, Mr.

Minister, maybe you would give me some guidance as to where you think

you're going to be going in setting out these regulations.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I guess it's

fair to say that this is one of the most important sections of the act.

It deals with the setting up of regulations. The act, for the member's

benefit, has not been revised fully since 1967.

The regulations, as we all know, allow for flexibility. As opposed

to putting sections in the act dealing with all these things, we have

placed them in the regulations so that there is that flexibility to

change with the times.

With regard to staff, I can tell the minister that the staff, in

drawing up these regulations, first of all is in consultation and has

been in consultation with the industry to ensure that while we provide

protection to the investor by placing these regulations in place, we do

maintain a reasonable level of regulation or legislative authority over

the investment community. I think it is fair to say that we have almost

complete, if not complete, cooperation and agreement from the industry

on the type of legislation we have drafted. The regulation

section is

one that they do not have any difficulty with.

As I said earlier, it gives us the flexibility, the ability, to

amend with the times, as the investment community may come to us and

say, "We think you should have some further regulation," or, "Some of

this regulation is onerous, and we'd like you to amend it." We'll have

that ability to amend without bringing back an amendment to the

legislation, Mr. Chairman. Our concern, as I said before, is the

protection of the investor: giving them reasonable protection in the

marketplace, while at the same time not making the task too onerous on

those who wish to raise moneys or funds on the capital market.

After the regulations have been completed, drafted, they will of

course move forward to cabinet for final approval prior to coming into

force.

One last thing. Up until this legislation, we have had a fair amount

of policy determinations made by the superintendent. In some areas we

felt that rather than have policy by the superintendent, it was better

for the investor and for those people who work and deal in the money

markets to have the regulations — the rules, if you will — set out in

regulation rather than just in policy decisions by the superintendent.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the minister has

said, that the regulations, being 40 in number, certainly have the meat

of the bill, which I support.

1 am wondering if I could ask the minister, because of the need for

the protection of the public, if we could get some details on

regulation (4) so that it would be read into the record: "...requiring

the commission to publish a periodical containing specific information

filed with the commission." What will this document contain, and who

will be eligible to receive the document? Will it be something that

they will have to write in for, or what kind of a document can we look

for in the way of information that it will contain for the protection

of the public?

HON. MR. HEWITT: It is a report, Mr. Chairman, which will set

out in detail all the activities of the commission dealing with

prospectuses, dealing with financing. It is a public document, so

people who may wish to be informed as to the activity of the

commission, what has gone before it, will be able to obtain a copy and

be updated as to what has taken place in the past. I believe it goes

out on a weekly basis at the present time from the superintendent's

office. It deals with such things as I mentioned: prospectuses,

financing, insider trading, etc.

MR. MOWAT: What kind of detail would it go into as far as the

prospectus is concerned? Will it just be a brief overview? It won't go

into details of every prospectus. I think the obvious work would be

tremendous for the number of prospectuses that the commission has to

look at each week.

HON. MR. HEWITT: At present, the weekly report we put out....

The one that would be put out by the commission is one that would deal

with prospectuses in two or three sentences. For your information, we

review about 900 prospectuses in a year, so it is just a matter for

public information who has filed with the commission. Should they wish

to get further detail, of course they would get that on their own.

MR. R. FRASER: I would like to ask the minister how these

regulations fit in with the regulations across the country, because my

experience with these regulations is pretty limited, but friends of

mine who have tried to get things through the commission seem to have

more luck in one province than another. I wondered if our regulations

are more strict or other regulations are easier to get by and whether

it's a rather more national document than we might have otherwise

suspected.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We have, Mr. Chairman, in this bill, under

the regulations section,

section 159, moved a fair amount of material

that used to be in legislation into the regulations in order to provide

us with the ability to amend the regulations from time to time at the

request of the investment community. That provides us with that

flexibility that I mentioned earlier. Also the regulations are

considerably uniform, I believe, with Ontario, which really is the

leader in the securities legislation field, and in updating this act we

have basically used their legislation as a model.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad that the minister agrees with me

that this is really the meat of this bill. What really concerns me is

that we're talking about regulations, but we're talking about 42

different sections of regulations — not one, not three or four, but 42

different sections of regulations. I'm afraid that there are going to

be so many regulations that a person wishing to invest in the province

and create jobs

[ Page 7164 ]

would just throw up his hands because there were

too many onerous regulations.

It also concerns me when the minister says that our act is going to

be the same as the Ontario act, or very close to it. Now I recognize

that historically the Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock

Exchange have been the models for securities throughout the world. I

realize that they have some very severe penalties for anybody who tries

to mislead or abuse in the selling of securities. I think the New York

Stock Exchange is probably the most important one in the world in terms

of leading the world in who can do what. When the financial centre of

the United States had a tendency to move to California, the California

rules were set up and modelled after the New York Stock Exchange, but

California, recognizing it was in a growing area and recognizing the

need for venture capital in the western United States to develop

industries that were mature and secure in the eastern part of the

United States, was a little more lenient in setting out their

regulations. It concerns me because, whether you like it or not,

western Canada and many parts of British Columbia are still

undeveloped, and we need a lot of that risk capital to go in there. And

it is risky capital. You can't tell me that when people go up into the

north and discover gold mines or copper mines or various things and

then want venture capital.... Sure, the people who are going to invest

in them are going to take a risk; that's part of the game. But if we're

going to raise that risk capital, and if we're going to create those....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Will you be quiet while I'm talking,

please, Mr. Leader of the Diminishing Opposition, the leader of one who

supported FIRA in Ottawa? The socialist support of FIRA did this

country more damage than we'll ever estimate by driving away

investment, by keeping investment out of Canada and by creating an

image in the international marketplace that Canada indeed did not want

investment. It's going to take years and years and probably more than

Expo to get rid of that image that was built up by socialists in Ottawa

that Canada indeed did not want investment.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned. I want to relay my concerns to

the minister. Will we still, in British Columbia, be able to raise that

risk capital for the oil wells and the gas wells in the great Peace

River country that the NDP drove out of this province? We wouldn't need

any regulations if they were still government, because they drove the

petroleum industry out of the province. Now it's back, and there are

going to be some smaller companies which are going to form and which

will want to develop their own little gas company or their own little

oil company and because of deregulation will be able to sell that gas,

to find a customer in the States. It's deregulated, so there's going to

be....

[5:00]

It's a great deal. But let's not kill it. Let's not kill what the

great Minister of Energy has done, both here and in Ottawa, and through

the Western Accord. Let's not kill that entrepreneurship that they have

built up by having so many regulations under this act and in this

section that indeed you would preclude them even coming forward and

wanting to form a company. Give that opportunity for other British

Columbians who would take that risk to invest. Mr. Speaker, when you

say that it's going to be like Ontario, that gives me a great deal of

concern, because we need here in the west and in Vancouver — which is

fast becoming the financial centre of western Canada and probably

someday of all of Canada, as we leap forward into the age of the

Pacific Rim — that financial centre here, and we need a stock exchange

that can bring in those entrepreneurs and can raise that risk capital

and give the opportunity to British Columbia and to other western

Canadians and even those from Oregon and Washington and as far away as

California who want to come here and invest in our gas fields, oil

fields, minerals and lumber industry. We want to give them the

opportunity to come here, and we don't want to make these rules so

onerous that we put them off. I would like the minister to....

MR. BLENCOE: You're a sad case.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, Mr. Chairman, there is that member for

Victoria. He's never been off the Island, doesn't know what makes the

province tick, wouldn't know a gas well if he fell over one, never

worked and done an honest day's work in his life; been in politics,

lived off the fat of the lamb all his life, lives here in lotus

Victoria land. I bet this is the first time he's ever seen snow. There

he is, sitting over there, living in the lap of luxury, trying to

dictate what should happen in this great province.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Member from Victoria, that you get off

your high horse and go out and work a little bit. Go talk to the

miners, go talk to the roughnecks, go talk to the loggers. Go talk to

those loggers up there on Lyell Island that are trying to make a

living; find out what makes this province tick before you start

standing in your pompous, soft-assed chair over there, dictating what

should be going on in this province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, back to the subject. I would like