1983 Legislative Session: 1st 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 )

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1983

Evening Sitting

[ Page

1823 ]

CONTENTS

Municipal Amendment Act –– 1983 (Bill 9). Second reading.

On the amendment.

Mr. Lauk –– 1823

Mr. Lea –– 1824

W. Rose –– 1828

Mrs. Dailly –– 1834

Mr. Stupich –– 1839

Ms. Brown –– 1845

Mr. Passarell –– 1849

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1854

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1864

Mr. Hanson –– 1864

W. Skelly –– 1869

Mr. Macdonald –– 1874

Mr. Barnes –– 1878

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1883

On the motion.

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 1885

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 2) 6), Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1886

Ms. Sanford –– 1887

Mr., Howard — 1892

Mr. Nicolson –– 1896

Mr. Mitchell –– 1899

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1983

The House met at 8:07 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege, and

this is the first opportunity that I have had to raise the matter

because it took some time to research. It has to do with the response

given to the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) during the

oral question period today, and the response by the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). When the minister was asked whether or

not a teacher could be denied membership to the BCTF because he may or

may not show up to some rally or job action planned for some time — and

I've forgotten those details — the minister responded: "It's entirely

up to them" — meaning the BCTF — "whether or not a teacher can be

expelled from membership in the B.C. Teachers' Federation."

That's not entirely true, Mr. Speaker. I think that the minister,

either deliberately or unintentionally, misled this House, If the

minister gives information that is misleading, either intentionally or

unintentionally, it impairs the ability of this House — which is based

on trust of a minister of the Crown — to provide information which is

reliable so far as he knows.

I see that you are going to be preoccupied with a member of the Clerks' table, Mr. Speaker, but may I proceed?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. At this time it is

the opinion of the Chair that the member is engaged upon a debate on

the subject. The member has made a point. The matter which he wishes

referred as a matter of privilege has been stated, and debate on the

matter is not permitted. The member continues on the specifics of the

motion.

MR. ROSE: I will certainly confine myself to the specific question on hand.

I think I've laid the basis for my question of privilege, and I hope you'll take it under advisement, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I say this is that

section 142(9) of the School Act says

that the federation's bylaws are subject to approval by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Section 142(2) says that if the BCTF

tries to expel a teacher there's an appeal, within ten days, according

to the act, to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It is clearly not up

to the BCTF in the final analysis whether or not to expel a teacher,

but up to a minister, the cabinet or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will undertake a review of the matter,

without prejudice to the member, and bring the findings to the House at

the earliest opportunity.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 9.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: On the reasoned amendment

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I thought someone else was going to speak on the question of privilege, because I have a motion prepared….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the member has taken his seat and

the business of the House has commenced. The Chair has undertaken to

bring an observation, or whatever the Chair decides to do on the matter

raised by the member, back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

That undertaking having been given, the matter is concluded.

MR. ROSE: Well, I will file the motion under the appropriate standing order.

On the amendment.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: I've been reliably informed by an hon. member that I have 20 minutes left. Is that correct?

Two minutes? It dropped a zero some place. That's okay, because I've

been speaking on this reasoned amendment in the hall during the

adjournment, so I really have an extra two hours. Of course Hansard didn't record it, and they were some of the best points I had to make.

To summarize the points I made prior to the supper adjournment on

the reasoned amendment: I pointed out that this was a narrow-view type

of bill that I had argued, and, I think, demonstrated to hon. members

that with some evidence this bill, rather than being a bill based upon

public demand, was widely opposed by various groups within British

Columbia and that there was no identifiable group in favour of it

except a small private group which was interested in private investment

with particular reference to the Spetifore land deal. It was therefore

appropriate for this House to consider whether or not the great

machinery of state should be brought about to make amendments to

legislation that would encourage private profit-taking at the expense

of laws for the public good.

I also pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that lack of regional development

planning led to the kind of chaos that we had seen prior to it being

introduced to our system, and that regional development planning, if

not done at the regional district level, would be forced upon the

provincial government. The government would either have to respond

using its resources and add another level of bureaucracy, or it would

decline to enter into regional planning and we'd have chaos, strip

development and improper development at the local and regional levels.

It is for all of those reasons that I urge all hon. members to

support this reasoned amendment as adding to and defining the principle

of second reading of the bill.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[8:15]

Motion negatived on the following division:

[ Page 1824 ]

YEAS –– 13

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Brown

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Rose

NAYS — 25

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

McGeer

Davis

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing

order 41 says: "When the question under discussion does not appear on

the order paper or has not been printed and distributed, any member may

require it to be read at any time during the debate, but not so as to

interrupt a member while speaking." I wonder if I could have the

amendment read.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In order to satisfy the hon. member for

Prince Rupert and to advise him what the motion is, the motion to Bill

9 is that the motion be amended by leaving out all the words following

that and substituting the following: "It is the opinion of this House

that cooperation between municipalities and regional districts is

necessary for orderly regional development." It's duly signed by the

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. LEA: Thank you. I'd like to take my place now, Mr. Speaker, to enter debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Seeing no other members, the Chair recognizes the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, how could anyone reading the amendment

— "It is the opinion of this House that cooperation between

municipalities and regional districts is necessary for orderly regional

development" — vote against it? No one can vote against it.

Before we can take action in regard to the functions of planning at

the regional and municipal levels, we have to identify some of the

problems that exist. Those of us from rural areas — well, I suppose all

of us — have different kinds of problems than those who come from more

urban areas that have regional districts. I venture to say that in

Vancouver a great many people, when they hear the words GVRD, don't

know what they mean, but in a rural area people know what the regional

district is because it seems to affect them more immediately, and it's

one of the functions they use to govern themselves at the local level.

It doesn't appear to have the same recognition in the more urban areas.

In my constituency the regional district includes Prince Rupert,

Port Edward and the Queen Charlotte Islands, and things don't really

work that well, because there are 80 miles of water between the Queen

Charlottes and the other area of the regional district, and there isn't

a lot in common between the two areas.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Your mayor wants to wipe them out.

MR. LEA: My mayor may do what he wants. That's part of the

conflict; in my area Mayor Lester is the mayor of Prince Rupert and the

chairman of the regional district; and over on the Queen Charlotte

Islands people feel that maybe the mayor of Prince Rupert may have a

different idea of the way things should go within the regional district

because of what he represents as opposed to what the directors in the

more rural area or the islands represent. There always seems to be that

conflict between the rural and the urban areas of a regional district.

The same thing, I know, happens in the member for Omineca’s (Mr. Kempf)

riding, where….

MR. KEMPF: The sooner we do away with them, the better we'll be.

MR. LEA: Well, I don't know. I wouldn't like to do away with

county government, and that's what we're talking about. Regional

district, county government, call it what you will, I don't see…. I

agreed with the former minister, the hon. Bill Vander Zalm, about the

county system; I think there's something to be said….

MR. MICHAEL: How can you agree with people who aren't with us anymore?

MR. LEA: I agreed with him at the time, Mr. Member. It was

well known, both in my riding and down in this Legislature, that I

agreed with him on county government.

As I see it, we at the provincial level should be getting rid of a

great deal of the administration that we do. I think we should become

more of a Legislature and be legislators more than administrators, and

I'd like to see us here pass rules and laws, generally, that are

administered at the local level.

For instance, the Highways department. Why should Victoria decide

which road is going to be gravelled outside of Prince George? Why

shouldn't the people of Prince George decide which one of the roads

they want to gravel, set their own priorities, and do it through a

local regional or county system of government?

It's not putting more government on people that we're talking about.

What we're talking about is transferring some of the government from

Victoria and returning it to the county or regional district level.

There's a great deal of difference.

MR. RITCHIE: Don't forget that this is going to be in Hansard .

MR. LEA: Yes, it is going to be in Hansard , and I

don't mind a bit, because I'm willing to tell you that the people I

talk to around the province pretty much agree that one of the things

they don't like is trying to deal with a centralized government. What

happens when you have a centralized government in administration is

that you pass a rule or a law in Victoria — call it legislation, call

it regulation — and then you ask the civil service to go out and apply

this general rule throughout the province. You find that the rule or

regulation

[ Page 1825 ]

will fit perfectly one place, not at all in another, and somewhat somewhere else. I've spoken about that before.

That is a problem of centralized bureaucracy. I don't think that was

the intention of the provincial government when we were established. We

were not established to be the centralized authority. That's what

bothers us so much, Mr. Speaker, about this legislation and other

legislation we've seen come through the House.

I would like to see the county system extended in many ways. I think

it's possible to decentralize the system. We're only going to learn

from experience; we can't work out a perfect plan for how to

decentralize; we're going to have some trial and error as we do it, But

there are some moves that I think could be made that would be a start —

not taking away from the regional district planning, as this piece of

legislation does, but allowing more of it to be done at the regional

district and not administered from a central bureaucracy.

[8:30]

I think it's possible, for instance, for the Forest Service — we

could even go into the resource areas. We don't just have to have local

government look after supplying services to people. I think they could

take more of an administrative role in many areas. The legislation for

the Criminal Code comes to us from the federal government. It is not

administered by the federal government; it's administered by the

province. It seems to work quite well. It's at least decentralizing the

administration to a local response. I can't see why we can't do that

also. Why can't we pass legislation in this House laying out some

standards that we'd like to see in place for British Columbia, and lay

out the general rules we see need to be applied throughout the

province, but let those acts of this Legislature be administered by

regional and municipal governments throughout the province? We do it

for the municipalities, we do it for the regional districts now —

especially in terms of the regional districts: we ask them to do a job

and we don't really give them the proper legislation to do the job, nor

do we give them authority to do the job. We don't say to them: "Here is

some responsibility for you, and you are answerable to the electorate

at the local level."

It seems to make more sense, if you have a problem at the local

level and if you have locally elected people, to walk down the street

and say: "Listen, Fred, I have a little problem down here. You know the

corner just past Jake's place?" And the local guy says: "Yes, I know

that. I know the problem. I was there looking at it the other day." And

you are liable to get some action that is going to meet community

approval. The whole thrust of Bill 9 is exactly the other way around.

I would like to share with the House some experiences I had when I

was the Minister of Highways. I think there are probably even

legislators in here who don't understand the power of the Minister of

Highways over land development and zoning; it is immense and it hasn't

been changed. It would make any of the other ministers look like

pikers, when it comes to the development the Minister of Highways has

control over. The Minister of Highways has control over the land on

each side of the highway for, I believe, if my memory serves me

correctly, half a mile, and you know that if you have that in most

small towns in British Columbia you have complete control. Access to

the highway, where you are going to develop and what you have to do

before you can get the access permit are dictated to you by the

Ministry of Highways. For the most

part it is another central function,

and there is another function that I think should be turned over —

except the arterial highways; the access to them has to be a matter of

some agreement with the Ministry of Highways.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

One of the things that happens, Mr. Speaker…. I watched this in

Duncan, as a perfect example — the Cowichan-Malahat constituency —

where I think they have had at least five bypasses around the town over

the years, They allowed development to happen on that bypass; then they

had to move it again. Then they have to move it again, then they have

to move it again, and each time you move it you are probably moving

into tougher engineering country, and it follows that it is going to be

more expensive. What we don't do is protect that first bypass from

development so we don't have to keep building these new bypass roads

around communities. Take away the planning function and in the long

run, I guarantee you, it's going to cost you a lot more money for the

Ministry of Highways.

The minister shakes his head. I know that it is tempting when you

first become a minister to pretend that you have had all the experience

in the world, but I will tell you there are many people in this

community of the Legislature who have had a great deal of experience….

When I am talking about the problems of rural areas in regional

districts and the way they interplay with municipalities…. I see the

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) shaking his head that he agrees with me

in some of the problems I am pointing out. I also would bet you that

all the rural members in here — at least all the rural members — would

agree with me on the desire of rural people for a decentralized system.

They would much rather make decisions that affect them by themselves

and on their own than have the decisions made from afar.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: This legislation does not do that.

MR. MICHAEL: Have you read the bill?

MR. LEA: Yes, I have.

What they are doing by this bill, Mr. Speaker, is taking out all the

holds everywhere. It is going to be a developer's heyday. It is not

going to be developed the way we want it.

The more I see legislation coming through this House the more I see

of the Fraser Institute and the way they think. The Fraser Institute is

against zoning. I think you would have a hard time selling to British

Columbians the idea of no zoning. If you actually went out to them and

put it to them and said: "Look, do you want to live in a community with

no zoning…?" For instance, as British Columbians, if we buy a house in

a residential area and there is an empty lot in the residential area,

would we want a foundry to start up in this residential area, or would

we as a community say: "Look, it might be very economic for the

foundry, it might be the most economic place for the foundry to

situate, but there are some things that we as British Columbians put

above profit"? I believe we would put above profit the desire to keep

our residential neighbourhoods residential. I don't think there is any

doubt that British Columbians favour zoning.

What are we going to do about the feeling of alienation that people

in this province have towards central governments, both the provincial…?

[ Page 1826 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, could you possibly speak to the

minister? I don't mind heckling at all, but I do like it to be heckling

that makes some sense. Every time he opens his mouth, the minister

shows his lack of knowledge about municipal government. It is not just

my side of the House that is saying that. The very people he is there

to serve — the elected officials of regional districts and the elected

officials of municipalities — agree with me that this minister doesn't

know his job. It's a very common feeling: the minister doesn't know his

job. When he first took the portfolio, he thought he'd use his own

mind; he thought he would say something. The minute he did, the Premier

jumped on him and said: "You shut up, Mr. Minister. You just speak when

my deputy tells you to speak."

But the question is: how do we improve the planning functions of

regional districts and municipalities? The answer is not to do away

with them — to do away with them is foolhardy — but to try to improve

the system. To make it work better for the communities would seem to me

the way we would all want to go. Now I have to assume — and the

minister doesn't have to be so defensive — that the minister thinks

what he's doing will be good for British Columbia. That's what makes a

horse race; that's what makes politics. The minister is perfectly

entitled to his opinion, but it seems to me that when his opinion is

opposed by so many at the regional and municipal level, it would pay

the minister to at least pull back and say: "Am I necessarily correct?"

Why would he want to do it when all of these people who have years and

years of experience are saying that what he's putting forward won't

work? I think it would be a crazy statement to say that they're all

pinkos or all left-wing kooks. I suppose there are some left-wing

kooks, and some righ-twing kooks, on councils.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's democracy.

MR. LEA: That's right, that is democracy. They're making the

choice themselves about who they are going to put on there, and it

appears to me that the provincial government isn't really satisfied

with the choice of the local people. The local people have gone out and

voted and said: "These are our elected officers at the local level."

The provincial government says: "We don't particularly like the way

you're running things, so we're going to take it over. And we're going

to tell you what is best for you." I suppose in one way I should be

happy, because if I read correctly what people are telling me, and I

think I do, they're telling me that they really want to get away from

the centralized approach. So we're all hearing the same message. But

the answers that we're coming up with are different.

We have the local people telling us that the government, with Bill

9, is going a way that they don't want to go. So what is it the

government knows that they don't know? Why are all of these local

people being so obstinate? Is it a case of just plain obstinacy? Are

they just naturally unreasonable people? Are they stupid people? Are

they people who don't have the experience to make that kind of

decision? Are they people who don't know the local areas? I think there

is an obligation on the part of government to get up and tell us why

all of these local people don't know what they're talking about.

The local people are politicians too, Mr. Speaker. I always get a

kick out of it when I run into an alderman and he says: "You

politicians." I don't know what they think they are. They're

politicians too. They are the politicians, I would think, who are the

closest to the communities. When they tell us that they're not

satisfied, en masse, the vast majority of the regional district people

— and this is an unarguable point….

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You can yell across the floor all you want, but it

is a fact that the minister went to the last UBCM meeting and they told

him in no uncertain terms, in a loud united voice, that they don't want

this legislation, that they don't feel it will work for them. So what

is it that they want that's so unreasonable that the government won't

go along with it? On the face of it, it looks stupid. You'd think that

the government…. I'm sure the government doesn't want those people to

be politically angry at them. There will be another election some time.

There are going to be votes to be counted. So you have to assume that

the government doesn't want all of the local elected people angry with

the government. It doesn't make sense.

So what is it? What's this driving urge to take political flak at

the UBCM — the minister's resignation called for, the minister not

receiving a good reception. I don't care which side of the House you're

from, I just happen to believe that when you go to a convention like

that it's nice to meet a smiling face and have people get along with

you and say: "Gee, Mr. Minister, we really are pleased with the kind of

work you're doing. You are meeting our expectations and you're doing

what we as local people want." So I have to assume that the minister

doesn't enjoy that.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Oh, just the pinkos and the commies were mad at you.

Well, I'll be sure to tell Mayor Thom from Kitimat that you think that.

He'll be quite surprised to find out that he's either a pinko or a

commie. Isn't that right, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) ?

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know what he is.

MR. LEA: Oh, he doesn't know what he is. One of those crazy

apolitical animals who only wants to do a good job for his community

and doesn't want to get involved in partisan politics: that's how I

read Mayor Thom, and I know him quite well. I don't see Mayor Thom as

some sort of crazy. I don't see him as an inexperienced person. I see

him as a concerned local politician who wants the best not only for his

community, but for the other communities that he's accepted some

responsibility for by becoming the president of the UBCM. I see these

people as good British Columbians. Whether they are pink, red, green or

blue in terms of political hue, I see them as good, sound local

politicians to whom local people have said, "Here's our trust, and

here's our authority to do a job for us."

[8:45]

It would be a pity if the people didn't have a chance to vote for

politicians over and over again. If the municipal governments or

municipal politicians are not doing the job that the people like or

want or think is proper, they will get rid of them at the next

election. The government keeps saying, "We won the election on May 5;

therefore we have a mandate

[ Page 1827 ]

to do anything we want." Social Credit won another

term of government. That doesn't mean people can't take exception to

anything the government does. In another speech last night I read from

a book which talked about the paranoia of people who feel the urge for

power, such as this government seems to feel. Do they think democracy

is getting the opportunity to vote every four or five years at the

general election? Is that all it amounts to? After you walk down to the

polls and put down your X, the government forever after May 5 — or

whatever election day it is — says, "We won the election. We have a

mandate to govern and we'll do what we want." Surely the people in this

province mean something. Surely the people in this province have the

right to have the government listen to them when they speak. Whether

the government likes it or not, 45 percent of the people in this

province voted NDP.

MR. MICHAEL: Fifty-one percent voted for us.

MR. LEA: Absolutely. But, Mr. Speaker, do they honestly think

that you can run a province or a country by saying, "We got 51 percent;

now we'll do nothing?" There is something called general will.

I'm going to take you back to a situation in the United States to

give you an illustration of what I mean. In the United States people

overwhelmingly — as overwhelmingly as this government got its mandate —

voted for prohibition. But the minority was so opposed to prohibition

that it would not meet the general will of the United States, even

though there was….

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think

the member is far out of line and not relevant at all. I would

appreciate it if he would get back to his reasoned motion. Then maybe I

can make some sensible notes from what he's saying so that I may

respond when the opportunity should arise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken. If the hon. members

would curtail some of their comments back and forth, possibly the

member could be relevant in his debate.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the need for

cooperation between people, and about the democratic process that makes

that cooperation possible. I'm saying this piece of legislation is one

that is not cooperative between governments. You can win a vote by the

majority, but if the majority insists on carrying out actions that

don't meet the general will of the minority, then that rule or law or

decree is not valid within a democratic system. At no time before

bringing in this legislation package did the Social Credit government

not meet the general will of the minority — those who voted against

them. But I suggest that Bill 9 does not meet the general will of the

minority.

There is other legislation in this package that does not meet the

general will of the minority. There is a bit more to democracy than

counting heads and saying you won by 51 percent, or lost by 42 percent.

I had always assumed that once election day was over it was

government's obligation to govern for everyone. I resent it when I keep

hearing from across the floor: "We won the May 5 election, " or "We got

51 percent." Yes, that's a fact, but that does not relieve the

government of its obligation, under a democratic system, to govern on

behalf of everyone, including the minority, and not to take action that

does not meet the general will of those minorities.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Even though we may be the minority party in this

House, we are not here to express just the minority point of view, Mr.

Speaker. In a democratic system, our obligation, as an opposition, is

larger than that. That's what we know and that's what we're trying to

let the Social Credit know: that their obligation is larger than to

represent just the 51 percent that elected them. It speaks for itself.

When you start talking about the philosophic understanding of a

democratic system, it does leave them cold. They do think you're

talking airy-fairy nonsense. They do think you're silly. That's a fact,

and that's the problem. They do not understand that they have

obligations under a democratic system that is not autocratic. You don't

get elected and then say: "We will do exactly what we want." You don't

bring in Bill 9 and not pay any regard to the municipalities, the

elected officials and the regional districts. It's just not democracy.

I'm inclined to think the Social Credit really do believe you mark

your X and that's it until the next time you mark your X. It's not the

way of the old Social Credit, but it is the way of the new Social

Credit. Why is that? It's that way because the old Social Credit was a

populist party that wanted to work on behalf of people, that wanted to

help people who couldn't help themselves — not take away protection

from people who cannot help themselves. but give them protection.

That's what government is all about. If government isn't for that, then

it isn't for anything.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, they're absolutely right; I do not

understand what they're saying. I hear the words but the philosophy

they expound is one that I don't understand how anyone could believe

it. I don't understand the arrogance.

It has been said that once the system doesn't serve the wealthy,

they'll change the system. That's what we're seeing here. This once

proud Social Credit Party, that had the interests of the little guy and

the local people in mind, has forsaken them. They've become

conservatives, not Social Credit. They're not even progressive

conservatives; they're just plain old-fashioned nineteenth century

conservatives who believe there's no such thing as a democratic model

that will fit their….

MR. KEMPF: You don't even believe in that.

MR. LEA: If I don't believe in it, then I don't believe in

this country. We're not talking about left or right; we're not talking

about a different approach to how we change the economics of this

province; we're talking about the basic democratic structure that we've

all said we believe in. Yet when we stand in this House and talk about

the democratic model that we're based on, these guys say: "Gee, Graham,

you don't really believe that." They find it incredible that anybody

would be stupid enough to believe what I'm saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: We believe you don't.

MR. LEA: I see. They believe they do, but I don't.

[ Page 1828 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. LEA: That's it. Because, you see, it's inconceivable to

them…. They say: "Well, old Lea over there's a socialist, so how in the

world…? We know that there's a guy who doesn't believe in the

democratic system." They know that right down where they live, Mr.

Speaker. They really believe it, because they see us as an aberration

in the system. They feel that it's fair and okay to do anything at all.

It allows them to be immoral, because keeping us out of office is more

important than having a moral system of government. That's what they

think. That just happens to be, I think, a very dangerous thing for any

society. When you have one group…. Up until this legislation, we

thought that we disagreed with their policies, but we thought we had an

agreement — I think — on the system, on the process. We're finding out

now that we have no agreement on the process, and nothing points it out

any more than Bill 9.

Bill 9 is a piece of legislation that takes away the planning process from the regional level.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Not entirely.

MR. LEA: The minister says "not entirely." Can you be a

little bit pregnant? It takes away planning functions from the regional

district and from the municipality.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, settlement planning still continues.

MR. LEA: No, no, no. Mr. Speaker, why…?

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the bill.

MR. LEA: They keep saying that. On every piece of

legislation, they say: "Read the bill!" Probably the only people I know

in any government system who don't read the bills are back-benchers. I

think we all speak from a little experience. I'll bet there are a lot

of back-benchers who'll get up and vote for this legislation without

having read it. On the opposition side, because you have to talk about

the legislation, you have to become familiar with it, right? I'll bet

you that I…. Boy, I just wish there were some way to prove it, because

I'll bet you that there are going to be members voting on legislation

that they haven't read. They're going to vote on it. Why? Because they

trust the government, and one of the things that nobody should do is

completely trust the government.

I don't trust the government when I'm in it. One of the things we

have to do in this province, in every other province and in every place

there's a democracy is keep an eye on the government, and we have

mechanisms in our society to do that. We have a loyal opposition whose

job it is to keep an eye on the government, because we realize that

people have weaknesses and we realize that the government doesn't

always have the right idea. There's a free press to keep its eye on the

government. But it's also the role of the back bench, as ordinary

members of this House, to keep their eye on government and not just to

take everything on blind faith because they're pals of yours or they

belong to the same political party.

I'll say one thing: when we were in government, we had back-benchers

voting against us. I'm not going to get up and say we liked it. Nobody

likes it. You'd like to have them all in line. But, boy, when you have

them all in line, you're in trouble, because you need a back bench

that's got jam. You need a back bench that's not going to let you get

away with it when you're government. And a back bench can be powerful.

Oftentimes they don't realize how powerful they can be. But think about

it. Those big, fancy offices that the ministers are in, those big,

fancy cars, the jet travel…. You know something? You control it, back

bench. And if you want to make them squirm on a piece of legislation,

just threaten to take it away from them, and see the power you've got.

Tell them that you're going to go into the House and vote with your

conscience, and see the power you've got. In our system, the back bench

should have that power. It's only when they give up their right to

independence that a government can become arrogant and overbearing in

our system. That's the only time.

[9:00]

At some point I think we all tend to answer for our sins. I think

that a back-bencher who doesn't do his or her duty by the people who

elected them — but even more importantly, I think, by their own

conscience — will live to regret it, because we have not yet seen the

effects of this legislation or of other legislation. Right now we're

only against it from some philosophic, practical or altruistic sense,

but when this legislation and other legislation that is going through

this session takes its effect, I think the people in this province are

going to really understand what this session has been all about, what

the opposition has been talking about, what Solidarity has been talking

about and what the elected officials at the local level have been

talking about. Because this government feels that they can be

absolutely right. I just don't think that it's possible for anybody to

be absolutely right.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The continuation of the debate on the reasoned motion to amend Bill 9….

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member

had used his time under standing orders and he did not have the

opportunity to make a motion after the red light came on. I'm glad that

you identified that and called for the next speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Member. The Speaker did not hear any such motion, in any event.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoyed the speech of my

friend from Prince Rupert and also the intellectual contributions of

those on the other side, who feel that wise-acre comments and heckling

are going to pass for some sort of sophisticated debate in his House. I

notice that they often use ridicule to shout down somebody who is

attempting to make a point. I'd like to make the following point — that

we would welcome them into the debate. It would be, I think, a pleasure

to hear from some of those people who undoubtedly have a vast knowledge

of the whole field — especially of municipal affairs, and I speak of

the minister. He's obviously learning extremely fast — this is known

as, I suppose, being bloodied in battle.

There have been some times that we don't necessarily want to move

that Bill 9 be given a six-month hoist, but that the minister be given

a six-month hoist. Nevertheless, we're

[ Page 1829 ]

stuck with the bill and we're stuck with the minister, whether we like it or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You're stuck with two bills.

MR. ROSE: We know he's a very pleasant fellow, but being

pleasant isn't always the answer to solve all of our problems. The

minister is going to grope his way through these things. He's going to

be a little bit like the Merrill Lynch ads — the bull in the china

shop: lots of bull and not much china shop. I know he's going to get

himself into all kinds of trouble, but he knows, because he's an

experienced man, that ultimately he'll learn his job and he'll learn

what he's doing. He won't learn anything if he has a mania to run

roughshod over everyone, even if he's smiling when he's doing it. I

commend that bit of advice. I hope it's not presumptuous, coming from a

lowly back-bencher.

I was really taken aback when I heard the minister, in one of his

heckles, suggest that the planning function was not being removed from

regional districts, because I had an opportunity to look at the bill. I

don't very often do this, because I think it ruins someone's speech on

the bill if he reads it too much. One of the things that can get people

into a lot of trouble in the Legislature is actually reading the bill.

I've known ministers who never read the bill. As a matter of fact, the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)….

When I was asking a number of questions on the bill, it was quite

obvious that he hadn't read the bill. So it was a little bit like

people who hadn't read the bill asking the minister questions, and he

hadn't read the bill; it was a little bit like the blind leading the

blind.

I took the trouble to dig out the bill. I'd like to read to you from

the explanatory note: "Official plans are being eliminated as a

deregulation measure to streamline the development approval process and

to strengthen the autonomy of municipal government." I think that's a

laudable aim: to strengthen the autonomy of municipal government. A

large question in the minds of municipal authorities is whether or not

their autonomy has indeed been strengthened. But it is arguable, at

least, that that has happened. But also….

He's not coming to get me, is he, Mr. Speaker? That minister comes

over as menacingly as a kind of a Kojak of consumer affairs. I was a

little bit worried because I had my reading glasses on, and he looked

particularly sinister through these glasses.

Anyway, as I was saying before the minister made his move towards

me, "official plans are being eliminated." Well, that's plain enough.

Now down here under

section 5 we add a

section that is headed and

underlined: "Elimination of regional plans and official regional

plans." When the minister says that we're going to retain a planning

function within the regions….

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Settlement plans.

MR. ROSE: No, no. It's the regional plans that are being

eliminated. Look, I'll read that for you too because I know you have

certain problems in reading: "Section 808.1. All regional plans and

official regional plans prepared or designated before

section 807 and

808 were repealed are cancelled and have no effect." It seems to me

that that's the end of it. Now we're going to substitute this in

section 6: "Section 809(

l) is repealed and the following substituted:

(1) A regional board may prepare an official settlement plan." What is

the teeth in a settlement plan? Where are the powers articulated…? Are

those in regulations to come? They are there, but they are going to be

really strong regional powers. Oh, I know. Two, three, four or five

mayors who are pals and who live in contiguous municipalities are going

to get together some afternoon or evening over coffee — you know, at a

little reception, we’ll call it — and they're going to come to some

kind of conclusion about some kind of airy-fairy, no-power settlement

plan that will last until the first developer comes in there and wants

to change something. That is exactly what concerns us the most.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: They can't do it.

MR. ROSE: What do you mean they can't do it? Mr. Speaker,

I've been in municipal politics; I know the powers of municipalities,

and I commend that kind of experience to the minister. It is a really

important experience that he should have. It's not that he can't learn

it; I'm not suggesting that he's not able. He's bright. I'm not

suggesting that he is incompetent or even not conscientious, but what I

am saying is that I don't think he realizes the implications. He has a

particular mind-set and very little is going to change him. An official

settlement plan has not got the strength or power of regional plans.

The minister says: "Oh, well, you want to centralize all authority."

I don't want to centralize all authority. I don't want to centralize

all the authority in the school boards. We talked on that the other

night at length, even ad nauseam. However, when we're talking about

Bill 9, as we are this evening, it seems to be sensible to centralize

all power, especially when it comes to planning. However, when we're

talking about education, which began as a municipal or a school

district municipality…. Now we're going to centralize all power,

including taxation power and the powers to make decisions for school

boards, in the hands of the ministry as strongly as it exists even in

places like the Kremlin.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether speaking in the House is going to

convince anybody of anything. I have been speaking in the House for

many years, and I don't know if I've changed anybody's mind on the

other side. About the best we can do is to try to prevent things from

going wrong in the first place, but if they do go wrong, we will at

least be in a position to say: "I told you so. "I think it would be

nice…. I know that there are certain members across there who would be

pleased if we didn't try and debate and that sort of thing and, as they

say, stall and hold everything up. That would please them. Again, that

isn t our function or our job.

There is no democracy in truth. Because a lot of people believe in

something or are against something doesn't make it true. That is a

misnomer. But in a democracy, those people who hold the majority views

in our form of government have a right to govern. I don't quarrel with

that idea.

MR. KEMPF: You take exception to what Graham said. That's the

opposite of what your colleague said a few minutes ago. He said the

minority rules.

MR. ROSE: Look, the minority doesn't rule anything. The

majority can be tyrannical. The majority in a democracy is supposed to

consider the minority's views, to make certain that it doesn't run

roughshod; otherwise, we wouldn't have any particular kind of democracy.

[ Page 1830 ]

There are floating majorities. There was a majority on May 5. There

are other kinds of majorities on various issues at different times. If

that were the case, why would people such as the leaders of the country

in the various political parties go up and down in the polls?

Majorities are very fleeting things. It's like a snapshot. A majority

taken by a poll — the best poll of all is election day, and I don't

argue with that one — are snapshots. They are examples of majorities

that are instantaneous, and that's just about as long as they last.

MR. KEMPF: Then we'd have to have a general election every six months.

MR. ROSE: I know that. That's why we have a parliament. If we

were going to proceed on that route — that all we did was look at a

particular polling result on any particular day, and we made up our

minds on that — then there would be no need for people who took strong

positions in parliament ' either pro or con, on a particular issue. I

agree with the hon. member for Omineca on that point.

So there are a majority of people over here who want Bill 9 to pass.

If they want it to pass, after they keep us up night after night, I'm

quite sure that it will pass. I don't think there is any doubt about

that; ultimately that bill is going to pass. But there is another

majority of people out there in the great white north, and they're

called municipal aldermen. They as a majority are opposed to this bill.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Possibly the hon. member for

Omineca could temper his comments with silence, and the member for

Coquitlam-Moody could direct his comments to the Chair.

[9:15]

MR. ROSE: Thank you for protecting me from that Social

Crediter, Mr. Speaker. If it weren't for him I'm quite sure that my

adrenalin wouldn't flow quite as rapidly as it does. I thank him for

his comments, because he's an astute observer. The problem is that he's

so busy observing that he very seldom speaks. I would like to have him

get up and debate with us.

MR. KEMPF: Will you relinquish your spot?

MR. ROSE: What do you think I am, a leopard? I'm not going to

give up my spots to you. If you want to speak, then you get up when I'm

finished, because I haven't said all I want to.

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the majority of municipal people.

The majority of municipal people were assembled at convention in

Penticton last weekend. They passed the following resolution, and this

affects Bill 9:

"Whereas

the government of British Columbia introduced Bill 9, Municipal

Amendment Act, 1983, in the Legislature on July 7, and

whereas this

legislation would amend the Municipal Act by removing regional planning

as a function of regional districts and making official settlement

plans optional…."

Do you hear that, Mr. Speaker? Municipal settlement

plans are going to be optional. In other words, planning is going to be

at the whim of whatever group of municipal leaders happens to get

together. It's not going to be something that people can depend on.

They're going to be optional.

"…and

whereas the present provisions of the Municipal

Act have permitted rural and resource communities to establish

effective means for planning of electoral areas and for the solution of

development problems in urban fringe areas, and

whereas the same

provisions have enabled communities in the lower mainland and capital

regions to coordinate their development in cooperation with their

neighbours in a cost-effective way with maximum local autonomy" — do

you hear that, Mr. Minister? — "therefore

be it resolved that Bill 9,

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, is unacceptable and inappropriate…."

There's what the municipal leaders, assembled in plenary convention, have passed by a virtually unanimous majority.

"…to the needs of British Columbia's communities and

that sections 2 to 6 of Bill 9 be withdrawn forthwith, and be it

further resolved that the Minister of Municipal Affairs be requested to

meet with a special committee composed of regional district directors

on the UBCM executive and the table officers of UBCM to determine

acceptable and appropriate ways of improving planning legislation."

I can't see what could be plainer than that. That is about the most

explicit statement of British Columbia's municipalities that one could

expect from any group of people. For the government to say that they

have a majority and they're acting on the wishes of the majority is

far-fetched if not fatuous. It's something that I can't understand. It

is beyond my comprehension. I won't use some other terms like I'm

shocked and dismayed, but that is about as pejorative as I can get.

That's why we put up the motion that we're considering here this

evening, and for the benefit of those people who tuned in late the

motion should be restated here: "That the motion be amended by leaving

out all the words following 'that' and substituting therefore the

following: 'it is the opinion of this House that cooperation between

municipalities and regional districts is necessary for orderly regional

development.'" Now that's a pretty namby-pamby motion. I don't know who

put it forward, but it isn't strong.

MS. BROWN: I would retract that if I were you.

MR. ROSE: I'll retract that if you feel offended, but what

I'm suggesting is that I know why it's like that. That's why I wanted

to tell you that.

That seems to be an eminently reasonable kind of motion.

MR. COCKE: Motherhood.

MR. ROSE: It's a motherhood motion, because if we had put in

the motion that we want regional planning to be returned to the

districts then it would have been ruled out of order, as being contrary

to the clause in the bill. So we had to make a mild and, if not

namby-pamby, a motherhood motion, as my hon. friend for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke) said, not because we wanted such a motion in here, but

simply because we had to find a motion upon which we could speak and

express our views that would be in order, or else we couldn't express

our views at all.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

[ Page 1831 ]

I think it's very clear how the municipalities feet, how this side

of the House feels, and also why we have this bill before us which is

called the Spetifore amendment. It seems to me that there are

legitimate complaints that could be made by developers. I don't argue

that. For anybody to get any kind of development plan or rezoning

through a municipal council is a pretty arduous event. For any simple

kind of rezoning you have to be involved with Highways, with Health,

with official and regional plans, with Fisheries, with Wildlife, and

bank protection, and the whole works. Nobody's going to question that

it is a difficult thing and that it should be streamlined. Nobody's

suggesting that there shouldn't be one central office — if you want to

centralize — in any municipality or group of municipalities that could

look at an application and make sure it doesn't take a year to two

years to get it through. I don't think anybody would argue with that.

The reason behind the motion and the bill we have here tonight is

that people are extremely frustrated with the lethargic way governments

often proceed. I know why this is: because there have been all kinds of

sharpies moving in on the development scheme — and I'm not talking

about just the big-timers. I know of a case where a three-lot

subdivision was allowed in Powell River, and the water source was on

one of the lots. When there was a purchase of that property from the

original developer, one of the first things he did after the land was

sold — and the man was guaranteed water rights — was to cut the water

off. I don't know whether you realize the seriousness of that, Mr.

Speaker, but if you go through a whole summer without access to water

because the person who owned that land has broken the line and will not

let you get on that property to fix the line, you are in pretty severe

trouble. I can name you that case. Six months have passed. The

surveyors cannot get on that property, because if they do without the

permission of the owner, then what happens….

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, it's difficult for the

minister to follow the debate on this particular reasoned amendment if

he's going to be talking about broken waterlines and those sorts of

things. I'd appreciate it if he'd get back on track and deal with the

motion at hand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the member's hope to

explain his reasons for supporting the amendment; however, the Chair

reminds the member that staying to the subject is important.

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I hate to disturb the minister

with interesting anecdotes. The only thing I can say in defence of this

mild excursion I had into a personal experience is that it's about as

in order and related to the bill as last night's speech by the minister

where he fought World War II all over again and concluded that we only

won it because of the Tories. We listened to that drivel for 20 minutes

and nobody objected to it. We didn't find it particularly interesting,

but we were too polite. We knew that he was reliving his youth, and we

didn't want to disturb his mythology. We were listening to his

anecdotes, and now we know a little bit better how his mind works.

Aside from all that, what I was attempting to do, Mr. Speaker, was

express the frustrations of certain people in dealing with municipal

and provincial governments and provincial government departments when

they have a very serious problem involving the use of the land and its

resources. I was attempting to say that it was because of this

frustration building up among our people — people who are not

necessarily developers, but homeowners and purchasers — a tremendous

antipathy about red tape and bureaucracy and government. We have to

realize how this came about. What I'm suggesting to you is that there

are real horror stories out there. I can relate some others, because I

was a municipal alderman.

In Langley, for instance, they had a lot of piddling little private

water systems that developers put in. Sometimes they went dry. What

could you do when someone phoned you, as an alderman or a Member of

Parliament? You phone up the clerk of the city and he says: It’s a

private water system; there's nothing we can do about that."

I'm saying that there are too many steps that impede development,

but they're there to protect the public because of examples such as

I've just quoted. Probably that says enough to make the main point.

I believe that it is an anti-planning government. If you had had a

regional district in the Kelowna area when I went there in 1950 you

wouldn't have the thing blacktopped and have another Kingsway from the

Vernon road nearly to Rutland. It's a mess. When you don't have proper

planning you have urban sprawl. Surrey just about went broke in the

late fifties because of urban sprawl. Developers got in there, and

there were extended water lines…. You have to have planning, not only

just within a municipality — and I understand that this is not being

distorted too much, except that the minister has already threatened or

at least floated the trial balloon that there should be private

planners. After all, if the plans were made, why would you not turn

these things over to private planners? I heard the minister on the air

on Rafe Mair's show the other morning, and even Rafe Mair — and

everybody knows that he has a certain credibility within this House, as

a former minister of the Crown….

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I heard the minister being interviewed on Mr.

Mair's show the other morning. Mr. Mair admitted that he was a member

of a council in Kamloops at one time and they used a private planner

and he was afraid of conflict of interest. He said that the private

planners get together with the developers — there is a potential for

that. That trial balloon is dropped like a hot potato, at least for

now. I will come back to that in a little while. In this province it

took a long time to develop an acceptance even of planning. It was a

dirty word; only socialists used that term about 30 years ago. Now

planning is more and more acceptable, but I get the feeling that really

it isn't all that acceptable yet over there because it causes people to

lose what they regard as certain inalienable freedoms. It gets in the

way and it prevents people from doing what they would like to do with

the land.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member for Coquitlam-Moody kindly

remind himself that planning in the local municipalities is not the

issue. It is regional planning we are talking about, and you should

relate your arguments to your reasoned amendment.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order. I am rising under standing

order…the one dealing with the Speaker. Standing order 10 says: "Mr.

Speaker shall not take

part in any

[ Page 1832 ]

debates before the House." I just thought I would remind you of that, Mr. Speaker.

[9:30]

MR. PARKS: On the point of order on which the hon. member has

just risen, I think it would be equally if not more appropriate, Mr.

Speaker, if, in taking her comments to heart, you very succinctly but

forcibly ask her to keep in mind standing order 20. In my opinion there

was no way it could be interpreted that you were taking

part in the

debate, but the frivolous point of order she has attempted to raise is

clearly, in my opinion, a breach of standing order 20.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will consider both points.

MS. BROWN: Further to the matter raised by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam, under standing order 20 he has accused me of

conduct which is grossly disorderly. All I did was to bring to the

Speaker's attention that unwittingly the Speaker was participating in

the debate on the floor of this House. How that could ever be

categorized as being grossly disorderly, Mr. Speaker, really baffles

the imagination of anyone but a lawyer from Maillardville-Coquitlam.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I wish you would draw to the attention of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds standing order 143.

MR. ROSE: I don't wish to carry on the points of order. While

people are going from page 1 to page 143 one by one, perhaps they will

have an idea….

HON. MR. HEWITT: It gives you an idea how boring your speech is.

MR. ROSE: Would the minister mind tilting his head just a little bit the other way? The glare is bothering me.

MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order. On behalf of the Minister

of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), myself and the hon. Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), I find that comment

made by the member for Coquitlam-Moody a personal reflection.

[Laughter].

MR. ROSE: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that I might have missed

that comment by a hair and that I would be pleased to withdraw. I

congratulate the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) on an

excellent riposte.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member for Coquitlam Moody would just continue with his debate on the reasoned amendment….

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to continue the point of

order, but the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) suggested

the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) was frivolous. I think that

is a bit much. As a matter of fact I think she probably has a point of

privilege, although if she doesn't care to raise it then I don't either.

What I was saying when I was asked to resume my seat earlier, before

this whole series of points of order designed to distract me put me off

my true course, which is to defeat this bill by way of this motion, if

I can possibly do it…. What I was suggesting is that what exists in

here is a sentiment that is anti-planning in the first place. Someone

said — I think it was you, Mr. Speaker — that the issue wasn't

municipal planning but regional planning. But if you have a bias

against planning it's against planning. The adjective really doesn't

matter. I think that anything that interferes with somebody's right to

do what they like with their land is resented by certain people,

regardless of the impact their decisions may have on their neighbours.

That is the issue here. That is the main issue here and perhaps it's

the only issue here. All this hogwash about autonomy and all the rest

of it is merely coverup for what really exists. In the minds of people

who think like 1825 Texas cattle barons, as in the old song from

Oklahoma: "There's land, lots of land and there's sunny skies above…."

Or is it starry? Depends on the time of day, I suppose. "Don't fence me

in…."

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Tilbury Island — land of hope and glory….

I think we've seen over the years a sequence, when both regional and

municipal planning have become more and more acceptable to more and

more people. As a matter of fact, in a complex, urban society such as

ours it is impossible to do without it. That really is the point of

issue there. Once upon a time a man, when there was land, lots of land

and a starry sky above, could do anything he wished with his land, and

it didn't bother his neighbours.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then the farmers came in.

MR. ROSE: Well, the cowman and the rancher can be friends.

But his home was his castle and certainly nobody should intrude on it

at all. Do anything you like with your land. You can build on it, you

can put an outhouse on it, you can put a tannery on it, you can put a

steel mill on it. Do anything you like, build on it, mine it, throw it

away, dig it up, put a gravel pit on it. Who cares what your neighbours

think of you?

We don't feel that way anymore. We have rules for orderly, urban

conduct and rules for orderly, interurban conduct. If we can't do that,

we have the kind of jungle that exists in unplanned areas like Hong

Kong or Houston, Texas, or many other places that are not very

desirable places to live.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry, I've never been to Belfast, so I

wouldn't know about where you came from. I haven't been there. I know

they throw a lot of rocks at one another there.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: How about Glasgow?

MR. ROSE: I've just been on the outskirts of Glasgow and it's very good. It's a wonderful place to come from, Mr. Speaker.

I'm trying to develop the argument that regional planning is merely

an extension — and, if you like, a restriction on freedom — of the kind

of rules we need to have in order to live in an orderly way in society.

Once upon a time there were only 33-foot or 65 x 120 lots. Why were

they that shape in the first place? Because everybody had to build his

house at the

[ Page 1833 ]

front so he could have the garden and the outhouse

at the back. That's why they're 65 x 120 feet. That's why the shape

exists. You could make them 65 x 120 feet and turn them on their side

and you'd have a much larger front yard but you'd have a lot of trouble

siting all those outhouses. That's why they're shaped the way they are

in North America. Another thing that was thought was that it would be a

good idea to have all the houses with the same set-back. Because we had

the same set-back and require it, that reduces a person's freedom on

their land. Because we have fires, and we had several severe fires,

including the fire in Vancouver — I wasn't quite around for that so I

don't remember it well — there is another intrusion on somebody's

rights, because you have to have a certain kind of side-yard. Then we

moved on from there and we decided it would be better to have all the

factories in one area of the community and have all the homes in

another part. So we got into zoning — various kinds of uses of the

land. We found that we should have certain areas that should be

commercial, industrial, agricultural and all down the line. There are

many refinements.

MR. MICHAEL: Parks.

MR. ROSE: We should have certain land that should be

parkland. We now accept these things, but when they were brought in

they were an intrusion on the personal freedoms of people to do what

they wished with their land. Now what we are saying — and what we have

said ever since 1967 — is that the individual municipal planning

involving the kinds of things that I have just described — commercial,

urban, parks and whatever — is not good enough. I partially represent

three municipalities and share them with my friend for

Mallardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks). What we have found out now is that

if you don't have some legal coordination among those three

municipalities, then what's to prevent one municipality from zoning a

beautiful residential area on their border and find the other

municipality ignoring that and putting a tannery or meat-packing plant

or chicken eviscerator or what-have-you right next door? There is

nothing to prevent that.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't in the government when we did

Panco Poultry. We are talking about regional planning and we are not

going to chicken out on that.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: We can talk about a lot of things that you did.

What did you do? Sell the ferries and buy them back? Are you going to

do the same with the B.C. Systems Corporation?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order. I don't know what

the member currently talking is speaking of. I am sure it has nothing

to do with the amendment — fowl comments like he is using have no place

in this debate.

MR. ROSE: I hope all these intrusions and comebacks don't

detract too much from my time. I am trying to make the point that you

cannot eliminate urban planning and have a civilized urban society. It

is just not possible. I think that the bill is based on some sort of

ideological cul-de-sac. It is inane and it is nonsense. Because I feel

that way so strongly, I would like to move that this House do now

adjourn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker reminds the member for Coquitlam-Moody of standing 44 and therefore declines to put the question.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that an

adjournment motion is always in order. The member gave a reason for the

adjournment motion. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I certainly can't

understand why it was turned down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker reminds the member for New

Westminster that he is not making a ruling; he is declining to take the

motion on standing order 44.

MR. COCKE: Under these circumstances we insist upon a ruling.

How can we have an orderly House? The Speaker, under standing order 9,

must supervise an orderly House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As the member for New Westminster is aware, it is the members that change the rules in the House, not the Speaker.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I would like to read it: "If

Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of a committee of the whole House shall be

of the opinion that a motion for the adjournment of a debate, or of the

House, during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress. or

do leave the chair, is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the

House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or

he may decline to propose the question to the House."

Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that in your opinion there has been an

abuse of the rules of the House under rule 44. You have so ruled, have

you not, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has not ruled.

[9:45]

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you have not ruled on whether

a point of order is in order or is not in order, could you suggest to

me how you can keep order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will make that point by reminding hon. members of standing order 20.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, by not putting the question to the

House, have you not ruled that there has been an abuse of the rules

under standing order 44?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Referring to standing order 44, hon. member.

the Chair has declined to accept the motion on the basis that it is an

abuse of the standing orders of the members. I have declined on the

basis of the standing orders made up by the members.

MR. LEA: Then, Mr. Speaker, I'd like you to satisfy me, as a

member, on one other point: What is the difference between pointing out

that rule 44 has been abused and ruling that rule 44 has? I don't think

you can say, through semantics, that you haven't ruled.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please repeat that?

MR. LEA: What you have plainly said, Mr. Speaker, is that you have the right, under rule 44, to make a decision as to

[ Page

1834 ]

whether there has been an abuse in the House by a certain member. Have you not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has declined to accept the motion on the strength of standing order 44.

MR. LEA: Okay, Mr. Speaker, I understand that. On what grounds have you declined?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Standing order 44.

MR. LEA: Yes, but on what grounds? You have ruled that there

has been an abuse, and I'm asking you what the abuse has been. Surely,

Mr. Speaker, the member has a right to know how he abused the rules.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the strength of the power vested in the Chair, the Chair declines to accept the motion on the basis of standing order 44.

MR. LEA: I understand that, but you must have made your mind

up on something, Mr. Speaker. You can't do it willy-nilly. If the

government House Leader made the same motion, would you accept it'?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member is now reminded by the Chair that he will either take his place in the debate or will take his chair.

MR. LEA: Could I ask you one thing first, Mr. Speaker? Would

you endeavour to bring back…? I'm honestly in a quandary here. I'm not

trying to obstruct you, but I would like to have some explanation from

the Chair, if not now, then at a later date, as to how you can rule

without ruling. Surely, Mr. Speaker, you must make up your mind whether

it's an infraction of standing order 44 based on something, or is it

just a whim? There has to be some rule.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) had been in the House last evening, then he would know

that what he is asking for is already underway: that is, that the Chair

has undertaken to bring to the House a digest of precisely the kind of

scene that he is trying to establish.

Furthermore, standing order 44 is binding upon the Chair. Whenever

the Chair is of the opinion that any abuse is not in the best interests

of the House, he may decline to put forward a motion which he considers

to be an abuse. That is an obligation of the Chair. To say that is a

ruling which is subject to challenge is absurd. If you take that same

rationale and apply it to standing order 3, I'll show you how absurd it

is, Mr. Speaker: "If at the hour of 6 o'clock p.m. on any Monday,

Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday the business of the day is not concluded

and no other hour has been agreed upon for the next sitting, the

Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 o'clock p.m." Following through

with the hon. member for Prince Rupert's logic, which means that the

standing order is subject to appeal to the House, how in the

ever-lovin' blue-eyed world shall we appeal the Speaker's decision

after he has left the chamber? I say it's absurd. These rules are here

for us to abide by, not subject to appeal, and therefore I commend you

for having made your observation, which is an observation that standing

order 44 shall persist in this case.

MR. LEA: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like the

Minister of Agriculture to withdraw the remark that I was trying to

cause a scene. It was in the Blues. Mr. Speaker, I am offended by that

remark and would like the minister to withdraw it.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is offended by a scene, yes, I withdraw. No problem.

MR. NICOLSON: Under standing order 44, I would draw to your

attention that this is the first time this evening that there has been

a recognized motion that this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker…. Well, Mr. Speaker can't listen to two people at once.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion on which there has been a

motion that the House do now adjourn. I would ask Mr. Speaker what his

opinion would have been had the House Leader — whoever the House Leader

may be on the government side — risen to move that the House do now

adjourn. This House has no fixed time for adjournment right now. It's

not 11 o'clock, it's not 10 o'clock necessarily, or 3 a.m., so how

could the very first instance of moving that the House do now adjourn

be an abuse? I would ask the Speaker to consider what his position

would have been had the government House Leader proposed the motion.

Would it then have been considered an abuse?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair does not respond to hypothetical

positions. The Chair reminds the member for Prince Rupert that he will

either speak or take his place, and the Chair will then look for

someone else to continue the debate.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has heard enough debate.

MR. NICOLSON: …on the point of order, I have never seen such

cavalier attitudes towards rules in this House, which I have taken some

pains to study. I have never seen such precedents set in this House by

such green members sitting in the chair when the Speaker, who is being

paid a good price to be in the chair, chooses to vacate it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member for Nelson-Creston please take his place.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my

part in

this debate at this time. I'm here to support the amendment of the

official opposition, which is that it is the opinion of this House that

cooperation between municipalities and regional districts is necessary

for orderly regional development. That is the motion which I wish to

address tonight. I find, however, that it is going to be an almost

fruitless discussion. I have been watching very carefully and listening

to the philosophy of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is in

charge of this bill. Why I say it is rather a hopeless debate is

because I'm afraid that minister has a pretty closed mind on the points

that we are trying to bring forward to him. We've been through this

debate in second reading, when we all spoke on it, and we apparently

didn't make any impression at all on the minister. We are now

attempting again to do so.

[ Page 1835 ]

My concern is that the Minister of Municipal Affairs approaches

every area of political discussion from a very primitive, base

philosophy. As I pointed out last night, he symbolizes a right-wing

radicalism that is being brought forward by the Social Credit

government today. I don't know why, because I know from conversations

with him that his background certainly would not tend to lead to that,

and he and I have discussed that on many other occasions in other

places. I do not wish to dwell on any personal discussions held between

one member and ministers at other meetings, but I do want to point out

that that minister seems to believe, as most of the new right seem to

believe, that if you turn the clock back about 50 or 60 years

everything is going to be marvellous again; life in the good old days

will return. But what we are trying to tell that minister is that we're

living in 1983. We are in a province that is growing despite the

policies of the Social Credit government and we need greatly increased

sophisticated planning, not decreased sophisticated planning.

I can't understand why we have to stand here and debate a ridiculous

bill that even repudiates the philosophy of the Social Credit

government led by W.A.C. Bennett, the former Premier. I want to remind

the House again that it was the former Social Credit government which

brought in regional districts. Why? They realized the province of

British Columbia was growing, it was no longer a little village and it

needed some coordinated planning. Here, with this ridiculous bill

presented to us by this minister, we are being asked to wipe out all

regional planning in this province, I don't think even the United

States, which has unfortunately moved back, under President Reagan, has

any such regressive legislation on planning.

That minister has lived in an area in the Fraser Valley, I believe,

where he's seen massive growth in the last ten years or so. How can he

possibly think that you can eliminate regional planning and still

provide a good living environment for the citizens who live in his

area? Just look at the explanatory notes of the bill. It is interesting

the two words that are used: "streamlining the development approval

process and strengthening the autonomy of municipal government." Isn't

that nice. I'm sure that most people who don't read the bill and just

hear the explanation given by the Social Credit members would say:

"Say, that sounds great. We are going to be…."

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. members please come to order and give the member giving the debate a chance to present her speech.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the simplistic

words in the explanatory notes of the bill, and I'd like to repeat

them. It talks about "streamlining the development approval process and

strengthening the autonomy of municipal government." As I said, I can

see the Social Credit members going back to their constituencies and

trying to use those basic, simplistic words, "streamlining" and "

strengthening autonomy," and people would say: "Say, that sounds pretty

good." But the interesting thing is that most of those glib phrases of

the Social Credit, when you really analyze them…. The tragedy is that

under that basic simplicity are some very dangerous, regressive moves.

[10:00]

I think the minister himself knows that there is hardly any group

that has been involved in planning in the province of British Columbia

that has said: "Hey, we're going to support your bill." As a matter of

fact, the minister knows that outside of some parochial councils who

see an opportunity to let large developers come in and assist them in

increased taxation powers…. They might be in agreement with him. But if

you honestly are concerned about the living environment of the people

of our province now and for the future, you would never, never present

such a bill to the House.

I think that it's time, once again-although I'm really not too

hopeful — to point out to the Minister of Municipal Affairs some of the

very serious concerns of the people of this province involved in

planning, who are saying to the minister: "Please do not remove

regional planning from this province." I pointed out that the minister

and the Social Credit members are trying to suggest that it will

strengthen local autonomy and that it will streamline development.

Let's analyze that. Let's look at what it really will be doing:

First, the minister is going to end up with more local land use

issues on his desk. We all know that the planning department of

Municipal Affairs is completely unable to take over and perform all

those regional planning tasks which the minister wants to wipe out.

Two, do you know what is going to happen if this bill passes? Costly

public investment mistakes will be made because there will be no shared

understanding of the amount and location of new development to be

expected.

Here is the Social Credit government again bringing in legislation

that is not only regressive, in all features, but is going to cost the

taxpayers of British Columbia more money, and you ask us to support

this legislation.

Another point is that in municipalities which do not have official community

plans. private risk will be increased because the rules governing development

can be changed. Inefficient urban development patterns will proliferate, leading

to additional public costs and taxes: additional taxes for the provision of

water. sewer, road and transit services. Can you imagine that? The people of

British Columbia are already overburdened by this government and it continues

to bring in legislation that is going to increase the costs on the individual

taxpayers of this province.

The minister can't answer this. The minister slides over all these

questions that have been posed to him, not just by the opposition but

by people who work every day in this business.

Then they point out — when I say "they," Mr. Speaker, I am referring

to the Lower Mainland Planning Review Panel — that the liveability of

communities will be lower because public services are not provided in a

coordinated way by the complex array of provincial, regional and

municipal agencies and public utilities responsible. It is pretty sad,

when you think of the logic and the rationality that has been applied

to the assessment of this act, not just from a partisan basis of the

official opposition. but from people who have been working at it all

their lives and yet are completely ignored by that minister and by the

Social Credit cabinet,

Some people have suggested that perhaps one of the basic reasons is

that developers across the province who now covet farmland are just

waiting quietly for this bill to be proclaimed. Woodward's is planning

a large shopping centre in Surrey, and they are expected to be the

first beneficiary. Somebody may say: "What's wrong with that?" The way

[ Page 1836 ]

were operating in the past, the different

municipalities in the lower mainland, for example, would get together

through the GVRD planning department, listen to the representatives'

plans and decide that there should not be a proliferation of shopping

centres in one area that might perhaps, and often does, have a very

major impact in transit problems, etc., with the community adjacent.

Surely that is obvious: you cannot live on an island by yourself

anymore in this province; you have to work together.

MR. STRACHAN: No man is an island.

MRS. DAILLY: No man is an island, and I thank very much the

member for Prince George, who is listening carefully to my words. I

just wish the Minister of Municipal Affairs was giving the same

attention. Is he listening? Perhaps he is. I always remember the first

speech I ever made here, years ago, Mr. Speaker. The former Premier

turned his back on me when I got up to speak, but somebody said: "Don't

worry, Eileen, he is really listening to you." I have had to try to

accept that, but as an old teacher, Mr. Speaker, I still feel like

saying: "Will you all please sit up in your seats and look at me." I

have been here long enough to know that I cannot expect that, and I

will accept that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in spite of the

fact that he is in deep conversation with the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. McClelland), is really listening most carefully to my words.

I really do believe that another scenario could develop — and this

has actually been suggested by a municipal politician — if this bill

passes. A huge portion of the province's property owners live within

regional districts — we well know that — and weakened regional

districts will make it easier for the province to load costs onto

property owners, without having to fight a strong regional district.

That would have been a great help when the province was trying to

saddle property owners with a whopping share of transit costs, an

intention the GVRD fought with at least some success. So you see,

another thing is going to happen, Mr. Speaker.

This GVRD, which is made up of some very strong local politicians

who meet — and I'm well aware of where they meet; they have for years

used the Burnaby municipal hall in my own area — with a common

approach, trying to create a common approach to regional planning, were

able, in a concerted voice, to protest to the provincial government

when the increase in transit costs was being imposed upon them. At

least they were together, and were strong and vocal.

So perhaps one has to ask: is this another reason that the Social

Credit government wants to disband and almost completely neuter the

full responsibilities and work of the GVRD? Is it perhaps because there

will no longer be a strong collective voice to fight their regressive

policies? We have to look at those concerns that might be considered

rather devious concerns of a government. We have to look in that area,

because if you look at it on a rational basis, there is no rhyme or

reason for such

an act to be presented to us.

Another thing that I think should be considered before passage of

this bill — hopefully it will be withdrawn — is the relationship of

public capital investment in our province. In the Greater Vancouver

Regional District, the combined capital investment programs have been

averaging about $100 million per year, even in a recession. So you can

imagine that if we ever get out of this recession, there would be a

considerable increase in the capital investment programs of

municipalities. That works out to about $95 per capita per year. And

remember that to this must be added the regional expenditures for

water, sewerage, transit, hospitals and housing, and also extensive

investments by the province in rapid transit, commuter rail, Annacis

crossing when it comes, etc. Also by the federal government, with their

harbour improvements, airport expansion, downtown office buildings. The

reason I'm mentioning these combined capital investments is because all

of these investments will be linked to the regional economy by

generating employment and providing development opportunities,

encouraging trade and so on.

In contrast, the total annual amount invested directly in regional

planning is in the order of only $1.3 million, which means $1.08 per

capita. Regional planning, therefore, offers the only comprehensive

means of rationalizing the impact and effectiveness of this public

investment, and relating it to the even longer private investment

taking place in the region. Even at minimal levels of performance,

regional planning should be able to produce a reduction in local

government investment of less than the 2 percent which would be

necessary to pay its annual costs. And they say the rest is gravy.

Mr. Speaker, regional planning should be able to meet the following criterion:

it should still be able to respect local autonomy. Yet that Minister of Municipal

Affairs says that he's bringing this in to bring about and restore local

autonomy. Mr. Speaker, there has been local autonomy. Local autonomy will continue

under regional districts. It always has. As for the ones who get concerned about

losing it, well, you really have to question what the concern is. It simply

means that the collective wisdom of the GVRD has had to supersede some rather

parochial, maybe selfish interests of one municipality.

Interjection.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[10:15]

MRS. DAILLY: All right, then, it has to respect local

autonomy, and it can. It must provide appropriate provincial input and

effectively address the wise conservation and use of the land base,

population growth and change, coordination of economic activities,

talking about what good regional planning should do, It should reduce

the impact of interregional and intermunicipal boundary anomalies. It

should perceive and act on interconnections among issues and agencies.

As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, in relation to interconnections and

intertransit facilities — it seems months ago, when we were on second

reading of this bill — as the representative of an area of North

Burnaby, which has become a traffic corridor for all of the surrounding

municipalities, the removal of overall planning would do a tremendous

disservice to my own municipality of Burnaby. If that happens, each

municipality surrounding my municipality…. I know my colleague from

Burnaby-Edmonds would be going through the same problem in South

Burnaby. Each of us is quite aware that the people of Burnaby will be

one of the first groups to suffer tremendously if this bill passes. It

means there will no longer be an opportunity to ensure that one

municipality does not suffer, perhaps because of the parochial interest

of another. Instead, particularly when it comes to transit, you cannot

allow a hodge-podge arrangement of municipalities that are not working

together to produce the desired results for all. My own district is

going to suffer very badly if this passes, and that is another reason

why

[ Page 1837 ]

I'm on my feet again in the debate. It has to be accountable to the affected residents.

I can say, in all fairness to the GVRD, that I attended a number of

meetings in my riding when they had decided to come, so that the public

in my riding would have an opportunity to meet with the officials of

the GVRD and have explained to them in detail some of the new regional

plans, particularly those to do with transit. That's why I cannot say

this GVRD has failed in its work. I do not understand why they are

being punished. I do not understand why the Social Credit government

has to take this regressive step. I have not yet found one positive

thing about this act which would improve the living conditions, the

life and the proper planning in the municipalities, particularly in the

lower mainland, Again I have to say, Mr. Speaker, the only ones I can

see benefiting from this would be some developers who may now get an

opportunity to move in on farmland. If we are being asked to pass a

bill, certainly from that point of view I would say shame on the Social

Credit government. Until that Minister of Municipal Affairs can tell

this Legislature why this bill is being passed…. I don't mean giving us

any simplistic terms again about streamlining and restoring local

government. We mean in detail. Until he can give us some proper

rationale for the passage of this bill, we have to presume that this

means that perhaps in the future we are going to find that only the

developers will be the beneficiaries of such a bill. That means the

Social Credit government is abrogating their responsibility to

represent all of the people of this province for the best interests of

all the people, and not for just a few.

This act has been of great concern to many people in this province.

It's not only the NDP that has raised some very basic concerns about

this bill. Editorials in very conservative papers, groups of people who

have not shown any particular adherence to any partisan politics, are

asking why the Social Credit government is trying to push in this bill

at this particular time. I know that the minister must be well aware

that at the UBCM, which he attended, a resolution was passed by, I

believe, 150 elected officials representing the larger regional

districts. I think I should put into the record again this resolution

that was passed on Thursday, September 15 — fairly recently. Let us

remember that this comes from the people who are working every day in

their local municipalities. They are elected locally, and they are the

ones who are worried about what is going to happen to their own

municipality.

The resolution says:

"Whereas the government of B.C. Introduced Bill 9,

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, in the Legislature on July 7, and

whereas this legislation would amend the Municipal Act by removing

regional planning as a function of regional districts and making

official settlement plans optional, and

whereas the present provisions

of the Municipal Act have permitted rural and resource communities to

establish effective means for planning of electoral areas and for the

solution of development problems in urban fringe areas, and

whereas the

same provisions have enabled communities in the lower mainland and

capital regions to coordinate their development in cooperation with

their neighbours in a cost-effective way with maximum local autonomy…"

If I can pause for a moment, I think they would

have to get "D" for their grammar, Mr. Speaker. I've never read such a

long sentence with no punctuation.

"…therefore

be it resolved that Bill 9, Municipal

Amendment Act, 1983, is unacceptable and inappropriate to the needs of British

Columbia's communities and that sections 2 to 6 of Bill 9 should be withdrawn

forthwith, and be it further resolved that the Minister of Municipal Affairs

be requested to meet with a special committee composed of regional district

directors on the UBCM executive and the table officers of the UBCM to determine

acceptable and appropriate ways of improving planning legislation."

This resolution was passed virtually unanimously.

"This resolution and a request for the above-mentioned

meetings was formally presented to the minister by the UBCM, Thursday,

September 22 this morning."

Mr. Speaker, I ask you: how can a Minister of Municipal Affairs ignore a resolution

like this? They are trying to point out to the minister again and again the

serious problems that are going to come if this bill is passed. Notice the terms

in which it is couched: it states their concerns very logically and simply.

But it also says that they would like to meet with the minister and talk with

him. That minister really has a responsibility to pay attention to all these

elected members from municipal councils. who are so vitally concerned about

this bill.

I cannot understand how any government can persist in passing bills

based on what appears to be a radical right philosophy which is not

going to benefit the people of British Columbia. From all we can see,

it is going to benefit some developers in this province who will be

able to move in on farmland — which is so precious to us — to build

houses. I challenge the minister to tell us any other valid reason for

the passing of this bill. We have not heard it. We intend to keep

discussing it. If the minister will not pay any attention to the

official opposition, we are hoping that he will at least pay attention

to the people out there who have been saying to him: "Stop it. Don't

pass it. Do you realize what you're really going to do to the living

conditions of people in this province?"

The Times-Colonist of Saturday, July 9, says:

"A bill introduced this week by rookie Municipal

Affairs Minister Bill Ritchie effectively abolishes regional planning

in British Columbia."

It goes on. I won't bore the House by explaining again what the bill does.

"Ritchie claims the move will 'streamline the development process and strengthen the autonomy....'"

Here we go again with those simplistic phrases.

"No doubt, but it will also turn the clock back 30

years to an era of uncoordinated growth, when municipalities did their

own thing regardless of the impact on neighbouring municipalities or

the region as a whole. The tangible results of that chaos are still

with us.

"It was the need for a better system that led to the

creation of regional districts in the 1960s, and to make one of their

prime functions the adoption and enforcement of regional plans. These

plans established the direction of growth and defined the services

needed to accommodate that growth. While the drafting and

implementation was often a painful, contentious and

[ Page 1838 ]

cumbersome process, especially in the greater Victoria area,

the concept itself was — and remains — sensible."

As I say, if the minister and the government do not want to listen

to the opposition, perhaps they will pay a bit of attention to some of

the comments made by some fairly conservative newspapers. One could go

on and on. I've got volumes of material here. Everyone has. And I

intend to go on with my volumes of material. I just wanted to see if

the minister was aware that I was still here and intending to read some

more.

"The official regional plan and the liveable regional strategy

could be merged into a metropolitan strategy. It would be directed towards growth

coordination and would be developed with the input of both the municipalities

and the provincial government."

What I'm reading now, Mr. Speaker, are some of the hopes and plans for

the future of the GVR District.

"It would not contain land use designations or

regulations. Urbanizing municipalities in the lower Fraser Valley would

become members of the GVRD for planning purposes. The removal of

provisions for regional land use regulation by the board may make this

more acceptable. This is one of the options which the technical

planning committee considers most workable. The metropolitan strategy

would require cabinet approval. Following this, it would be implemented

through a wide range of actions by GVRD and other organizations and

through intergovernmental cooperation. One of the GVRD's most important

implementation roles would be to advise the Minister of Municipal

Affairs as to the conformity of municipal official plans and their

amendments with the metropolitan strategy."

What they're trying to say here is that they are willing to talk

with the minister. There are a lot of future plans, but the base of

those plans must be the maintenance of an overall planning policy. The

problem is that if this bill passes, and if we go back 50 years to no

planning, you're not going to notice the effect tomorrow, as with so

many of the Social Credit policies. You're not going to notice it for

maybe even a year, Mr. Speaker. The problem is that those effects are

going to be felt. And when they do come, they are going to have lasting

effects on the liveability and the lives of the people of the lower

mainland, the greater Victoria area and the whole province. Because you

cannot survive in a world today where you allow everyone to do just

exactly what they feel like in their own municipalities with no concern

for anyone else. You know what we end up with, Mr. Speaker? We end up

with complete chaos.

[10:30]

I think the GVRD has been quite outspoken at times when they've felt

that the government's moves were wrong; they've taken them on, as

nicely as they can, but they've had to do it. Spetifore is a perfect

example of where we wonder if perhaps the GVRD is being punished

because they had the actual nerve to tell the provincial government, in

so many words, that what they were going to allow there was wrong. They

stood up to the provincial government, and what's happened? We have

Bill 9 in front of us, which completely tries to stomp on the GVRD. As

some people have described this bill, it's really stone-age thinking.

It appears like revenge: revenge against the Greater Vancouver Regional

District.

This editorial in the Times-Colonist goes on to say: "

Vengeance is indefensible. So is the new bill, unless it can be shown

that zoning and planning prevent sensible land use." Now there's a good

challenge to the minister.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I think you should explain to this House

how zoning and overall planning does prevent sensible land use. Because

if you want us to accept that bill, we have to accept that premise.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, can you confirm that in debate on a reasoned amendment the minister is free to participate?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would suggest that if the

hon. minister wishes to participate in the debate on the reasoned

amendment, he would have every right to do so.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that for the minister. You can get up and speak any time you want.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about how this

government seems determined to wipe out the GVRD and all regional

planning in British Columbia. I'm asked the minister, and I hope in his

reply he will explain to us how what he's asking us to do in this bill

will actually help the development of proper land use.

"Regional planning can be time-consuming and it does

prevent development in some places. However, the way the land is used

in one municipality affects its neighbours in the rest of the region."

I said the same thing a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, and now I'm trying to reinforce my own words with an editorial from the Times-Colonist of Saturday, July 9.

"The way the land is used in one municipality affects

its neighbours in the rest of the region, especially in urbanized

areas. Short of metro super-government, there has to be some mechanism

for reconciling these differences. If these amendments are passed, the

only regional planning in B.C. will be done in secrecy by the cabinet."

Mr. Speaker, I've attempted to bring out some of these points here

hoping that we can move the minister from his stone-age frame of mind

and get us back where we belong in planning for the future.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, that's all I have to say at this time, except my final

closing words. I would like to move adjournment of this debate until

the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to the motion, may I make

the following observation. On an earlier occasion, at the request of

the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Chair undertook to make a

statement in relation to standing order 44, which empowers the Chair in

certain circumstances either to put a motion forthwith or to decline

same. As it appears some hon. members were not present during

application of standing order 44 by the Chair, I will say, for the

assistance of members, pending a more formal statement, that the action

of the Chair in declining to put a motion is in

[ Page

1839 ]

fact the exercise of a power granted by the House to the Chair. This

clearly does not constitute a ruling from the Chair but is an

application of the rule. This is analogous, hon. members, to standing

order 45(a), which requires the Speaker to interrupt the proceedings

and put the question upon expiry of the time allocated for debate. The

mere fact that the rule is being applied by the Chair does not, of

itself, constitute a ruling which might be the subject matter of an

appeal.

However, it is the view of the Chair that the power of standing

order 44 should not be invoked unless the will of the House has been

already clearly expressed with respect to the motion sought to be moved

by an hon. member. In other words, the Chair, in relation to standing

order 44, is in the position of having to make an assessment and

exercise a judgment according to the particular time and circumstances.

Now, hon. members, in relation to the motion moved by the hon.

member, it is the opinion of the Chair that the motion at this time, in

view of the time lapse, etc. may in fact be put.

The question, hon. members, is adjournment of the House until the next sitting.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS 9

Macdonald

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Mitchell

Rose

NAYS 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. STUPICH: Usually when I get up to speak on things like

this there is a rush of people to get out of the House. I know the

government members have so many things to do in their offices that they

are anxious to get out.

[10:45]

Mr. Speaker, we have been debating Bill 9 for quite some time, if we add up

all the time that we have put into it in this session — at least we on this

side of the House have. And yet really when you look at the bill itself it doesn't

do much to keep the pulp mills going. It is all on one page, and when you read

the various sections on that page, all of the discussion has really been about

one small section,

section 5: "Elimination of regional plans and official

regional plans." That adds a section, there is some renumbering, some elimination,

reference to the commencement, and there is another item in

Section 1 about

which there has been little discussion. The concern of the opposition certainly

has been with respect to

section 5, which takes up only three lines of print

in Bill 9. But it is because of the content of that particular

section that

the reasoned amendment has been moved.

Cooperation between municipalities in regional districts, we

believe, is necessary for orderly regional development. Certainly there

are many examples all over the province of what has gone wrong when

there has not been orderly regional development, what has gone wrong

when there has not been cooperation between municipalities and regional

districts. Certainly the UBCM expressed a great deal of concern about

many of the bills that we are discussing in this session, but one of

them was Bill 9.

I had the good fortune to be able to attend a small part of that

convention. The minister was there as well and heard the concerns being

expressed about this bill. It didn't used to be the case that we got

very much support for our policies at UBCM conventions, but I would

hope that the minister makes a point of attending them regularly,

because certainly on the basis of the experience of the 1983

convention, the more such conventions he attends the more support the

NDP will get for the policies it advances. So I look forward to his

attending at least two or three more conventions as minister, and that

should be just about the end of that.

There were several reports presented at the annual convention this

year, on September 14 in Penticton. One of them was the annual report

of the president to the eightieth annual convention. It is quite an old

organization, Mr. Speaker; quite a reputable organization.

Democratically elected representatives were there from every part of

the province, many of them with a great deal of experience in municipal

government and in regional district government. Many of them have been

coming for years to these conventions, and together the experience of

these people, the experience that they brought to that convention, adds

up to quite a history of the development of the province of British

Columbia.

These are people who don't get much glory out of being elected to

municipal office or regional district office. A very good friend of

mine was a regional district director in the Nanaimo area for quite

some time and is now an alderman, and I know from the visits that I

have had in his home the times that he is telephoned, contacted by

people calling him at home to present their arguments as to why certain

changes should be made with respect to strictly municipal matters or

strictly regional district matters. I must say that while as MLAs we do

get bothered quite often — some of our constituents seem to have little

regard to the time of day or the day of the week or the time of the

year or anything else — people who work in the regional district field

or in the municipal field are given even less consideration than

members of the Legislature and Members of Parliament. I think it is

just because they are easier to get at, and because they are involved

strictly in local government and local government so often affects the

interests of individuals in ways that provincial and federal government

doesn't.

They really are under the gun; they are under a lot of pressure.

Because they are under such pressure we were encouraged to bring in the

Land Commission Act when we were government, as a way of relieving some

of those local government officials from having to deal with what we

thought was a provincial problem rather than a strictly local program.

One of the reports presented at that annual convention was the annual

report of the president. It is not a long report, six pages, but one of

the points he made reference to in his report was with respect to Bill

9. I would like to quote.

[ Page 1840 ]

He did refer to the Land Use Act that was introduced by a previous

minister in the previous administration — before the election, that is.

He also referred to Bill 9, which is before us now and about which we

have moved the reasoned amendment.

"However, Bill 9, introduced in July, makes a considerable

legislative change to the planning activities of regional districts, and therefore

relates to our Land Use Act discussions. The elimination of regional planning

capabilities of regional districts has been strongly opposed by UBCM spokesmen

in three meetings with the minister, and by individual regional districts as

well, particularly by those in metropolitan areas. In spite of the strong opposition

at three separate meetings, in spite of the representations by the individual

regional districts, especially from those in the metropolitan areas, the minister

seems to be ignoring all of that and is determined to proceed with this move

to remove from regional districts the authority that they have had, up to this

point in time, to plan."

That was the president's comment, included in his annual report.

The executive director reported to the same convention. His is a

much longer report and covers the ground much more thoroughly — 23

pages, dated September 14. Again a reference to Bill 9, and again I'd

like to read it into the record:

"This bill, which has had widespread discussion among

local governments, particularly regional districts, would eliminate all

regional plans and official regional plans, and leave regional

districts responsible only for the planning of settlement areas."

Almost the same, word for word.

"Numerous meetings have been held with the Minister of

Municipal Affairs by individuals and groups of regional districts,

objecting to this particular facet of Bill 9 and proposing alternate

suggestions."

It would seem they've been making these proposals

to deaf ears. The minister has been determined from the beginning not

to listen to any of the representations made to him, and to proceed

along the course of action upon which he has embarked, a course of

action which seems to be directed towards one particular problem that

the government has had. The very few members on the government side of

the House who have taken

part in this discussion that started some

three months ago have joined with us in calling it the Spetifore

amendment. It seems to be to deal with one problem. Yet in spite of all

the attempts by people to propose alternate suggestions that might have

found a way out of the government's dilemma without taking away from

regional districts the right to plan, nevertheless, there has been no

positive response from the minister.

Bill 9 also limits the necessity for widespread notification of

zoning bylaw amendments, a proposal that has been advocated by the UBCM

on several occasions. So there is something about the bill that they

support. They're not entirely negative. They are negative about the

fact that as an organization they have on three separate occasions

approached the minister, and he has listened not at all.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister says he listens to everybody.

Unfortunately, sometimes he listens with his mouth open and his ears

closed, because while he has responded to long-standing requests from

the UBCM, as I just pointed out in the report from the executive

director, he has ignored completely the alternate proposals that the

UBCM people have put to him with respect to the Spetifore problem and

concerns about planning. Ignored them completely; no positive response

to any of those alternate suggestions or to the concerns expressed by

regional district people about the heavy hand that the minister is….

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: There we have it. The minister says he listened

but their alternatives were not satisfactory. They weren't satisfactory

because — and I suggest this as the reason — they did not deal with the

Spetifore problem, and the legislation before us does.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister says it doesn't deal with the

Tilbury problem. Is this legislation to deal with the Tilbury problem,

Mr. Speaker? Will this have any bearing or effect on the Tilbury

problem? He mentioned another problem and said: "What's the

difference?" As I've said on previous occasions, if a mistake was made

in the past, that is certainly no excuse for bringing in legislation

now that will make it so much easier for municipalities to perpetuate

and expand upon any possible mistakes in the past. Surely that's the

wrong direction to go. Surely taking the planning authority away from

these municipalities is the wrong direction to go.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to respond to the minister, but I can't

quite catch all of his remarks. Up to this point he insists on speaking

from his seat rather than from his feet.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I think I won't comment on his accent, which is

one of those lowland Scottish accents. On one side of my family I come

from highland Scottish, and they look down on the lowlanders in every

sense of the word — Macmillan, from the highlands of Scotland. They do

look down on those lowlanders, and certainly in an instance like this I

think people much beyond the highland Scottish would look down on this

particular minister for bringing in….

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm tempted to respond but I won't, because right now I'm discussing a reasoned amendment to Bill 9.

Another communication from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, this

one addressed to myself from the executive director; but I would expect

that every MLA and possibly many other people got one as well. The

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) read into the record a

resolution passed at the UBCM convention. Another resolution was

passed, one that dealt with the same topic, and with other topics as

well. This was an extraordinary resolution presented by the UBCM

[ Page

1841 ]

executive, headed "Local Government's Place in the Recovery Strategy."

"Whereas seven bills were introduced on July 7 that

have a significant impact on the role and responsibility of municipal

and regional — i.e., local — government, namely: Bill 3, Public Sector

Restraint Act; Bill 7, Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983; Bill 9,

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983…."

That's the one before us this evening. Then it lists four others, but I'll stop with Bill 9.

"And

whereas the UBCM has stated its objection to a certain

aspects of these bills, and its total opposition to any bills being introduced

that provide for government by regulation…."

I'm going to skip some of the "whereases" since they don't have any bearing on Bill 9, and go down to a further "whereas":

"And

whereas the current consultative process between local

and provincial government no longer follows the established practice of meaningful

discussion…."

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that he listens. Apparently the

people talking to him don't believe he really is listening, because

this is an emergency resolution presented by the UBCM executive and

passed at the convention. I think I should read it again, because I'm

not sure I had the minister's ear.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister says he hears. I say he may hear, but he doesn't listen. I think he should listen to this emergency resolution:

"Whereas the current consultative process between local and provincial government no longer follows the established practice of meaningful discussion…"

The emphasis on meaningful is mine, but I'm sure that in passing

this resolution they had the same idea in mind. Sure, there is

discussion. Sure, the minister listens, but apparently, in the minds of

the people who are discussing with him, the minister is not hearing. He

may be listening, but he's not hearing.

[11:00]

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

To go on with the

whereas:

"…and has failed to provide a satisfactory resolution of local government concerns:

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the UBCM state its

position that our provincial government, in implementing restraint and

other actions needed for economic recovery, respect the following:"

This is a plea, Mr. Speaker; a plea to the minister that he listen, but a plea that apparently he hasn't heard.

" 1. That there be no further erosion of the autonomy and powers of local government."

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister is asking me whether

or not this was supported by Harry Rankin. I don't know. I wasn't there

when the vote was taken. I don't know how Harry Rankin voted. I don't

know whether he took any

part in this. I don't even know whether he's a

member of the UBCM executive. But I do know that if he is, he has no

more than one vote on that executive, and this resolution was proposed

by the UBCM executive and endorsed by the UBCM convention. I doubt that

Harry Rankin has the authority or the persuasive ability to convince

the UBCM convention to go in the direction he wants it to go, unless a

majority of the delegates at that convention really believe in what is

said in this resolution.

I'm not including all of the points. because some of them don't relate specifically to Bill 9. but there is another:

"4. That the full extent of the current legislation be revealed by making all relevant regulations public.

"5. That the knowledge and experience of local government

not be ignored by our provincial government, but be used through open and meaningful

consultation…."

Mr. Speaker, there again we have that word "meaningful," which to

me emphasizes my concern that while the minister has been prepared to meet with

people, has been prepared to listen to them, he has not heard them in any of

these consultations. They do keep using that word meaningful. Consultation is

of little use unless it is meaningful. The UBCM resolution expresses the concern

that in having consultation with the minister, there is no meaning to that consultation.

Going on with the resolution:

"…meaningful consultation in developing and providing

workable legislation that will enable local government to continue to

play an effective role in economic recovery."

They're simply asking for an opportunity to engage

in meaningful consultation. and the minister, while he is prepared to

meet with them, apparently is not prepared to engage in what all of the

people on the other side of the table consider to be meaningful

consultation.

There is another

article that the minister may or may not have seen. It is an

article in Country Life by Malcolm Turnbull.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister assures me that he gets Country Life . I'm not at all surprised that he gets it. Did he read it?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, I didn't.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker. the minister hasn't had an

opportunity to read it yet. I don’t intend to read the whole column,

but I do intend to read from it.

September 1983, "Bull's Eye," by Malcolm Tumbull. He has certainly

not always been a fr