Hansard -- Monday, August 22, 1977 -- Afternoon Sitting

1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st 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)

MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 4785 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Pharmacare expenditure. Mr. Stupich 4785 — 4785

Bilateral trade agreements. Mr. Wallace 4785 — 4785

Quesnel Green housing project. Mrs. Dailly 4786 — 4786

Surrey Dodge investigation. Mr. Cocke 4786 — 4786

Home insulation grants. Mr. Wallace 4787 — 4787

Municipal Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 42). Second reading.

Mr. Nicolson — 4788

Mr. Skelly — 4789

On the amendment.

Mr. Barrett — 4790

Mr. Barber — 4791

Mr. Nicolson — 4793

Mr. Wallace — 4795

Mr. Barnes — 4796

Mr. Kahl — 4797

Mr. Stupich — 4797

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4798

Mr. Lea — 4799

Mrs. Dailly — 4801

Division on the amendment— 4802

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4802

Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 84). Second reading

Mr. Wallace — 4803

Mr. Levi — 4808

Mr. Barber — 4812

Mr. Cocke — 4816

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human

Resources): Mr. Speaker, visiting with us today is a

constituent of mine, Miss Martha Mackenzie from

Surrey. and Mrs. Ina Watson from New Westminster,

both good friends, and also their relations from

Australia, David and Margaret Docherty from East

Victoria Park, Australia. I would ask the House to

make them welcome.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome

today my brother-in-law. John Ward, who is

accompanied by my favourite nephew, Jason Ward,

who will later have dinner with us if he is on time

tonight.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the House to join me in

welcoming a constituent of mine and a friend of the

hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm), Mr. Bruce Eriksen, vice-president of

Downtown Eastside Residents Association.

Oral questions.

PHARMACARE EXPENDITURES

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, on

Thursday I asked the Minister of Human Resources

some questions about spending in his department. He

gave me some reasons as to why he couldn't answer

different questions, but he didn't answer the question

I asked.

My question was with respect to vote 188

regarding Pharmacare. I understand that the budget

for three months would not be one-quarter of the

budget for the whole year. My question is: how much

was the budget for the first quarter and how much

was spent on the programme in the first quarter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker,

detailed information for this will be available through

public accounts. However, I did give a figure on

Thursday and I should correct that, because the

figure given would be a projection for the whole year

if it were to continue on the present basis. With the

number of applications coming in at the end of the

year unknown, due to the universal programme being

in effect, we just don't know what the final figure

might be. However, again, this information will be

available through public accounts.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure just

how that information is available through public

accounts. Public accounts have been charged with

looking at accounts for the fiscal year that ended

March 31, 1976, and to my knowledge have never

seen the details of quarterly reports. As a matter of

fact, there weren't any up to that time.

Mr. Speaker, there are two figures in the quarterly

reports. It shows what the expected expenditures

were in total for the whole year, it shows the total of

expected expenditures for, the, first quarter, and it

shows the expected revenue for the first quarter. But

with respect to the budgeted expenditures for the

first quarter, which are substantially less than a

quarter of the expenditures for the whole year, I

accept that. There must have been some figures that

went in to make up that total.

All I want to know is, with respect to the

minister's ministry, how much of the amount that

was budgeted to be spent in the first three months of

this year was made up of the Pharmacare programme.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will

take it as notice.

BILATERAL TRADE AGREEMENTS

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

would like to welcome back the Premier and ask him

a question with regard to the recent meeting of

provincial Premiers in New Brunswick and the subject

of trade with the United States, where a press report"

stated that Canada has much to gain from bilateral

trade negotiations with the United States.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker,

first of all I thank the member for welcoming me

back. The opportunity for provincial governments to

deal with their counterparts in the States has always

been an availability. In fact, if you read the latest

Senate report you'll find out there are many, many

negotiations that are concluded between provinces

and states.

It's important for provinces to deal directly where

they have a resource situation, or where they have a

product situation where they're dealing directly with

a logical market. I think probably the best example

would be Alberta's concern, and, of course, Alberta

was the province that brought this up at the

conference. We didn't get into specifics, but dealt

with it in a general way to reiterate the opportunity

that even now exists — that is, the ability' for

provinces to make agreements directly with their

counterparts in the United States.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask in a supplementary if

the Premier, or any of the other provinces, are, to be

taking initiatives with the federal government in order

[ Page 4786 ]

to expand this area of provincial jurisdiction? Since

the Premier is on record as having expressed concern

that the federal government is encroaching into

provincial jurisdiction, can the Premier of British

Columbia tell the House whether he is embarking on

any initiatives to expand this area of provincial

jurisdiction and trade agreements with the United

States?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker. Just to

make it more workable we now conclude agreements,

but when it becomes a treaty or a negotiation, you

must always have the third party, or government" of

Canada, on the agreement. I'd suggest the recent

agreement we made with Alaska on the Haines road

to allow transport through British Columbia — and

the Yukon was involved through to Alaska from the

panhandle — is an example of where a province and a

state can make a beneficial and useful agreement. It

always comes under the auspices of Foreign Affairs

for the two countries, but the province must have the

opportunity to do the type of negotiation, and hold

the, discussions that are necessary. This is particularly

so in Canada, where the province has so many areas

that would be involved under our own jurisdiction,

resources being number one.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary relates to

the Premier's emphasis on resources. Could I ask the

Premier if he in fact put forth a proposal at the

conference that federal funds be used directly by the

provinces for primary resource development?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the province

did have a paper that said that the federal moneys

available through the DREE programme are restricted

now to just certain types of development, and that is

manufacturing per se. These are very narrow

definitions, yet there is a possibility that resources

and other areas of development within a province

should receive that same, opportunity for federal

funding. That was just one of the areas alluded to in a

paper we presented to the conference on natural

resources. I will table that paper in the House today

or tomorrow, hon. member.

QUESNEL GREEN HOUSING PROJECT

MRS. R.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Housing in

relation to the Quesnel Green housing project in

North Burnaby. Now that the minister's housing

policies have proven to be absolutely inept, and have

created complete bungling in North Burnaby-at a cost

to the taxpayer of over $100,000 a month in interest

charges, I would, like to, ask the minister.... Now

that he has decided to' do another switch and turn

Quesnel Green-into rentals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MRS. DAILLY: This

preamble is absolutely

necessary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member,

you're reading into the question a lot of conclusions

which are not in order in question period. If you wish

the question to stand, I'd suggest that you rephrase

the question so that it does, in fact, state a question

to the minister and not draw conclusions during the

statement of your question.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My

question is to the Minister of Housing re the

about-face on the Quesnel Green project. Now that

it's going to be turned into rentals, and no longer

condominiums, would he please tell the House... ? I

particularly, as the MLA for that riding, would like to

know what to tell the constituents — all 18 of them who

bought into that project in good faith thinking

that they would be buying into condominiums, and

are now finding that it's been turned into rental. ...

Would he please tell us how he is going to handle

their contracts?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs

and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I t,hank the member for

her kind words of support and take the question as

notice.

SURREY DODGE INVESTIGATION

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr.

Speaker, I'll ask a question to the Minister of

Finance. Is the minister prepared today to see that

nothing is hidden in the Surrey Dodge case, and will

he give assurance to the House that the sales tax

voucher for the famous Mustang will be made

available to the public accounts committee

tomorrow? I just want to remind him, Mr. Speaker,

that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

assured the House that nothing would be hidden from

the public accounts committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As I recall, the

hon. member asked the same question the day before,

and the minister gave an answer to that particular

proposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister dodged

around some legislation and gave no specific answer.

Public accounts is tomorrow morning, so there's no

question period between now and then.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister did give an

[ Page 4787 ]

answer to your question, hon. member. It may not

have been acceptable, but there was....

MR. COCKE: Does the Minister of Finance need

the Speaker to intercede on his behalf?

MR. SPEAKER: Not at all, hon. member, I'm just

drawing your attention to the facts in this situation

which has already taken place in this House.

MR. COCKE: Will he answer the question?

MR. LEA: He never answered that question.

MR. COCKE: Is he going to hide behind the

legislation?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): I took

it as notice.

HOME INSULATION GRANTS

MR WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this follows an answer

from the Minister of Finance the other day directing

me to the Minister of Energy, Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) with regard to the

federal-provincial programme to provide grants for

the insulation of homes.

When the programme was announced in June, the

federal government stipulated certain conditions

which participating provinces would have to meet.

The minister was reported as stating: "The strings

either will be eliminated through negotiation or we

will have to live with them." Since constituents

seeking to insulate their homes are having difficulty

obtaining the necessary information, could the

minister tell the House if the provincial government

has either negotiated changes in the federal

conditions, or is it prepared to live with them? Will

the programme be commencing on September 1, as

proposed by the federal government?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport

and Communications): The federal government has

attached a number of conditions to the grant which it

will be making to individuals in various provinces;

some of those conditions have been relaxed. In any

case, I'm informed that British Columbia qualifies for

these grants. Individuals, I believe, will have to watch

the daily newspapers and make application to the

federal authorities through forms published in the

daily newspapers. We have submitted all along that it

would be more convenient to British Columbians and

administratively more effective to have the federal

government grant moneys co-ordinated through a

provincial programme, which also made loans available

through B.C. Hydro. So far, Ottawa has been adamant

and continues to insist on its own programme, beginning on September 1. British Columbians qualify

for that programme.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental to the minister,

Mr. Speaker. Since this whole matter of

encroachment into provincial rights was raised, did

the provincial government ask the federal government

to forgo its original insistence on the removal of

provincial sales tax on insulation materials, since the

provincial government quite correctly considered that

this was an encroachment into the rights of the

province to impose their own system of

provincial taxation? What was the response

of the federal government. if that matter was

raised?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the question of

the removal of the provincial sales tax is still under

review. In all other respects, British Columbia has

been ahead of the game and happens to have

qualified. For example, one of the conditions

attached to the federal loan was a 55-mile-an-hour

speed limit on provincial highways. That's one of the

reasons why the province of Alberta has rejected it.

British Columbia happens to have already instituted

that measure. Again, I'll repeat: we do qualify for the

loans.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I make it

unmistakably clear? I'm trying to find out if the

provincial government will remove the provincial sales

tax on insulation materials, but the minister has

stated that we're accepted in the federal programme.

Does that mean that even if we retain the

provincial sales tax on insulation materials,

B.C. residents win still qualify for the federal

grant?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the federal

condition really was that the provinces consider the

removal of the sales tax. It is still a matter of policy

and it is being considered.

Orders of the day.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr.

Speaker, the Whip for the official opposition and the

members of the other opposition parties were advised

this morning of a list of business this afternoon. We

were to proceed with the adjourned second reading of

Bill 84; however, the hon. Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is delayed in

his flight from Cranbrook. We will return to that as

Soon as he arrives. I would ask the members if they

would agree to proceed to adjourned second reading

debate on Bill 42.

[ Page 4788 ]

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr.

Speaker, we were discussing Bill 42, a bill which gives

to the minister unusual powers, and many other

people, besides members in this Legislature, are very

concerned about it. I see that since the debate took

place, the points mentioned by the second member

for Victoria (Mr. Barber) have been taken to heart by

the Vancouver Province . In an editorial of August 11,

"Super-Mayor Curtis," they say this:

"Mistrust of local governments must come

with the job of B.C.'s Municipal Affairs

minister. When he was an opposition MLA and

former municipal politician, Hugh Curtis spent

a lot of time championing the rights of local

government, attacking the NDP government for

its mistrust of municipalities" — or at least its

alleged mistrust or his imagined mistrust "

and its inability to work with them. Now Mr.

Curtis is the Municipal Affairs minister and the

o p position is accusing him of running

roughshod over local autonomy and setting

himself up as super-mayor."

Mr. Speaker, added 10 the fairly high profile

municipal leaders in this province who are not

intimidated by this government and who are willing

to speak out, such as the mayor of Prince George and

the chairman of the Capital Regional District, has

been the mayor of the City of Vancouver.

In another

article of the same date, August 11,

1977, The Vancouver Sun, Mayor Volrich raps Bill 42

as intrusion.

"'The controversial

section of Bill 42 is a

serious intrusion into local government

autonomy,' Mayor Jack Volrich said

Wednesday. Volrich was referring to a

section

of the bill which would amend the Municipal

Act, in which the Minister of Municipal Affairs

would be allowed to overrule local councils on

planning and zoning changes. It is currently

being debated in the Legislature."

If anyone else had brought in such amendments, it

would perhaps have been a little bit less surprising

than one who has been so vocal about the rights of

municipalities.

Another point which I don't think has been

properly amplified, but again which is so typical of

the bill, is another

section in the bill which will be

allowing the minister to appoint boards of variance. It

will no longer be done by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It's also rather

reasonable to assume that boards of variance, as long

as they are required, will be appointed by the

minister, probably. There will be less obligation upon

the Crown to publish the order and thus publish the

names, revealing to the public and to the press the

names of the persons so appointed.

I suppose that the supermayor may, if he deems it

advisable, decide to put out a press release on the

names of people appointed to a board of variance.

But this again will present another opportunity to

sort of suppress information and withhold from the

press, who normally review all orders-in-council, the

names of persons so appointed. It also, of course,

would take away from cabinet colleagues the

opportunity of having some input into the person

appointed.

I know that boards of variances are quite often

appointed with a certain amount of input from the

local municipalities, and then these things are ratified.

Also some nominees are put forward from the

minister's office, usually sometimes in

consultation with people in the area. In fact, it would

mean now that possibly the local municipalities will

even have no voice whatever in recommending who

would be so appointed. So this again is used in

addition to the other sections of the bill, and is very

indicative of the type of power which the minister is

trying to take unto himself.

There is also a neat little

section in the bill, Mr.

Speaker, that might be worthy of a total piece of

legislation in itself. It's thrown into this kind of

omnibus thing and I'm afraid it's not being done

justice as it's being missed. It's very important to

rural MLAs, as it provides a new form of local

government. Small towns that are unincorporated and

small unincorporated villages, such as Riondel or

Ymir in my area, face the possibility of being enticed

into a type of local government. One of the sad things

about this piece of legislation is that it is going to get

passed or not get passed and there will be no

opportunity for debate about this unique type of

government.

This could mean that areas that are

unincorporated — small communities that have a

geographical identity, such as areas like Ymir, or

Riondel in my riding, which is a fairly organized grid

of streets and roads and shares; it has a water system

and so on.... There is an opportunity in this Act for

such local communities to elect a form of government

by community commission. They can be elected. So

we are going to have another level of government

which would fall below what is presently the village

municipality.

This could be a very positive thing. What I object

to in this bill — I would also worry about it to some

extent — is that it would provide for community

commissions, consisting of three commissioners

elected for three-year terms at the time of annual

elections for municipalities and regional districts. It

would also provide for an ex-officio member

appointed under another paragraph.

This, is the beginning of a real mini-council for

small — to this point, unorganized — municipalities.

[ Page 4789 ]

In fact, the area in which my home is, up in the

Duhamel Fan area, has become a fairly heavily

populated area. We have the Duhamel waterworks

system which serves about 100 homes in the area.

This could be.... So just within one riding, such as

my own, I could imagine places like Kitchener, Ymir,

Riondel, and perhaps many others, becoming

organized under this.

Now here we have a very innovative type of thing

which really is the first departure in terms of local

government since the creation of the concept of

regional districts, and yet it is submerged in this bill

in which the minister is taking to himself

extraordinary powers. These are such extraordinary

powers as to bring about the public censure of the

mayor of Vancouver, the mayor of Prince George, the

chairman of the Capital Regional Board, and also, of

course, many others who haven't perhaps become

publicized in their opposition and concern about this

bill. I think it is most regrettable that a new concept

such as this was not tabled in this session and held

over for some time so that people could have an

opportunity to discuss it and express their concerns

as to whether or not they really want this. Of course,

the people can elect to have some of this type of

representation, but I wouldn't pretend to stand up in

this House and say that the people of Ymir are for or

against such a type of representation.

I would point out that: "The total cost of all

works, services and debt charges undertaken for and

on behalf of the local community in any year shall

not exceed the product of 15 mills on the assessed

value of land and improvements in the regional

district taxable for school purposes, excluding

property taxable for school purposes only by special

Act." Well, Mr. Speaker, that could become a very

large sum of money because another piece of

legislation in this House is going to take effect.

Assessed values are going to increase or change quite

considerably. This is an area of this legislation which I

think is being totally submerged. I think it's very

dangerous that in this debate, in which the main

issues are the erosion of freedoms and the erosion of

the concept of responsible government at the

municipal level, among all this bad news is something

which mayor may not be positive, but is certainly an

innovative step, and could provide a vehicle for

communities providing things like sewer systems,

water systems, street lighting, garbage collection,

garbage disposal and fire protection which could

reduce fire insurance premiums in areas. I feel that

the time is right for this, and that it should certainly

be discussed and publicized, but that this concept

should be tied to the other parts of this legislation.

I'll have no hesitation in voting against the bill,

because of the other aspects of this bill, but I think

it's important to point out that there is an interesting

section in this bill,

section 21. It takes a better part of

two pages, maybe a few other little parts sprinkled

throughout, but it's going unnoticed. It is a

section

under which little areas.... Well, the concept of

district municipalities has taken over a great deal of

areas. Under such a thing as this, had there not been a

huge municipality — for instance, Maple Ridge created,

it would have meant that an area the size of

Hammond might have fitted into this category, at one

time, and been appropriate for such a designation.

In order to try to bring it closer to people in this

area, I don't know if Sooke is an organized village

municipality, but if it isn't, then it would fit this

description. It could very well mean that the vehicle

is here where the people of Sooke can now pay

another 15 mills of tax, because certainly Sooke is an

identifiable little community, and could very easily

fit these terms. So this discussion is not taking place

because the bill has combined two concepts, one of

which is a statement of loss of faith in duly elected

municipal officials; the other saying that what we

need, really, are more municipally elected officials, a

new concept, a little commission, and some taxing

authority over a local area, so that places like Sooke

and Riondel and others will be able to form an

appropriately sized, municipal type of government.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I'm reluctant to

enter into any long debate on Bill 42 at this point,

because I feel that inadequate opportunity has been

afforded members to examine some of the

information that has gone into the drafting of this

bill. Mr. Speaker, I particularly refer to the transcripts

of the Bawlf committee report, which the minister

has, since February 23, 1977, offered to table in the

House. At that time, he took under advisement

whether or not he should table the Bawlf report; he's

offered various answers since then as to why it hasn't

been tabled.

More recently, we understand that some

recommendations of groups which were invited to

secret sessions of this secret committee — even

though Hansard transcribed those sessions; and even

though the committee was paid for out of public

funds — have gone into this amendment to the

Municipal Act. Even though the transcripts were paid

for out of public funds and the information should be

available to this House prior to discussing Bill 42, that

information hasn't been made available to the House,

Mr. Speaker.

Therefore, we're inadequately provided with

information to debate the bill. We don't know

exactly what informational inputs have been made

available to the minister while he was drafting it. He's

had the question before him for seven months now

and surely, before we complete debate on this bill, we

should have an opportunity to look at the transcripts

of the Bawlf committee and to compare it to the

report and to the amendments to the Municipal Act

[ Page 4790 ]

that are now before us.

The Union of RC. Municipalities says that

previous speakers are also concerned about some

aspects of this bill. The Regional District of Nanaimo

is concerned about the local council provisions that

would affect some of the unorganized areas, such as

in the Regional District of Nanaimo now. They'd like

a full opportunity to debate those provisions at the

UBCM convention in September. In fact, the

chairman of the Regional District of Nanaimo has

asked for a wide-ranging debate on the changes to the

Municipal Act before they are passed in the

Legislature. I think that the minister should respond

to that opportunity provided by Mr. Smith, the

chairman of the Regional District of Nanaimo, by

allowing a debate of municipal 'officers and officials

on this bill before it is, in fact, passed by the House.

We have expressed other concerns in debate on

these amendments, Mr. Speaker, particularly on

section 28, which gives the minister sweeping almost

totalitarian — powers to change legislation or

to change bylaws passed by local governments. We

would like some debate from local governments fairly

wide-ranging debate — in their convention,

before an opportunity is provided to the House to

pass this bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

move the following motion: that the word "now" be

struck out and the words "six months hence" be

added.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this would provide

adequate opportunity for local governments to enter

into a debate on this bill at their convention. It would

also provide adequate opportunity for the minister to

table the transcripts of the Bawlf committee, so that

all members of this House will have an opportunity to

study the inputs that went into the Bawlf committee

report; to compare it to the report itself (I'm sure the

minister wouldn't be embarrassed by the

comparison); and, further, to compare the transcripts

and the Bawlf report with the bill that's before us

now.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, speaking to your

amendment to the motion: in its present form, it is

unacceptable in that there are certain things within a

motion to amend that must be included. Your

motion reads that the word "now" be struck out and

the words "six months hence" be added. It doesn't

refer to the bill that's before the House. It in no way

identifies what you're trying to amend. May I suggest

that I will just give you an opportunity to amend the

wording, so that you refer to' "the Bill 42, Municipal

Amendment Act, 1977, be amended by the

words...." It might be more correct to say that "the

word 'now' be struck out and the words 'six

months hence' be substituted therefor" instead of

"be added.". Would you like to make those

corrections? I'm prepared to listen to debate on the

amendment but I think the amendment should be

made in a corrected form.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

understand that the motion is being rewritten and

we'll have it presented to you in a few seconds.

On the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief

on the amendment. I just want to say that I think the

arguments that have been made in the House are

appropriate in reply to the amendments so there is no

use repeating them. I just want to stress the fact that

there is some concern in the community. All being

well, the minister intends to use the powers in this

bill very judiciously, but the minister may not be

around forever.

What we're asking him to do is draft or approve

legislation based on people's personality rather than

the rule of law. There is a danger in that and I won't

make any comment about other legislation that we'll

be debating that also affects the rule of law. But the

point is, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing here with a

fundamental responsibility of democratic rights at the

local level. The minister himself made many speeches

in the House about defending local government's

right to make democratic decisions.

It seems to me that a six-month hoist on this bill

would allow the minister the opportunity to explain

to the critics of all political parties throughout this

province who are involved in municipal responsibility,

exactly when and how he intend to use this

discretionary power and. what access, if any, there is

for these municipalities to appeal the minister's

decision.

Mr. Speaker — again very briefly — the minister is

asking for dictatorial powers. He will be the virtual

dictator under this bill to make absolute decisions,

regardless of what a municipal council feels about it.

In the final analysis this minister is asking the

municipalities and the taxpayers of this province to

give him dictatorial powers to make absolute

decisions.

I must say that had this been the NDP, there

would have been headlines in the Sun , The Province ,

The Daily Colonist , and the Victoria Times . It would

have been the subject of weekly columns by Social

Credit MLAs that they are losing their freedoms and

the big bad NDP government is taking away local freedoms. But in this instance it is the Social Credit

government and this minister who are taking away

the right of municipalities to have the authority that

they are elected to hold. There's no justification for it

politically or in law, and the six months' hoist that the member is proposing is valid, in my opinion, to allow the minister to answer those criticisms from people about this use of power.

[ Page 4791 ]

The minister would not stand for this had the NDP

brought this legislation in — which we never did — but

he's bringing it in himself. I think it's a mistake.

It's the height of arrogance and, frankly, it's

contemptuous of the whole democratic process to

say: "No matter what you decide at the municipal

level I, the minister, will. take unto myself the power

to make ultimate decisions about what's going on in

your community, and I don't give a fig for municipal

elections. If I want to interfere I now have the power

to interfere." Hardly the great freedom-fighting

Social Credit position of saying: "Let the people have

their way." It's just another added ironic touch of

hypocrisy by this government. A little bit disgusting

but not so disappointing any more; we're used to it.

I think it would be a good step if the minister

would say: "Okay, we'll wait for six months and get

some input from local people on a democratic basis,"

rather than making absolute decisions by himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before I recognize

anyone else in this debate, I would like to observe

that I now have the corrected amendment before me.

It is moved by the hon. member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly), seconded by the hon. Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett), that the motion that Bill

42, Municipal Amendment Act, 1977, "be read a

second time now," be amended by deleting the word

"now" and substituting "six months hence."

In that form it is a correct amendment and the

debate must be confined only to the matter of

reasons for hoisting the bill for six months.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): On behalf of all of

my colleagues in the New Democratic Party I would

like to thank you for your courtesy in allowing the

corrections to the amendment as it stands. It's very

helpful and we appreciate that.

As the minister will be aware, the Union of B.C.

Municipalities convention is coming up in the third

week of September. As the House is becoming

aware, and hopefully soon the people of British

Columbia, one particular

section of Bill 42 is

increasingly offensive to local government. In a few

moments I will be reading into the record a resolution

that appears in the book recently issued by the

UBCM for its convention attacking very clearly and

very powerfully

section 28 of Bill 42.

We're asking for six months, Mr. Speaker, because

we think this government needs it. We think that it is

to their advantage to decline to push this bill through

right now, and instead to go to the UBCM and layout

their position carefully and to ask for criticism and

debate from the whole convention.

We think it's to the advantage of this minister to

test his position before the local government of which

he was once a champion. We think it's to their

advantage to go to the convention, taking advantage today of the six-mouth hoist being offered by the

opposition, and ask whether or not the job that they

wish to be done can really be done by this particular

section.

I'd like to point out again, Mr. Speaker, that

section 28 of Bill 42, the subject particularly of this

hoist, creates a brand new

section in the Municipal

Act. The Act presently ends at

section 878.

Amending

section 28 amends no

section in the Act

that was there before — it creates a brand new

section

879. No previous power is being amended by this

section to which we take such offence. It is a brand

new power. The closest equivalent that came before

lies in the hands of the Supreme Court of British

Columbia. Prior to this minister and this coalition,

only the Supreme Court of B.C. had the authority to

challenge and to quash municipal bylaws. Now the

minister proposes that he alone, personally, have that

power. It's a brand new

section of the Act, a brand

new power, and something that offends us very

deeply.

To the best of our information, Mr. Speaker, no

other province in Canada has a Minister of Municipal

Affairs with this power. In the three other instances

that the minister has cited — the provinces of

Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan — once again

having reviewed the notes we have received, I am

informed that in none of those provinces do any of

their corresponding Ministers of Municipal Affairs

have this personal power.

To the contrary, in two of the three of those

provinces there are, so to speak, municipal boards

that act as buffers, that have a balance of power, and

that themselves are not composed of people whose

interests are fundamentally partisan. No other

Minister of Municipal Affairs personally has the

power that this minister wishes. We are asking for a

six-month hoist because we think his request in this

bill should be tested at the Union of B.C.

Municipalities convention and should be tested at

local and regional governments throughout this

province.

It is a power unique in Canada. It's a power

absolutely unprecedented in this province. It's a

power that betrays utterly the feigned promises in

favour of liberty and freedom made by that coalition

when they were in opposition. It's a promise which

we don't think anyone is going to believe now that

they've seen

section 28 of Bill 42.

I'd like to point out as well, Mr. Speaker, that it is

unlikely in the extreme that any mayor of any

municipality would come to the minister and say to

him: "By the way, Hugh, the bylaw that we pushed

through last week is really not very good and we

would like you to overturn it." It's extremely

unlikely that the chairman of any regional district

would come forward and say: "Mr. Minister, by the

way, the regional plan we adopted last month isn't

[ Page 4792 ]

any good and we would like you to rewrite it." The

only people who will take advantage of this new

power are developers. Only developers who have

failed to persuade local councils to do their bidding

can benefit from a new law where the Minister of

Municipal Affairs can do it for them.

They are the only party in the province that stands

to benefit from this law. It is totally unlikely that any

municipal council will go forward and ask that their

bylaws be rewritten, or any regional district ask that

their official plan be redrafted. Only those people

who have failed to persuade a municipal council to do

what they want them to do stand to benefit from a

law where the minister can do it for them.

I should like to point out again that another

reason in favour of this hoist is that the minister

might want to reconsider redrafting the

section to

allow for a public hearing. At the moment there is no

provision whatever for public debate, for public

information-gathering, or for public hearing in any

form at all, under the aegis of this new power that the

minister wants to have. There is no provision for

public hearing or public debate, and indeed, Mr.

Speaker, there is not even a provision that the

minister's decision be published in The British

Columbia Gazette . He can decide it in his own office,

he can write a private letter, and only when it later

gets down to the local municipal level — if they

should choose to publicize it — will it ever become a

matter of public record.

There is no requirement in this bill that the

minister make his decision the part of any public

record in the province whatsoever. Not only do we

take offence that, first of all, he wants a power that

personally no other minister in this province has ever

had; that secondly, the only people who stand to

benefit from that power are developers and their

friends, largely members of the governing party; but

that thirdly, there is no provision for a public hearing,

a public statement in the Gazette , or any other form of the minister's decision. We think he should take six

months and think it over again.

In our view, Mr. Speaker, no local government, ever

requested that this minister adopt this power. We can

find no record anywhere of any local government in

the province recommending that this minister have

that power. To the contrary, it appears to be

something that he made up himself. We are utterly

unaware of any request from any legitimate source — except

the minister's own desire for power — to have

this

section enacted. We think he should take another

six months and think that over as well.

In the view of the New Democratic Party, this bill

is an attack on local freedoms and autonomy and

integrity. This

section is a specific attack on the

integrity and the autonomy and the liberty of local

government in this province. It is absolutely offensive

to the theory of local accountability that any

minister — theirs or ours — should have this kind of

power.

I mentioned before that within local government

in the province the tide is now rising against this bill.

One measure of that rising tide is Resolution 15 that

appears on page 13 of this year's resolutions in front

of the UBCM. I received a copy a few hours ago and,

if I might, I will read it into the record. I'm

absolutely delighted that not only the mayor of

Prince George, the mayor of Vancouver, and the

chairman of the Capital Regional District have

attacked in the most powerful language this arbitrary,

sweeping attack on freedom that the minister

proposes, but also council of Burnaby in this motion

has attacked the same decision as well.

Their proposal to the UBCM reads:

"Whereas

section 28 to Bill 42, Municipal

and then it goes on to read the section, and I won't

bother -

"And

whereas, this proposed addition to the

Municipal Act will authorize the Minister of

Municipal Affairs to alter: 1) official

community plans of municipalities; 2)

municipal zoning bylaws; 3) municipal

subdivision of land bylaws; 4) official regional

plans of regional districts; 5) official settlement

plans of regional districts; 6) the bylaws of

regional districts exercising certain powers with

respect to that area of the regional district not

contained within a city, district, town, or

village;

"And

whereas this proposed addition to the

Municipal Act will infringe on the jurisdiction

of municipal councils and regional boards

democratically elected by the electors of

municipalities and regional districts;

"And

whereas the public interest is better

served by decisions made at the local level

because the general public has easier access to

these elected representatives;

"And

whereas elected representatives at the

municipal and regional district level are closer

to and more familiar with local situations and

must answer to the electorate at election time;

"Therefore

be it resolved that the Union of

British Columbia Municipalities petition the

provincial government to delete

section 28 of

Bill 42, Municipal Amendment Act, 1977."

We congratulate the council that has had the guts

to stand up to this coalition to tell them it is a bad

bill and a dangerous section. We congratulate the

council that is standing up for freedom and

autonomy and integrity at the level of local

government in this province.

Once again, we criticize in the strongest possible

terms any minister who would dare to usurp such

powers and any minister who would dare to subvert

[ Page 4793 ]

to make these

decisions and to be held accountable for them. We

have no idea why any minister would want to get

himself into such a hot spot. We have no idea what

would guide any minister to take power that no other

minister in this province has ever held before. We

have no idea how he justifies putting himself into a

situation where only developers, speculators and their

Sacred friends will benefit from such new powers.

But that's what he seems to want to do. Hopefully his

wiser colleagues in cabinet — hopefully the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair)

and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) might

prevail and persuade him to remove this

section

before it gets him into the trouble which inevitably

he's destined to get into.

This is a bad section. It is dangerous. It is an

assault on freedom at the local government level. We

think the minister should allow this to be debated at

the Union of B.C. Municipalities. We think the

government would be well advised to accept a

six-month hoist.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I feel that this

amendment is a very appropriate one on a bill such as

this. Here it is summer, and I guess a lot of people

think at this time of year about the PNE and such

things as our traditional fall fairs coming up. Yet we

have before us a very, very important piece of

legislation. We have ahead of us, in addition to these

things, the UBCM annual convention. I think the

minister should have the benefit of the advice which

I'm sure he is going to receive when he appears at that

convention.

I've said a little bit earlier that I thought it rather

unfortunate that

section 21 of this bill will create a

new quasi-type of municipal government. I'm not

trying to over-emphasize the extent of the powers

that they're going to have. For instance, there are no

powers in this section, Mr. Speaker, to go out and

draft municipal bond issues, except as might be done

through the power of the regional district. It's sort of

an extension of the regional district. But this again is

another aspect, something which should be discussed

and should have some time to sink in.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if: for instance, the regional

district representative of Riondel is aware of this

section in this Act. I wonder if the regional district

representative who represents the community of

Ymir, along with Salmo, in the Regional District of

Central Kootenay, is aware of it. I wonder indeed if

even the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl), who sits

in this House and has Sooke in his riding, was aware

of this before I brought it to his attention in this

debate.

I think there is a need for a new concept such as

this to be properly amplified and not to be

submerged within the concern of the extraordinary powers that the minister is taking to himself, and

which he pretends are powers no different than exist

in other provinces. They certainly are different, and

they go beyond the concept of municipal boards.

Really, in all terms, if there's any potential good in this Act, it's in

section 21. It is certainly something

that is a two-edged sword; it should be discussed — the

advisability of hoisting this six months — so the member

for Esquimalt can have time to read the bill, because

I'm sure he would be up speaking on this on second

reading if he had been aware of this.

It has great ramifications for all of us. Here we are,

Mr. Speaker. You know, you try to get back to your

riding every weekend and you no sooner get there

than you have to get on a plane and get back. There is

not a great opportunity to go out and hold a meeting,

especially at this time of year. If you did announce a

meeting on Municipal Act amendments, you wouldn't

draw flies. No offence to the ministry, but it would

be rather difficult if you were trying to explain this

section of it.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Perhaps when you open up

some of these little community halls, I guess you

probably would draw a few flies, particularly up in

some sections of the Speaker's riding, I would

imagine, that being a bit of a.... But I notice that in

all these old halls, when you open them up in the

middle of summer, things sort of buzz around in

there — more than just our words.

So, Mr. Speaker, I really would like to have an

opportunity to take this one

section and have some

opportunity to get some feedback from some of these

communities. I can see many areas in my riding that

could be so affected that fit this criterion of so many

hectares. It takes a little over two acres to make a

hectare, I believe, so we could figure out pretty easily

what kind of geographical areas we're talking about in

terms of size. There are a lot of areas with

approximately 500 people in terms of population.

Places that already have water systems and street

lighting might be desiring a sewage system be built so

that they could qualify for various programmes of

government. There's a need to go out and get some

input on this. If this is how we're going to conduct

government — by bringing out a little concept such as

this which, as I say, is the first innovation.... And it

is an innovation. I don't know why the minister

would want to submerge it, frankly, in this bill.

He's probably wondering that himself, Mr.

Speaker. He's probably saying: "Why in the world do

we take this thing, which is possibly the only good

news that's going to come out of my ministry this

session, and submerge it in with these other things in

which we're trying to take very strong, very

unprecedented powers for the ministry?" So perhaps

[ Page 4794 ]

he was hoping to sneak it through.

I notice, in reading this section, that one of the

things I would like to have the time and opportunity

to discuss with people in small communities is in

terms of the way that they can be brought under this

type of government. It can be done by a petition

which fulfils: the requirements of

section 591 of the

Municipal Act. I wonder if they wouldn't want to

have this done by a full-fledged, above-the-table,

no-nonsense referendum, and no other way so that a

little keen few could go out and ballyhoo a thing and

say, "oh, this is great," and sign the petition. You get

a very popular person in a community, Mr. Speaker,

and he can go out and sell a petition. It's not hard to

go out and get a petition opposing this government,

for instance, right now. You get the right person in

the community and almost everyone will sign it, even

the Social Crediters. So I really think that this is the

kind of thing that I would like to ask the people and

the kind of thing that we would have the opportunity

to discuss with people if this bill were to be hoisted

for six months.

You know, there are certain aspects to this which

are good, and some of them, just within this one

section, which are bad. This one

section in itself is

really worthy of being considered as a separate bill.

Are there other services that have perhaps escaped

notice? People have not had an ample opportunity to

see this aspect of the bill. Certainly, even some people

involved in municipal government probably haven't

had the opportunity to have the other sections, such

section 28 and the sections which say that if the

municipal government doesn't do what the provincial

minister tells them to do in terms of changing some

bylaw by a certain time, it will be deemed to have

been changed. Certainly, if we feel that we're in such

a crisis situation that we have to give up emergency

powers....

This is really like an emergency measures Act. I

think that this ministry should have to go out and sell

to the people whatever emergency, imagined or real,

there is that justifies the seizing of such extraordinary

powers. One would assume, Mr. Speaker, that it was

an emergency measure meant to deal with the

housing crisis: Yet we have the ministry at the same

time trying to tell us that the housing crisis is

completely over, pointing to vacancy rates and

various things. So what is the disease which it

purports to cure?

I don't think that people have been sold on the

fact that there is such an emergency. I think it would

show

an act of good faith on behalf of the minister. It

would also be

an act of courage if the minister would

go to the UBCM with this bill hoisted for six months

so that it was not water under the bridge, so that it

was still a lively issue. I think the minister could do a

great deal in terms of his own image if he showed the

courage, Mr. Speaker, to have this bill and these powers not be something in the past, something that

the people were sort of resigned to, and have it not a

matter of ,being resigned, but a matter in which they

felt that there was open opportunity for discussion

and constructive criticism on the actions being taken

in this bill.

I don't think anyone could imagine, Mr. Speaker I

don't think the greatest literary figures in the world

or the greatest science fiction writers in the world

could dream up — the reaction that would have

occurred had an NDP government attempted to bring

in such a bill. I don't know if the minister has had

time to think of his image in terms of not taking this

thing as a fait accompli to the UBCM, but taking it as

a live issue. If he's seen the film "Star Wars," he'll

notice there was a white knight and a black knight.

The black knight had been one of the good guys at

one time, but he had turned. I think there's a bit of

an analogy there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Darth Curtis!

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Darth Curtis He was once

one of The Force, and once turned, he can become a

very, very formidable foe. It would be very ironic and

very tragic. I think that the minister, if he were to

allow this amendment, would show courage. He

would show that he is no Darth Curtis, he is maybe

still part of The Force that believes in responsible,

local municipal government. Some of the other Acts

which have been brought in would not be so

tarnished by this single Act. Indeed, even sections

within this Act might not be tarnished by the

company of such sections as

section 28. So I think it

is very well advised. It would actually just cut the rug

out from under the opposition completely if the

minister would accept this amendment.

Really, I support this amendment rather

hesitatingly because this is giving the minister a bit of

.an out. I suppose if we were just interested in being

political, we wouldn't have proposed such an

amendment. (Laughter.)

I hear a little bit of amusement over there. Mr.

Speaker, the most political thing the government

could do right now would be to accept this

amendment, as the Minister of the Environment (Hon.

Mr. Nielsen) has done recently on occasions.

This would give an opportunity to the minister....

Certainly if I were in his shoes, this would be the out I

would take. There'd be all kinds of people ready to

rationalize on the minister's behalf. They'd say:

"Well, he was really busy. He was working on the

other Act, the municipal sharing Act. He didn't know

what was contained in this Act. It was sort of slipped

over on him by a few over-eager people, and perhaps

by the Bawlf committee."

There would be a chance for the minister. If he

were to take this action of accepting this, it could be

[ Page 4795 ]

a very good step for him and it could be a good step

for the Legislature. It could be a good Act in terms of

the esteem in which the Legislature, the government

and the minister are held. I think it would also

coincidentally be the politically correct thing to do

for the minister to accept this amendment.

I think that most of all, we should vote for this

amendment because I think it is the right thing to do

in the interests of municipal government and whether

municipal governments are merely going to be

puppets or whether they are going to be responsible

elected officials. You can't have responsibility, Mr.

Speaker, if the rug is being cut out from under you

and if there's always the sword of Damocles hanging

over your head.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on Friday we were

able to congratulate the minister for keeping faith

with the municipalities in accordance with some

election promises. Unfortunately) on this other issue

we)re debating today) we have to find that the

minister really is doing the very opposite by having

sought tremendous authority by amendments to this

bill. One has to ask, why? I think we've asked this

question in second reading: what requests were made

by municipalities and/or regional districts that this

kind of authority be included in the minister's

Municipal Act?

I wonder if, before we vote on this amendment) the

minister would care to answer these fairly specific

questions. I don't need to know the exact number,

but have there been any substantial number of

requests) either from municipalities or regional

districts, that the minister be given this kind of

authority — in effect, to overrule local bylaws or

regional bylaws or to deem that they be altered? I

find it very distressing to see that word "deemed"

used in this way. Ifs a rather euphemistic way of

allowing the minister to say something is the case

when it is not the case or when it certainly is not the

case in the wishes of the elected people who wrote

the bylaws in the first place, whether it be at the

municipal or regional level.

So I wonder if the minister could tell us to what

degree there were requests that this kind of authority

be given the minister and whether these requests

came from individual municipalities or regional

districts or whether they came through the collective

voice, let us say, of UBCM.

My next question is: to what degree has the minister

discussed this very far-reaching amendment with

UBCM since the bill was tabled in the House, and

what has their overall reaction been?

HON. MR. CURTIS : Extensively.

MR. WALLACE: The minister interjects, Mr.

Speaker, that he's had extensive discussions with UBCM. I wonder if the minister could give us some

brief outline of the consensus) because presumably,

on an issue of this importance, one would expect

there to be a division of opinion, and because, as I

pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker, there are obviously

ways in which the provincial government completely

throws the rulebook out the window anyway, as they

did with the choosing of a hospital site in an

agricultural land reserve, which broke every rule in

the book. So if ministers have this authority by the

use of one kind or other of provincial legislation, it

doesn't seem to me that ifs really necessary to give

this minister the power anyway. In the case of the

municipal impact of the Minister of Health's (Hon.

Mr. McClelland'

s) decision to build a hospital at

Helmcken Road, that particular example showed in

the clearest fashion that it was in contravention of

the community plan. The regional board had never

anticipated or wanted or came up with a community

plan that would include a hospital in an agricultural

land reserve. The whole thing's just such a

contradiction of terms.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Did you ever read the

Act?

MR. WALLACE: Yes. If the member for Esquimalt

is getting a little edgy, ifs maybe because he feels

that the matter should have been given more

consideration at the time; I don't know.

All I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that ministers appear

to have considerable authority, whether or not it is

written into legislation, to thwart or override local

wishes anyway. All this seems to be doing is to

extend in statutory form to this particular minister

the kind of authority which can very bluntly and

completely overrule the expressed wishes of locally

elected politicians.

I just find this so very much in contradiction with

the minister's stated position when he was in

municipal office and his statements since he became a

member of cabinet — that he does believe in local

autonomy and that he wishes to give the municipal

level of government the greatest opportunity to

exercise that kind of autonomy. So it is distressing. It

is not only because of this bill, but because of other

actions of other ministers — taking this same

direction towards greater and greater degrees of

authority — that there is such concern among the

opposition parties, particularly when we've heard so

much about the fact that this government was elected

to preserve individual freedoms of one kind or

another. It would seem to me that if we are talking

about individual freedoms, we're including in that

term the freedom of elected officials at the municipal

and regional level to make decisions in a democratic

way by majority vote. And we would expect that if

the majority at the local level makes the decision,

[ Page 4796 ]

then that decision should be respected by the

provincial government.

My final question to the minister would be: could

he tell us which kind of topics or issues have

developed, in which particular areas, in the past,

which have persuaded him that he requires this kind

of authority to deal with them? We hear a great deal

about the problem with developers and the attempts

to use loopholes or to devise loopholes to get around

the original intent of community planners. Maybe

that's an area which the minister's concerned about.

But before I decide on how I'm going to vote on this

amendment, I would like to have more background

information in relation to the questions I've already

asked. Finally, in regard to the particular issues

within the municipal and regional sphere which have

persuaded the minister that there are times when "in

the public interest" he believes the bylaws should be

overruled, I would appreciate examples.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few

comments. I rise in support of the amendment and

would suggest that the member from Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) put it all very succinctly when he says he

would like some answers to a few questions before he

decides the way in which he would vote on the

amendment. I think this is why we were asking for

the hoist. I think the municipalities, mayors and

other local people are interested as well in having a

few questions answered. The ones that were raised by

the second member for Victoria (MI. Barber), our

critic on municipal affairs, outlined some of the

complaints and concerns of municipalities with

respect to the bill.

I think the main thing that impresses me about it is

that the minister seems to be in a hurry to gain what

they accused us of doing when we were government

— awesome powers to control, overrule and override

municipality decisions that were passed at the local

level. This is just by way of query. What does the

minister need these powers for? If he was sincere

when he sat on this side of the House in opposition

and the previous administration introduced I think it

was Bill 42 as well, the Land Commission Act....

This is Bill 42, too, isn't it? That is quite a

coincidence. We were at that time trying to get

central control over lands in order to protect the

resources of a community and have some semblance

of community planning and organization. At that

time, the new minister was quite upset, fearing that

local autonomy was the only way to go and that

those people knew best what land should be

designated for preservation, conservation, greenbelts

and so forth.

Now he is suggesting that they don't know what's

best and he wants the power to overturn decisions

that were made locally. He would like to be in a

position to alter regional decisions, alter boundary

lines, make mergers, divide land, and so forth on an

arbitrary basis. I think this is somewhat curious. I am

sure the minister is sincere because he would like to

be more expeditious in the management of his

ministry, Mr. Speaker, but I think he should give us

an opportunity to scrutinize the wisdom of having

such power. After all, this minister may be sincere

and he would like to feel that he is honourable and

hardworking despite the problems he had with the

housing committee, which turned out to be a political

committee doing a gambit for the government. There

are also other situations where one would question

the wisdom of the kind of power the minister has

managed to acquire for himself.

What I would suggest is that he, too, should want to

defer passage of Bill 42, the Municipal Amendment

Act, 1977, until there has been ample time for those

of us who represent the various constituencies to go

back to the local people and get their representations,

their opinions and their assessment of the kinds of

things the minister has concern about. Why does he

feel he would need, at any time, to overrule decisions

that had been reached by local people through the

due process of a democratic organization? How could

he feel comfortable making a decision without their

support?

I can't imagine, as was pointed out by the second

member for Victoria, that a municipality or a council

is going to come and say: "MI. Minister, we have just

made a decision but we would like you to approve

it." You know, these are politicians themselves, who

have campaigned and won their election on the basis

of their knowledge and understanding of local

conditions, and who have been given the mandate to

carry out the wishes of those people they feel

represent the majority opinion. Now the minister says

. that where he deems it to be not in the interests of

the public or in the best interests of the community,

he wants the power to be able to turn it around. I

think that in almost any situation the minister could,

in his opinion, have reason for wanting to turn it

around.

You know, that's just not good enough. In a

democratic system it's not a question of who agrees

or disagrees; it's a question of how the decision was

arrived at. Was it through the democratic process by a

majority decision? Was it voted upon duly and

properly, within the provincial Constitution Act,

which legally permits the establishment of new

municipalities? This is carried out further through the

Municipal Act.

In the city of Vancouver we have a charter which

lays down the procedures by which the council

operates, and so forth and so on. We have regulations

and rules regarding the Legislative Assembly and when

we arrive at decisions, they are by due process. I can't

see anyone, including even the Speaker, would stand

up and overrule a decision that was passed by this

[ Page 4797 ]

House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker is about to draw your

attention to the fact that we are debating an

amendment, which is to the effect that this bill be

hoisted for six months. The debate, therefore, hon.

member, must be relevant to your reasons why the

bill should be debated, not a complete discussion of

the Municipal Act and other statutes of the province.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, 1

appreciate your concern. I have been attempting to

lay the basis of why I feel the Act should be deferred

for six months .for further scrutiny. I think

it is necessary to make references to other

experiences that haven't met with great satisfaction.

This is why I'm wondering about the philosophical

contradictions that this minister has shown to the

House. As I said when he was in the opposition sitting

as a Conservative, he criticized the former

administration for doing something very similar.

At that time we were trying to get away from the

local decision-making machinery, the politics, and

putting it into the protective hands of a commission

that would serve the public's best interests. He

doesn't even want a commission, he wants the power

entirely to himself, so that he can overturn any

decision that is made by elected bodies. This is

something, I think, that should go back to the public

because it is a major attack on the freedoms that they

have enjoyed. It's a totalitarian concept, a rather

arrogant concept, to put it mildly, on behalf of this

minister to want that kind of power.

I would like him to stand before this House and

explain why he needs the power to overturn decisions

that have been arrived at through the duly elected

officials in the various communities, unless there was

an emergency situation. We have emergency

legislation, so he has that power. We can always refer

to the Legislature if there is an emergency situation

where he needs that power, but he wants that power

to deal with ordinary, administrative routine things. I

think this is cause to defer the legislation, Mr.

Speaker. I will be voting to defer in support of this

amendment.

MR. KAHL: I want to take a bit of time to clarify a

few things that have been said by members in the

opposition, particularly the member from

Nelson-Creston when he made reference to parts in

my constituency. I could suggest to him that if he

would spend more time in his own constituency than

mine, he would probably know a little bit more about

his own constituency, and also about mine.

On the amendment, Mr. Speaker, the Sooke area

has a population far in excess of what's allowed under

the amendments in this act. I wanted to say a few

words about hoisting the bill for six months, because the opposition have continually indicated that they

need some time to talk to their people, and perhaps

the member for Nelson-Creston could have done that

four and a half months ago when the bill was first

introduced in the House. Why they would require

another six months is beyond me. If he hasn't got to

his constituency and spoken to the local people in four

and a half months, I can't see why another six

months will be of any assistance to him.

We listened to the Leader of the Opposition talk

about the opportunity for the public to have some

input into the bill, and listened, also, to the member

for Vancouver Centre, who indicated that the

minister seems to be in somewhat of a hurry.

Actually, I think the timing of the introduction of

the bill was very good. Again now, with the recess

that we've had, I've taken the opportunity to speak

with a number of areas in my own constituency. The

people from Sooke, as I have already mentioned, have

far in excess of the 500 people allowed, similarly for

Colwood-Langford. Several weeks ago we met at a

community meeting in Metchosin and spoke about

the implications that this part of the bill,

section 21,

might have. We took long enough time to discuss this,

and I think every member for the past four and a half

months has had the opportunity to do that in his area.

I met with the East Sooke Ratepayers' Association,

and members from that community, to do the same

thing. We talked about

section 21 and how it might

serve the best interests of that area.

I do have a question, however, to the minister, and

that does pertain to the East Sooke area. I see no

necessity to wait for an additional six months, when

people in my constituency are anxious for the bill to

get final reading and to proceed with some of the

amendments. I would ask the minister whether it's

possible to exclude certain portions of a local

community as it applies to the East Sooke area,

which I believe the minister is familiar with,

particularly that

section of 4,300 acres which is a

regional park, yet located in the community.

If the 4,300-acre park has to be within the

boundaries, it would exclude that particular

community from falling under

section 21. I think for

a park that large in a regional park it would be easy to

exclude that park and then I'm sure with a

population of 500 in the 800 hectares, or roughly

2,000 square acres, it could easily fit under this piece

of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I'll be voting against the

amendment.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that at

least one member on the government side of the

House took some

part in this debate, although I am

disappointed that he made absolutely no reference to

section 28. While there have been some concerns

expressed about

section 21, my own concern is about

section 28. It's the concern voiced — I think it has

[ Page 4798 ]

been mentioned previously — by the chairman of the

Nanaimo Regional District.

I can appreciate the minister perhaps losing patience

with some local governments at different times. He's

trying to get a job done and a municipal council or a

regional district board may pass a bylaw that seems to

stand in the way of what the government wants to

do. It's very easy to get annoyed with them and to

perhaps find it difficult to understand why the local

organization. the local municipal council, is acting in

the way it is. I confess that I have felt that same way

myself on occasions. Of course, if we carry that to

the ultimate, we would say that democracy in itself is

very inefficient and the most efficient form of

government is the benevolent dictatorship. But I

don't believe any of us in the House would support

that kind of principle, and I don't believe that we

want to support it in this particular legislation before

us now. I have had no explanation yet. This is almost

like a committee debate except the minister doesn't

have an opportunity to respond until it's all over, and

then we don't have a chance to get back. Likely we

will in committee stage.

On this particular section, and the main arguments

from this side of the House are with respect to

section 28, there's no real reason at this time, that we

have heard, why it must go through now. I think

that's the basis of the argument for the six month

hoist. The minister did reply in an aside, I believe to

the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), that he

has had extensive discussions with the UBCM about

this particular principle — the principle in

section 28.

It's quite possible that he has had considerable

discussions with some municipal councillors, with the

UBCM itself, but certainly not with the UBCM in

convention. There will be an opportunity, within a

month approximately, to have that kind of

discussion.

If this was necessary in order to embark on a

massive housing programme, and if a massive housing

programme seemed to be important today, then I

could appreciate the need to go ahead and do

something and then perhaps try to clean it up

afterwards, but there doesn't seem to be that

emergency right now with respect to a housing

programme. There doesn't seem to be the emergency

to proceed, at least with this particular

section now,

especially in view of the fact that there will be an

opportunity to discuss it fully not only with a few

municipal councillors, not only with the executive of

the UBCM, but also with all the delegates of the

UBCM in their annual convention. It would seem to

me that it would be better for the minister as well to

have an opportunity at that time to talk to them, to

listen to their concerns, to allay their fears maybe, to

explain the reasons why this has to be done now, and

to give the municipal council representatives in

convention an opportunity to completely understand

what the minister is trying to do in this section, why

he is doing it, and why he feels the need for this

power that has been described as dictatorial.

Certainly words of at least that temper would be

used, as has been said previously, if the NDP were

bringing in legislation such as this.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot see any reason at this point

why the minister is so determined to proceed with

section 28 immediately. For that reason, since it's the

way to provide for further consideration and further

discussion with the people most concerned, I support

the amendment that it be hoisted for six months.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This is the first opportunity

that I have had to make any comment with respect to

Bill 42, although I recognize that we have before us

an amendment which demands very narrow response

inasmuch as the amendment simply suggests that the

entire piece of legislation be delayed for six months.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for

Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl), made one observation and,

indeed, in their comments in the past the members of

the official opposition have commented on a number

of remarks which have been made by municipal

organizations and individuals who serve on councils

with respect to Bill 42. Mr. Speaker, I think ifs

important for the House to recognize, and all the

alarmist statements on the opposite side

notwithstanding, and all the hyperbole and the tactics

of concern....

MR. NICOLSON: That's what Chamberlain said in

'39: "It's a bunch of baloney."

HON. MR. CURTIS: It was '38, I think, that he

spoke. If you want to use that, be correct at least, Mr.

Member. Get the year right if you're going to use it.

MR. WALLACE: It was Eisenhower in '44.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the bill was

introduced at the beginning of April, as the Votes and

Proceedings will show.

In my view, and I believe in the view of

representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities,

the executive and others, no other series of

amendments to the Municipal Act in the province of

British Columbia has been given such exposure and

such time for consideration, comment, contact,

exchange and debate as this has in the four months

that have intervened.

Mr. Speaker, as you would know as a member of

this House for longer than I, usually Municipal Act

amendments are introduced in late January or early

February and perhaps two, three or four weeks might

intervene between the time of introduction and the

time of final reading and royal assent.

[ Page 4799 ]

I indicated at the outset of this debate many weeks

ago, Mr. Speaker, that in effect this bill has served as

a White Paper, a document for discussion. I really

can't insist that the opposition accept the fact, but

the fact is there and it cannot be refuted that we

have, on two full occasions, had extensive discussions

with the executive of the Union of B.C.

Municipalities. By "we" I refer to senior people

within the minister, and I think one member of the

executive might have been absent on the first

occasion. This was within the first few days of the

introduction of the bill.

Then, however, to ensure that both elected and

appointed individuals in local government in British

Columbia had the fullest possible opportunity to

examine each

section of the bill, senior people within

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing dealt

with the five area municipal associations covering the

entire province. They were, in effect, on tour. They

took the document to a variety of cities in British

Columbia.

I was present when it was discussed with the

Municipal Officers' Association of British Columbia

in the eastern part of the province, in

Fairmont Hot Springs. It has been discussed with

three chapters of the Planning Institute of British

Columbia. It has been discussed at length with the

municipal bar

section of the British Columbia Bar

Association. It's been discussed with a number of

individuals and individual municipalities, and it has

been discussed with the Housing and Urban

Development Association of Canada, HUDAC,

representing the smaller home builders.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a few

moments ago, no other series of amendments, large or

small, to the Municipal Act, which is a very old

document in British Columbia, has had the kind of

discussion, examination and review that has been

afforded Bill 42 in this session of the British

Columbia Legislature. I'm satisfied that the

discussions have proven helpful. Indeed, there are

amendments on the order paper for review in

committee stage, and I won't speak of those now.

They are a direct result of the contact that has been

carried on with local government and local

government representatives in British Columbia. The

opposition seems to ignore that fact. The official

opposition has in its comments, Mr. Speaker, chosen

to overlook the many meetings that have been held to

discuss Bill 42.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have comments with respect to

section 28 of the bill, but I feel that would offend

against the amendment at this point, inasmuch as I'm

attempting to follow the rule of the House. The

question is: should the bill in 'its entirety be

postponed for" six months?

The government does not accept the amendment. I

would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that to do that would simply be to permit the local government in British

Columbia to remain in a state of confusion and

doubt.

How does the Union of B.C. Municipalities'

executive feel about that particular section? They

were concerned — past tense, Mr. Member. You'll

have an opportunity, I assume, to make your

comments again. They were concerned, but they were

satisfied after the matter was fully explained.

The Burnaby council resolution? I know a little bit

about the persuasion of some members of Burnaby

council in terms of party politics and I would have

been surprised, Mr. Speaker, if there were not a

resolution from Burnaby council with respect to that

particular section. The amendment is not acceptable

to the government.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I

don't see how a minister of the Crown can say: "Well,

I've just brought in a

section of

an Act that does

away with" — say it's the Elections Act — "elections

in the province. I've checked with a certain group and

they don't mind, so it's all right." It doesn't matter

who does or who doesn't agree with the minister; it's

whether the principle is correct or incorrect. Any

principle which takes the power away from locally

elected councils and passes it onto the minister in an

arbitrary way is wrong. The minister stands up and

says: "We've talked; where have you people been?"

He says: "I've talked it over with the executive of the

UBCM and they agree." Does Mayor Moffat agree?

He called it real fascism.

MR. BARBER: And' he's on the executive.

MR. LEA: He's on the executive. He called it real

fascism. Is that the kind of agreement that the

minister got? What about Mayor Volrich of

Vancouver, who came out just recently and said that

he's against it? Doesn't he count? The biggest

municipality in the province doesn't count? That was

on August 11, 1977, not that long ago.

But I think what we really have is a political party

which is now in power — the Social Credit political

party which is in power as government — and again,

it's becoming an old story. What they said they were

and what they said they'd do while in opposition is

the complete antithesis of what they in fact are and

what they are in fact doing.

I think it was best described by Orwell in Animal

Farm , when the pigs going for office in Animal

Farm had a slogan on the side of the barn which said

"All animals are equal." And after they were in, they

snuck down one night after dark and said, "But some

animals are more equal than others." What this

government is saying in legislation after legislation is

that all citizens are equal, but some citizens are more

equal than others. The citizens who are more equal

[ Page 4800 ]

than others are members of the government, because

now they bring in legislation which takes away

powers of municipalities. They're obviously more

equal over there than the elected representatives of

the municipalities.

They bring in legislation that's retroactive in terms

of mining and tax resource legislation. Again, it's a

government that's more equal than others. So what

we really have are the inhabitants of the main house

of "Animal Farm" changing slogans after dark. When

you wake up in the morning and look at the side of

the barn, all the campaign literature has been

changed, just a bit, by legislation. We have a

government that isn't true to itself, and a government

that isn't true to itself cannot be true to other

citizens in the province. It's impossible.

When people are assessing which way they're going

to vote next time, I think they should really take a

long look at a group of people which is not even true

to itself, never mind anyone else. We, on this side of

the House....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are addressing

ourselves to the amendment which is before the

House, please.

MR. LEA: Yes, and that is the very reason....

MR. SPEAKER: I would hope that the hon.

member would appreciate and stay within the rules of

the House and address his remarks to the amendment

that is before the House.

MR. LEA: What rule have I broken?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in your course of

debate, you have been referring to many members

who in no way have anything to do with the

amendment which is before us. The amendment is, if

you, would like me to refresh your memory, to

hoist. ...

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, let me refresh yours. First

of all, I haven't mentioned any member, and ...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: ... I wish you'd get out of the debate

and let the members of this House debate things.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would the hon. member

take his seat? It's expected, hon. member and all hon.

members, that in referring to this debate, which is a

debate to hoist the bill for six months, the terms of

reference are very limited. In second reading of the

bill, members have ample opportunity to enlarge

upon the debate that is to take place before the

House. As I observe, the hon. member has already

, spoken to that debate, as many others have. We are

now on the debate which is on the amendment to

hoist the bill for six months, and the reasons

therefor.

I might just ask the hon. member for Prince Rupert

to refrain from engaging in debate other than that

particular matter.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. LEA: And all I ask, Mr. Speaker, is that when

you're doing that, you be accurate. I didn't mention

any other member. You said I had. Mr. Speaker. ...

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have to draw your

attention to the debate as well as others.

MR. LEA: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order! A little respect for the

Chair.

MR. LEA: Yes, I'd like to respect the Chair. I'd like

to. I'd like to see the ex-alderman for Victoria, who is

now the Minister of Recreation and Conservation,

stand up and defend

section 28, other than just

voting for it quietly and sitting down. Or is he going

to go out and paint slogans on the barn, too?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member now going to

return to the debate?

MR. LEA: Yes, I have finished. That's the reason

we want to hoist it, because we have a government

that is not true to itself, a government that doesn't

even listen to or watch or look at the old campaign

slogans they used. What about freedom? How can

you have freedom when municipalities and the

decisions they make can be turned over by the stroke

of a pen by a minister of the Crown? Not only can he

overturn them, but he can write his own statute,

write his own amendment, write his own bylaw, Mr.

Speaker. That's why we're asking that this

government hoist this bill for six months and reflect,

go back, look at their campaign literature, read their

old speeches from Hansard , and find out whether

they in good conscience can stand in their place and

vote for an amendment that takes away the powers of

municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we want it hoisted is

because this government goes down after dark every

week and writes a new slogan on the side of the barn;

They are in the House walking on their hind legs;

they can't remember where they are from or what

they stood for.

[ Page 4801 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister, when he

got up to debate this particular amendment to hoist,

suggested that there were other important aspects of

the bill that were needed, and that the bill has been

before us since early April. Well, we don't contend

it's been any less time. However, the fact that it's

been there that long doesn't make it any less

dangerous. If the minister were to amend the section;

if there had been anything on the order paper; if the

minister had indicated any agreement in moving in

that direction, then what we have "before us now

would not be before us. We would not be debating a

hoist on this bill. We want to see the minister enabled

to. do his work as effectively as possible. But the

reason for the hoist is that we have in the bill a

section giving the minister the unilateral power to

overturn any bylaw within a community.

The minister gets up and says that he's discussed the

bill with the executive of the Union of B.C.

Municipalities. He said that they supported the bill.

We know that there are people within that

organization who don't support it. I would ask the

minister, when he's closing debate on this particular

bill, to tell us whether Mayor Duke of Lumby

supported this concept — I'm just talking now in

terms of the aspect that's objectionable — whether

Mayor Fraser of Williams Lake, or Mayor Ferguson of

Abbotsford, or Mayor Muni Evers of New

Westminster.... I'd like to lay that one on him. I'd

like to hear what he has to say from Muni Evers

about his ability to go into New Westminster and

overturn any bylaw that that city has put on the

books. How about Mayor Shaw or Osoyoos or

Alderman Dellamy of Vancouver? What about

Alderman Beard of Mackenzie of Mayor Lakes of

Trail?

Can he tell us, Mr. Speaker, that the agreement of

this group was to the extent that except for two

exceptions whom we know have made a great deal of

noise publicly — Mayor Volrich and Mayor Moffat

have made a good deal of noise about this particular

section of the bill — the rest are in favour? They are

not, by any stretch of the imagination, Mr. Speaker.

So why won't the minister just accept the fact that

this objectionable

section should -be removed, and at

that point, have the rest of the bill enacted,

proclaimed or whatever he wants to do, and go on

about his work?

Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to read the rest of them:

Alderman Romano of Kamloops, Mayor Thorn of

Kitimat, Chairman Smith of the Nanaimo Regional

District ...

MR. BARBER: He's opposed to it.

MR. COCKE: Of course he is... W.D. Tindall of

Victoria, Mayor Tonn of Coquitlam....

MR. BARRETT: No way!

MR. COCKE: Can you imagine Mr. Tonn accepting

this kind of arbitrary action from a minister? Never.

Mr. Speaker, the jury rests in this case. The fact is

that the minister is continuing on his unilateral course

and expecting the opposition to just ride right along

with him. I think it's just a sad day.

MRS. DAILLY: I rise to support this hoist. I'm not

going to repeat the remarks I made earlier except on

the bill and the

section we are particularly concerned

about, except to refer once again to the motion of

the Burnaby council which the minister referred to

before he took his seat. I want to point out that when

the minister spoke on the Burnaby council resolution,

he just discarded it very offhandedly with the

remarks if I recall: "Well, what can one expect from

the Burnaby council with their political. ..." I think

the word was "persuasion."

Mr. Speaker, this minister has misrepresented the

facts completely. Is he aware that the Burnaby

council voted unanimously to send this letter to the

minister protesting this

section of the Act? Yet he

stands in the House and is trying to suggest to the

members of this House and to the public that there is

just one small group — obviously he's trying to

suggest the NDP — who persuaded and led the fight

for this letter to be sent to the ministry. Now, Mr.

Speaker, if we stop and think, we have Alderman

Lawson on the Burnaby council, who is certainly not

an NDP member; we have Alderman Stusiak; and we

have Mr. Stewart, whom I understand is very active in

the Social Credit Party. Yet he just stood up in this

House and said it was the "political persuasions" of

the Burnaby council.

I think he should stand up, when he has an

opportunity, and apologize, not for the fact that it

might just be that the NDP took

part in this — we're

proud of that — but for misrepresenting the facts of

the motion which was sent to him by the Burnaby

council. I can assure you the Burnaby council

members are not going to be too pleased with that

kind of offhand remark made by the minister. It's a

complete misrepresentation of the good will of the

people of Burnaby and the councils who represent

them. It was a unanimous decision, and I'd like to

point out there was only one member away, and that

was Alderman Emmott.

I think it's a disgraceful statement for that

minister to have made about the council which

represents one of the largest municipalities in this

province. It was a smear. That's all it was, a smear to

belittle the motion sent in by the Burnaby council,

and it should be retracted.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 4802 ]

YEAS — 12

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Wallace, G.S.

Barber

Barnes

Skelly

Levi

NAYS — 25

Waterland

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Bawlf

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

McCarthy

Bennett

Wolfe

Chabot

Curtis

Fraser

Calder

Jordan

Rogers

Mussallem

Loewen

Veitch

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of

the House.

MR. SPEAKER: We are now back to second

reading of Bill 42, Municipal Amendment Act, 1977.

The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, a great deal of

the debate with respect to Bill 42 has focused on just

one section, and a number of members have indicated

in their remarks — indeed, as we have done in

previous years — that it's rather difficult to debate

the principle of a bill amending the Municipal Act,

because of the lack of co-ordination between one

section and another.

Much of the debate, however, has focused on

section 28. We've analysed — and I commented a few

minutes ago, without reflecting on that vote situations

in other jurisdictions in Canada with

respect to ministerial authority, regarding the

overriding of local government wishes. I would like to

refer to the questions put by the hon. member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). The questions are still valid

and the answers are valid, notwithstanding the fact

that the amendment has been dealt with.

Have we had requests from municipalities or

regional districts for a regulation such as this? The

answer is, no, we have not, although we know that

one municipality was very concerned about the

possible action which might have been taken by a

regional district. That was the Thompson-Nicola

Regional District. The city of Kamloops, viewing the

possible decision on the part of the Thompson-Nicola

Regional District, did not formally identify the need

for something of this kind, but in conversation

through that period we were very concerned, as was

the city, quite clearly.

To what degree has this sort of thing been

discussed with the UBCM? From time to time,

indeed, while I was a member of the DBCM, Mr.

Speaker, I had conversations with others about the

desirability of some sort of ministerial or provincial

government control over land use in this respect.

I feel that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

and one or two other members who participated in

the debate, Mr. Speaker, have attempted to do so in

an objective and straightforward manner. We've

argued among ourselves within the ministry, as we

developed this particular section, about the need.

I said in the opening remarks many weeks ago that

I see it as something that must be used with the

greatest possible discretion, and only, as it says, in the

provincial public interest. Therefore the remarks with

respect to developers and a particular application in a

p articular municipality are empty, strawman

arguments and nothing more than that. They are

strawman arguments and deserving of little more

comment than that.

There will be some instances from time to time,

whether it is this government or another government

in years to come, where a regional district can

frustrate what is clearly in the provincial public

interest, not in the interest of the government of the

day. But with the authority given regarding land use

there is that very real danger and that very real

possibility.

The hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber)

chose to overlook this, Mr. Speaker, but since

section

28 has occupied such a great deal of time and interest

on the part of the opposition, I wish to point out that

same legislation in the province of Manitoba was not

abandoned and not altered, but given third reading

and royal assent on June 17,

Section 60 of the bill deals with preparation and

adoption of development plans and relates to the city

of Winnipeg. "After consultation with the council, the

minister may, in writing, order the council to prepare

and adopt an amendment, alteration, repeal or

replacement or one or more of those things to the

Greater Winnipeg development plan within such time

as the minister may order, and the minister may

extend that time."

There is no appeal, Mr. Speaker, to the executive

council or to the courts against the minister's order in

that particular measure in the great province of

Manitoba, with respect to the city of Winnipeg.

Regarding the other sections of the bill, Mr.

Speaker, I was confused, frankly, by the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) when he spoke about

section 21. Perhaps he can expand on his remarks

when we get to committee stage. I point out to him

and to other members that

section 21 is permissive.

The initiative comes from the regional district and/or

the community concerned. If he has some concern he

did not adequately explain it in debate, but I would

look forward to his further comments later.

I think we have had two or three runs at this and

[ Page 4803 ]

little mention was made in the earlier debate, Mr.

Speaker, of the aspects of the bill that grant greater

local autonomy. I really think, for the objective

participant in any debate on this legislation, that

should not and could not be overlooked. Little

mention was made in fact of the removal of

provincial approvals of regional district land use

control bylaws once 'a satisfactory plan has been

adopted or the waiver of most approvals on its

Controlled Access Highways Act.

Most members — not all — ignored the main

provisions of the bill which are intended to

rationalize and expedite the whole process of land-use

decision-making by local authorities. "Local" means

local or regional district. They chose instead to

deliver these little homilies and to conduct their

filibuster with respect to the one

section — the theme

of centralization and ministerial power.

Again, with respect to

section 28, because it has

attracted the attention of at least the opposition but

not of local government in British Columbia to any

great extent, the minister cannot act precipitously.

Upon notifying a council of his objection to a bylaw,

there is a 90-day period for the council to amend.

This gives ample time for the council to discuss the

matter with the minister and with the MLA or MLAs

for the area, to hold public hearings where required

and to give a very thorough public airing to the

matter.

I have some confidence, Mr. Speaker; the NDP

may not, on the basis of its performance and the

frequent references by the Leader of the Opposition

to the unfair treatment by the press to his party. I

have some confidence in the press to focus very

clearly public attention, whether it's the middle of

August, December, July or the middle of March,

should a Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

abuse this particular provision.

I have that confidence, and members of this

government have that confidence. It's a shame that

members of the opposition have no confidence in the

press and the media of British Columbia.

It is a bill which merits more discussion in

committee, where we can look at each

section in

turn; one is not related to the other. I look forward

to that. After many weeks of public consultation and

review, from April 1, 1977, I now move second

reading of Bill 42.

Motion approved.

Bill 42, Municipal Amendment Act, 1977, read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole

House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, adjourned

debate on second reading of Bill 84.

MINERAL LAND TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I made a few

comments on Friday and would like to complete my

remarks.

The Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, regardless

of its specifics, has one underlying principle that this

House must always debate intensely and with the

gravest of concern, as with any bill which imposes

retroactive taxation measures. It doesn't really

matter whether the taxation is on mines, timber,

highways, gasoline or any other particular resource. I

just want to quote from The Globe and Mail of

August 17, when the Minister of Mines stated that

there was a strong possibility that the government

would have lost the court action initiated by the

industry. Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, the real purpose

and principle of this bill is to make retroactive certain

changes in the bill which will have the effect of

frustrating mining companies — eight in all — who

were exercising their democratic right in challenging a

law of this province, in court.

I want to quote some of the essential sentences in

the Canadian Bill of Rights. The

preamble to the Bill

of Rights states: "Affirming also that man and

institutions remain free only when freedom is

founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values

and the rule of law." It's these last three words that I

want to concentrate my remarks upon.

Part 1,

section I of the Bill of Rights, it states

that in Canada there have existed and shall continue

to exist without discrimination by reason of race,

national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following

human rights and fundamental freedoms: A. The

right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the

person and enjoyment of property and the right not

to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.

Further on, in

section 2 of

Part I, it also states that

no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as

to deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing, in

accordance with the principles of fundamental

justice, for the determination of his rights and

obligations.

I can't think of any clearer definition of the

fundamental principles that underlie our democratic

system in Canada. Of course, Mr. Speaker, this same

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) took

part in a debate back in 1973. Hansard recalls that on April 5, the minister suggested there

... be fair compensation and that there be fair play

and that people's rights. to enjoy land and to enjoy

property be respected.

That particular statement by the minister went on to

say — and I am quoting from page 2270, April 5,

1973:

[ Page 4804 ]

... that if they are injuriously affected, they have

access to the courts. I don't think it's good enough to

set up some sham form of procedure or sham form of

appeal without people having the right to an

independent judicial body such as the Supreme Court

of British Columbia.

I couldn't agree more. These were the comments of

the minister in 1973. Subsequent to the introduction

of this bill, the minister is quoted in. The Globe and

Mail of August 17, saying that there was a strong

possibility that the B.C. government would have lost

the court action initiated by the industry. So it is

very clear that the reason for this bill and the

underlying principle in the bill is to change

terminology in such a way that mining companies

would be denied this fundamental democratic right

that I have articulated from the Bill of Rights of

Canada. It's either that or, if one took the most

charitable

interpretation, one could say that by

changing designations, as in this bill, the chances of

the mining companies having any hope at all if they

pursue their case in court is greatly reduced by the

amendments in the bill, if not eliminated all together.

It's also interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the minister

on Friday stated that he hadn't heard from the

mining industry about any particular concern about

this bill. Well, if he hadn't heard then, Mr. Speaker,

he will find in his mail today a report to the members

of the Legislature by the Mining Association of

British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I got a pre-release on that one.

MR. WALLACE: This really reiterates statements

made at the time the bill was introduced by the

president of the B.C. Mining Association, Mr.

Parliament, who was quoted in British Columbia

newspapers on August 17. I won't read the whole

statement, but it is important to quote part of what

the Mining Association states and Which, I think, is

absolutely valid.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They don't all agree.

MR. WALLACE: It says:

"Retroactive tax legislation has never been a

part of our parliamentary tradition. In the past,

the citizen has always had the right to go to

court to question the applicability or validity of

a taxing law. The courts have always taken the

view that tax laws must be strictly construed,

with doubts or ties being decided in favour of

the taxpayer.

"Tax rules must be carefully drawn if there

is to be any of the confidence and certainty so

necessary to the economic prosperity we all

want to enjoy. Tax laws that are poorly

conceived and unfairly applied, as this one was

by the previous administration, should properly

be challenged and, if defective, thrown out by

the courts. Indeed, the companies in this case

have a legal duty to challenge this legislation on

behalf of their shareholders"

The minister sneers. The Mining Association goes on,

I think to say something I think the minister might

care to listen to, unless, of course, his speech in 1973

was just hollow words because he sat on this side of

the House. Where is your feeling, Mr. Minister, about

the rights of an individual or a company to take a

case to court now'! You were quite concerned about

it in 1973, but it's different in 1977, I guess. The

Mining Association goes on to say:

"It must always be borne in mind that

having a right of appeal to the courts as the

guardian of our rights as individuals is not much

use if that right is going to be legislated away in

the event it is exercised:'

In other words, the minister in 1973 was saying:

"Yes, individuals and companies and groups and

corporations must have their day in court."

MR. BARRETT: Say anything, do anything.

MR. WALLACE: But now the minister is saying

that it's quite all right for the government to use its

majority in this House to, in effect, legislate away

these rights, simply by moving the goal posts.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, has to be one of the most

disappointing and distressing bills this government has

introduced since it came to power, bar none. Not

only did the government oppose the principle of this

bill that was introduced by the NDP in the first place,

but it now has the audacity to say that although it

opposed it and did not approve of extracting tax

revenue from the mining companies by this particular

bill, that at least it will make sure that the mining

companies cannot challenge either the ambiguity or

constitutionality of the bill, because "we are going to

change it. We are not just going to change it, we're

going to make it retroactive by four years and two

months, to June, 1973."

The minister also had the audacity to say that this

government would not be Santa Claus to the mining

industry. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that was

a most inappropriate analogy, since I've never heard

of Santa Claus taking back gifts that he's already

given. The fact is that this government has preached

the need for confidence of the mining industry in the

government of the day. It talked about the damage

done to the economy of this province because the

NDP legislation had destroyed any confidence that

the mining industry might have in the government of

that day. I can't imagine any particular action that

can be more devastating than by making legislation

retroactive by four years and two months.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): It's all a

game.

[ Page 4805 ]

MR. WALLACE: What the minister is in effect

saying in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that the mining

industry could probably win their case in court and

prove the justice of their cause. "These payments

were unfair in the first place, because we opposed the

bill. But at any rate, we're going to make sure that

this government hangs onto the money, but because

we really have a generous heart, we'll do it right now

to save you the money and trouble in going through

the courts." This kind of doubletalk and the

complete lack of honour and integrity attached to

this kind of legislation surely have to be one of the

most flagrant abuses of political power,and one of the

most bare-faced and unprincipled assaults of the

democratic form of government. This comes, all the

more strangely, from the freedom fighters, the party

that gained a great deal of electoral support because

they were committed to protecting freedom of

individuals in British Columbia.

I look back . to some of the literature that the

Social Credit Party was circulating in this province in

1974. I've got this copy of the application for

membership in the party. The ironic words along the

top line are as follows: "There is a freedom squeeze

in this province." Over on the next page, the

application states: "The freedom squeeze is real and

the struggle for freedom has never been easy." You

bet your bippy it hasn't been easy, Mr. Speaker! And

it's not getting any easier when we have a government

that wants to move the goal post four years and two

months after the game was starting to be played.

What a sham! What a mockery of the very meaning of

the words "freedom and democracy"!

Then, of course, the minister has the temerity to

suggest that this government has restored the

confidence which the mining industry must have in

the government of the day.

MR. BARRETT: By cutting their throat, they've

restored their confidence.

MR. WALLACE: The explanatory notes on this

bill, Mr. Speaker, mention that it's amended to

eliminate the ambiguities in the application of

definitions of designated minerals for the purpose of

calculating the tax payable under the Act. That was

exactly why the companies were going to court — to

challenge the ambiguity of the

definitions. It seems

that this fundamental right of an aggrieved party in a

democratic society to be given their day in court

means little or nothing to this minister, because this

minister, in a devastating abuse of power, abruptly

deprives these companies of that long cherished and

fundamental right, the right in a democratic society

of an aggrieved party to have his day in court. Yet this very government was elected on the strong

commitment to freedom and the preservation of

these kinds of fundamental freedoms that

unfortunately we all come to think were well

established and well nigh invulnerable to assaults of

this kind.

Mr. Speaker, despite the insult that I see in this

bill, the minister' is reported in the Vancouver Province of August 16 as saying that he would bring

in further "remedial legislation to ensure that no

funds could be awarded."

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources): That's a mistake.

MR. WALLACE: The minister interjects that that

is an inaccurate statement. I hope he'll clarify that

when he winds up this debate.

The minister, Mr. Speaker, is also reported to have

been concerned about the fuzziness of the original

bill. Once again, the reason this bill is such a serious

assault on established parliamentary concepts and

practice lies in the fact that usually when there is

fuzziness on a tax bill which has been in effect for

four years, the traditionally accepted route to be

followed is to allow the parties who say the law is

fuzzy to challenge the fuzziness in court.

This bill is a frightening example of a crude and

merciless way in which people elected to power can

abuse the power and the trust of the voters, who in

this particular election, in 1975, thought they were

improving their lot as far as freedom and the

protection of individual rights were concerned. One

of the primary issues that was discussed at great

length in public during the reign of the NDP, and in

that important 1975 election, was the way in which

many freedoms and accepted rights were being

eroded by the NDP government. Perhaps

the example that caused this to be the

greatest issue was the Land Commission

Act. I don't plan to break the rules of

this House, Mr. Speaker, by talking about other Acts.

I'm talking about a principle. Of course it's difficult

to talk about principles in this bill because it breaks

every principle in the history of our parliamentary

system.

Retroactive taxation legislation such as this, Mr.

Speaker, just absolutely demolishes any kind of faith

that one can have in a government, particularly when

that government was elected to power ostensibly to

provide a greater measure of protection of the rights

and freedoms of the individual.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether this is being done

because it's eight mining companies — a rather

inhuman form of existence. One might say the great

majority of people in British Columbia look upon

companies as some innate or impersonal group, but I

wonder what would happen, Mr. Speaker, if the

[ Page 4806 ]

federal government tried this game with the Income

Tax Act. What would happen if we all claimed our

exemptions under the Income Tax Act in 1976, but

in 1977, the federal government says: "Well, sorry,

fellows, but we've decided to take away that

exemption and we'll make it retroactive to 1975."?

We would have taxpayers across this country ready to

take to the streets, I would think. But maybe because

this is the less personal, less visible kind of authority

— namely, mining corporations that are involved the

minister feels he can introduce this kind of

legislation and get away with it.

The analogy is very apt, Mr. Speaker, and should

provoke a great deal of thought in the minds of all

British Columbians. If the government, which is

somewhat indebted, let us say, to the mining

corporations for winning the election, is ready to do

this to their friends, maybe many people in British

Columbia should wonder what kind of legislation this

government might bring in to deal with its enemies.

MR. LEA: Bill 65.

MR. WALLACE: The minister said he does not

agree with the original Mineral Land Tax Act, but

now he amends it to make the provisions stick and

makes it retroactive four years to deny the companies

their day in court.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I've referred already to

the freedom fighters, and I would have to say that if

this is the kind of legislation we are to get from the

Socred freedom fighters, then I think Idi Amin must

be the 1977 version of Abraham Lincoln.

The Socreds complain, Mr. Speaker, about the

mining legislation which the NDP brought in because

it gave too much ministerial discretion and because

the situation could be changed quite dramatically by

changes in regulation at the whim of the cabinet.

Again I just have to say that if ministerial discretion

was such a threat, then this bill must surely be

legislative anarchy.

The outrage against the established rule of law is

something which everyone in British Columbia should

be very alarmed about in this particular bill. Again,

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the man-in-the-street

doesn't really worry about the mining companies.

The popular, man-in-the-street impression is that

mining companies are large, impersonal organizations

making lots of money and not paying their share of

taxes.

Mr. Speaker, it's like so many other things in life.

When government acts against a minority and the

individual doesn't really have a great deal of

sympathy for that minority group, it's very easy to sit

back and say: "Well, I suppose the government knows

what it's doing or has a reason for what it's doing."

But after a while, Mr. Speaker, it's amazing how the

government becomes stronger and more autocratic,

and the next time something happens it is the

individual who suddenly finds that he's lost a right or

a freedom that he assumed was safe and inviolate.

I think that some of the comments that were made

on this theme in The Vancouver Sun on Friday are

worth repeating because they're pointing out that this

bill is, in effect, saying that what was, wasn't, that the

lady with the blindfold and the scale was just kidding

and that this bill invents a new kind of game where

the rules suddenly change after the game has been

completed. The score in the game doesn't count,

except according to the terms set four years later by

the government of the day.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question in this bill of

whether the mining legislation was good or bad or

whether the companies have paid too much or too

little. What is absolutely fundamental in this bill is

the absolute assault on a basic parliamentary concept

that, where legislation has been in effect and is open

to differing

interpretations and ambiguity, those

individuals in a free, democratic society who question

the validity or constitutionality of that law are given

the opportunity to challenge that law where it should

be challenged — in the courts.

This bill, in effect, Mr. Speaker, throws out the

principle of the rule of law by amending what in

the first place the government says was badly written

and poor in concept. Even if that criticism were valid,

they now add insult to injury by making changes

which mean that the parties concerned — the mining

corporations — cannot even challenge whatever

ambiguity or unconstitutionality was in the law as

written.

I did some checking over the weekend and I find

that it is not even $39 million that's involved, not

that the sum is crucial to the argument. But I gather.

that in respect to the specific challenge by five

companies on the Mineral Land Tax Act, the sum

we're talking about is probably $7 million or in that

neighbourhood. Even if you tried to develop the

argument that the government needs the money,

we've just had a quarterly statement that shows that

in the first three months of this fiscal year they've

had a surplus of $100 million.

Even if one wanted to get down to the most

simple way in which to argue for this bill, namely

that the government needs the money and wants to

hang onto the money — that's obvious — we're not

even talking about an enormous sum of money. We're

putting it against the most recent financial statement

of the government that there is a $100 million or

more budgetary surplus in the first three months of

the present fiscal year.

I've discussed this matter with several individual

lawyers. Lawyers are like economists and doctors they

can't always agree very readily on a diagnosis or

an economic policy. But here's one issue, Mr.

Speaker, where I found complete and total

[ Page 4807 ]

unanimity. There is an utter distaste and rejection of

retroactive legislation of any kind, and when it is

made retroactive four years and two months in order

to deny the fundamental right of individuals to go to

court, the lawyers that I talked to, without any

hesitation, were unanimous in rejecting this

legislation as bad, no matter what particular issue it

relates to in the area of taxation.

MR. BARRETT: Are these lawyers Liberals,

Tories or Socreds?

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Leader of the

Opposition, I didn't actually ask their political

affiliation. I asked them for an opinion as to the

importance and the dangers of retroactive legislation.

Not one of them hesitated a moment to say that this

is bad legislation.

There's no doubt that if the government felt that

the former NDP government had written a bad bill,

and maybe they're right. ... Whatever the