1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7049 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 7049

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 44). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7049

Ms. Brown –– 7049

Mr. Gabelmann –– 7050

Mr. Howard –– 7051

Mr. Cocke –– 7052

Mrs. Dailly –– 7052

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7053

Municipal Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 62). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 7054

Mr. Blencoe –– 7055

Mr. Cocke –– 7057

Mr. Skelly –– 7058

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1985

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon Mr. Pelton tabled the "Annual Report to the Governments of the

United States and Canada — Columbia River Treaty, Permanent Engineering

Board."

Hon. Mr. Schroeder tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Milk Board for the year ended December 31, 1984.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, these proposed amendments to

the Vital Statistics Act are intended to increase the consistency with

vital statistic practices in other jurisdictions, to remove some

anachronisms in meeting many of the requirements of the Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in other areas to increase the

convenience of various procedures for the public.

I would like to run over the various points which are dealt with in

the bill. One of the basic activities of the branch is registration of

births, which also includes registration of stillbirths. The definition

of a stillbirth is to be changed to remain consistent with other

countries and other provinces.

The choice of a surname for a child has become a matter of some

controversy in recent years. Not that many years back it was taken for

granted that a child would take the father's surname, but there has

been an increased demand for other options. Amendments to the act would

provide an option for a married couple to give their child the mother's

surname, which at present is not available in B.C.

At the request of both married parents, the child would be able to

take the surname of the mother alone. Making the choice of either

parent's surname possible will avoid any possibility of discrimination

consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I'll give some technical detail to help members

understand what the amendments actually do. In cases where a child is

born to an unmarried mother or to a married woman whose husband is not

the father, the child's birth registration would use the mother's

surname. However, by request of the mother and a man acknowledging

himself to be the father, the child could be registered in the surname

of the father alone. Another change would allow a married woman to file

a statutory declaration at any time stating that her husband is not the

father of her child, and the birth registration could be amended

accordingly. It provides a simplified and less costly procedure than is

currently required to achieve the same thing.

One

section would amend the provisions for exchanging adoption information

internationally. The act at the present time requires the director of vital

statistics to exchange information with other countries regardless of the political

situation in any of these countries if an adoption involves a person born outside

Canada. The policy could result in the misuse of B.C. adoption information in

countries which we, perhaps, believe do not retain such information in a secure

manner. The amendment would provide the director with authority to refuse to

exchange certain information if he felt it would not be treated confidentially

and securely.

Another

section would permit the registration of births and deaths

that occur on ships and aircraft whose first stop afterwards is in

British Columbia. Presently this is only permitted if the ship is

registered in B.C., which is rarely the case. This again would be far

more convenient for those requirements.

Another change in the Vital Statistics Act: the act does not allow a notation

of a change of name to be entered on the birth registration of a married, widowed

or divorced woman. There is no logical reason for this restriction, and it's

simply being eliminated.

Appointing officials who are empowered to carry out vital statistics

functions in the province has been somewhat cumbersome. Current

provisions automatically confer the position of either district

registrar or deputy district registrar upon all the holders of certain

specified positions, including government agents and sub-agents and

their deputies, and even the defunct positions of Indian superintendent

and assistant superintendent under the federal act. Current practice of

the vital statistics division is to contract with government agents to

perform the functions of district registrars.

Section 26 has become

redundant; it's being repealed.

Mr. Speaker, most of the amendments are technical in nature. The

vital statistics division of the Ministry of Health is one which is

seldom in the public eye, but does affect all of our citizens at some

time or other. I believe the changes we are recommending to the House

will assist the director and staff and others to go about their job in

a manner that would greater serve the people.

Those are basically the highlights of it. During committee there perhaps may be some technical questions that we can respond to.

I move second reading.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm really not the lead-off speaker

in this. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), who is

specifically interested, will be here in a few minutes, so I'm just

going to use the opportunity to make a couple of comments on this piece

of legislation.

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of any one person having the

right to accept or reject the name chosen by one or both parents for

their child. We have not been convinced, by anything the minister has

said, that this is necessary. In closing the debate, or in dealing with

it

section by section, maybe the minister could give us a more detailed

explanation of why he has given one person the right to decide whether

a name is acceptable or not.

This seems to be unwarranted interference, really, in a very private

area of a family's rights and life. Who are we to say that the name

chosen for a child is not an appropriate one? What right does an

individual have to decide that a child shouldn't have a specific name,

either because he doesn't like it or thinks it will offend some member

of society or some group in our community? Perhaps there is a more

basic reason why this right has been given to this particular person —

the director, registrar, or whatever his title is. Maybe, in closing

the debate, the minister could explain that to us, but we are opposed

to that particular section, Mr. Speaker. I realize that in second reading we do not deal

section by

[ Page 7050 ]

section, so I'm just commenting on it in an overall way while my

colleague from Burnaby North gets her notes together and will come in

to deal with it. The other thing is....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I haven't got the right to make that decision.

The other question has to do with hyphenated names. Apparently the

director has indicated that he is not willing to accept hyphenated

names, and again I am wondering whether the minister would explain why

the reluctance to accept hyphenated names. It's accepted in other parts

of the world, it's accepted in other parts of North America, and there

doesn't seem to be any reason why it should not be accepted in British

Columbia. Certainly, in many instances where both people involved would

like to use both the mother's name and the father's name in the surname

of the child, this should be permitted, that the hyphenated name should

be used. So maybe in closing debate the minister might explain the

reluctance on the part of the government to accept hyphenated names.

[10:15]

The third point that I would like to ask the minister about in

second reading is why it is that a married woman who gives birth to a

child still needs to have the permission of her spouse in order to use

her surname as the child's surname. This seems to me to be an outmoded

kind of right which we're still hanging on to. It doesn't say anywhere

in the act that a married man has to have the permission of his wife to

use his surname as the surname of the child, yet the act still gives

the husband the right of veto for the woman to use her surname as the

surname for the child.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, the husband still has the right of veto, so maybe in making notes the minister could explain why that is.

Those are the three questions which I would like to ask at this time. My colleagues are ready to continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair would have to observe

that some of the questions that we are canvassing in what is generally

described as second reading could possibly be more appropriately

designated for third reading.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Nonetheless, that's very possible.

MR. GABELMANN: Just a few brief comments. My first one is

that when we do get to committee stage, Mr. Speaker, I think we should

spend some considerable time on

section 3(6) –– I trust the minister

will be bringing in amendments prior to committee stage to ensure that

that

section is in line with the Charter of Rights. Clearly it's

discriminatory in favour of men over women. I think one could, without

stretching it too much, argue that one of the principles of the bill is

the question of equality in determining names for children under the

law of the province. In that particular

section equality is denied: the

male has far more power than the female in respect of the name a child

might receive. So in that respect I don't want to make the argument,

because I'm certain the minister will bring in amendments to rectify

that problem prior to committee stage; if he doesn't, then a serious

debate will no doubt ensue at that time.

I want to make one other comment, and that really is very much on

the principle of this bill. This is intervention by the state in a way

that I think is totally inappropriate in a free society. What the bill

allows is for a bureaucrat to determine whether or not parents have

chosen correct names for their children. It's inappropriate. It's

inappropriate in any society, and most particularly inappropriate in

our kind of society.

Mr. Speaker, government members frequently talk about our society

having too much intervention by the state. They talk constantly about

us socialists as people who want the state to intervene in every aspect

of people's lives. Of course the facts are different, and here is the

perfect illustration of the difference. It is Social Credit that wants

to intervene in family life in this province, in a way that I find

totally and absolutely intolerable.

Mr. Speaker, it may be that the person in charge of this particular

legislation doesn't like certain names. He may say, for example, to a

family that the name Wilbur or the name Jeremiah or the name Frank is

inappropriate because it's not a good name. He may say that the name

Sunshine is not a good name. Why would we give that kind of power to a

bureaucrat? Isn't the right of parents paramount in this situation? If

a child is unhappy with his or her name, at some appropriate time in

their life they can have that name changed simply enough or use a

different name, as many people do. But to give an unelected person — or

to give anyone, for that matter, elected or not, but particularly to

give a bureaucrat — the power to say that the name chosen is not

allowable is an intrusion into the rights of individuals that should

not be allowed in a free society.

Let me say further that if the person responsible for this

legislation, in the bureaucratic sense, is quoted correctly as saying

that he does not favour hyphenated surnames, then we're going even

further in intruding on the rights of families. What is wrong with

hyphenated surnames? It's a grand tradition in Anglo-Saxon history.

Half the names in England are hyphenated.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: We don't have titles. Let me just think about

it in British Columbia. We had a chairman of Hydro who had a hyphenated

last name. So what's wrong with having a name like David Cass-Beggs, to

pick one example out of British Columbia history?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I recognize that the minister isn't serious in that response. I won't take him on on that.

The implications of that kind of thinking lead to a society where

computers are more important than people's rights, because it may be

difficult to program a computer if the last names are complicated.

Therefore, to make it easier for the computer, we're going to have a

simple system. Before long we'll assign everybody a number and they can

have a nickname, as their first name and a number as their last name.

Then the computers will have no trouble at all.

There are some things happening in our society in that respect that

are not good. A predilection on the part of the government or its

employees to deny the right of parents who

[ Page

7051 ]

have different last names to give their children both of those last names is

an intrusion that I'm not prepared to accept.

The argument will be: what happens several generations down the road

when the last names become so long that they become impossible to

handle? It won't happen. Common sense will dictate that that will not

happen. People, in the final analysis, should be trusted. They should

be trusted with their children's first names and with their children's

second names. The state has no role to play.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I also want to express my thoughts

about this. I'm given to wondering why the government wants to stick

its long beak into people's own private affairs. It's not only a

question of the director of vital statistics, in my view, although he

has some responsibility under this to deny or accept given names that

parents seek to provide their children with; but it's also the minister

who is involved in it, because if whatever decision the director makes

is not acceptable to the parents or parent, then they can come to the

minister and say: "Look, this is the wrong decision." I think it's an

unwarranted intrusion into the private affairs of families in this

province of British Columbia to give people the authority to say: "You

can or cannot provide your child with the name that you want to provide

your child with. It's our determination, somewhere in the secret bowels

of vital statistics here in Victoria or in the minister's office, to

determine what the name will be, or more particularly, what it won't be

and what is not acceptable."

One might be able to rationalize the argument or contention that if

a given name can cause a mistake or confusion — as is proposed in the

bill — it shouldn't be available. But there are hundreds and thousands

of people in this province whose first name is Walter — their given

name. Now does that cause confusion?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Name names.

MR. HOWARD: Name names? Not in this chamber. But does that

cause confusion, or could that cause a mistake? I mean, has anybody

ever sent anybody by the name of Walter a bill for something that they

didn't purchase? Or has anybody by the name of Walter been alleged to

have done something improper and been the wrong person? I don't know.

Maybe. The same with Jim; another very common name. Thousands of people

undoubtedly have it. Some people with the name of Jim are so upset

about it that they prefer to be called James. But that's their choice,

and it should be their choice. It shouldn't be the choice of the

director or the minister to make that decision. I find it highly

objectionable to have this kind of intrusion into that question of what

people's rights are.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but we have a province — indeed, a

nation, but here in this province particularly — with a multiplicity of

national, linguistic and cultural inheritances within our family

structures. We have a multiplicity of families the parents of which

come from different cultures. They have different rationales for

providing particular names for their children, some of them of

long-standing cultural and family history. And those names are not now

to be available to those parents except subject to the whims of the

director of vital statistics and/or the minister.

A number of native Indian people, wishing to maintain their cultural ties and

their recognition of their past, are using their own family and tribal names

— names which are, in terms of understanding the import of them, incomprehensible

to most other people in society. A name that a native Indian person will have

themselves or give to their child has a cultural value that means something

to that family and to that tribe. It doesn't mean anything to anybody else.

So here a native person could say: "We have a child born, and we've

registered the child in this name." His name comes to the director or the

minister; on what grounds are they going to decide whether that name could cause

mistake or confusion, or whether that name would be an embarrassment to the

child or another person?

Worse still, the most objectionable feature of this long beak of

government sticking its nose into people's private matters is that the

name may be rejected — and I need to quote this segment only to draw

attention to what I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker — by the director "on

any other ground" other than mistake or confusion or embarrassment to

the child or another person. One could argue that you might have some

rationale for those grounds of objection, but he can also reject it on

any other ground if he finds it objectionable. What is this, the

prejudiced position of the minister or the director that is going to

prevail? In the final stroke of it, if the director considers that a

name is objectionable for any other reason — maybe he's a bit bucolic

some morning and makes that decision — and the parent then says, "No, I

don't like that," and he goes to the minister and the minister says,

"Too bad, I don't like the name either," then the person, whose name

might be Jim — the child — has to have his parents apply to the supreme

court with all the inconveniences and difficulties and costs visited

upon the parents for them to do what is their natural right — to give a

name to their child.

[10:30]

We had a similar provision, Mr. Speaker, in another bill passed

earlier in this session — I believe it was an amendment to the Credit

Union Act — in which certain information could be withheld or denied

members of the credit union, or something to that effect, if there was

objection on any other grounds. We argued that at the time, and the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) stood in the House and said: "Yes,

that is an improper request — to deny information on some vague thing

called 'any other reason or any other grounds."' And they withdrew the

amendment. I submit that that's the course of action that should be

followed here.

We had another bill earlier this session as well, Mr. Speaker, in

which the government sought to sanction criminal activities of bribery

by saying that it was perfectly legitimate within the law. We raised an

objection that it was government sticking its nose into the affairs of

happenings and events in this province and seeking to give authenticity

to the criminal activities of bribery or fraud or conspiracy — to bid

on timber sales. That was withdrawn after we raised legitimate

objections to it.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I submit that the same thing prevails here. It's government seeking

to override the wishes of ordinary citizens in this province, in their

ordinary natural desire to say that their child should have the name

that the parents of that child want that child to have. They should

have the right to do that without interference or intrusion.

The government has done lots of things in its arrogance in the last

few years and has engaged in riding roughshod over the rights of people

steadily and regularly, especially since

[ Page 7052 ]

1983, and here is another example of it. Maybe the minister made a

mistake. Maybe the minister didn't know that this was in the bill,

although I doubt that very much because that's one minister that knows

everything that's in every bill. But it's something that may have

escaped the sharp attention of people who want to do things in a decent

and a reasonable way. I find that as long as that

section as proposed

stands as it is, there's no way that I can support it, and a great many

of my colleagues feel the same way too. It's the long arm of the state

doing an injustice to parents and citizens in this province.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I think we're probably discussing

this bill in the wrong portfolio. I once held that portfolio, and it

strikes me that.... The department of vital statistics is a legalistic

department.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I know. It's a legalistic department. It was set

up to begin with to record deaths and births, but now there is a lot

more to it than that. I think it should be moved to the

Attorney-General's ministry with the overseeing under the rule of law

as opposed to the way it's working now.

I can recall getting woken up in the middle of the night by somebody

who had forgotten to take out a marriage licence and was getting

married the next morning, and the only person who could waive the

three-day waiting period was the minister or the person he or she had

deputized to do that. Frankly, I think it should be moved. The Ministry

of Health is a very heavy ministry, and I frankly don't think that the

Minister of Health or the Ministry of Health need the kind of arguments

that come up around this particular legalistic end of things.

I really think that the government should move it. I can remember

having missed a cabinet meeting or two sometime in the years gone by

when the cemeteries were moved over to the Department of Health. Then

it took me about nine months to get it moved to Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, you know. But of all places to have that responsibility —

under the Ministry of Health! I feel that the responsibility for this

kind of thing should be moved over to the Ministry of Attorney-General.

Having said that, I listened to my colleagues worrying themselves

around this particular bill, saying that the state should not interfere

in the giving of a name. The argument that some of my colleagues are

using is that the state has no right to interfere in that particular

respect. I'll go along with my colleagues vis-à-vis the hyphenated

stuff and so on. For that matter, I have friends right now that have

recently had a baby, and they have decided, because they can by law

hold their own names in their marriage — she has one surname, he has

another — that they wanted that child to have both names as a surname.

They had to wind up having the child named with three Christian names,

including the mother's as a Christian name.

I don't see why. In almost every other jurisdiction in this country — as

a matter of fact, I think every other jurisdiction — the child has the right

to assume both those names as a surname. I know you can complicate things. If

you really reason it out, you can say: "Well, okay, we'll move it back

to the grandparents," and before long you'll have about 14. As a matter

of fact, I know we have a very famous lady in New Westminster, who doesn't

live there any longer, with the name of Cave-Brown-Cave, with two hyphens.

Anyway, I think that that's a moot point. I'm not, really concerned

about that. I think the people should be permitted that latitude. Our

director, who has the responsibility for this act, has indicated that

he is not in favour of a hyphenated name. Whether that reflects the

minister's opinion or not, I am not sure.'But I don't think that he

should involve himself there.

Where I do depart slightly from my colleagues is in some of the

fantastic names that I have heard children called. My colleagues say

that that's the right of a parent, and they say that if the right of

the parent is moved over to the state, that's maybe not a good idea. I

don't particularly agree with that, because I have seen some of those

names. While the person who has been given that name can apply to

change it at the age of majority, meanwhile they have carried that name

through the most sensitive period of their lives.

I'm not going to name some of the names that I have seen, but I'll

tell you that some of them are pretty heavy-duty. That's where I have a

tendency to feel that if a name can be put forward as being absolutely

ridiculous, and if that name can attract the kind of criticism of that

child in its tender years — and fun-making, as children are very rough

on one another — then I think that I don't want to see that

psychological damage done. So I think maybe not the director; maybe

there should be some sort of a committee or whatever, but I think that

there are some that are that ridiculous. On that basis I depart

somewhat.

But as far as the rest of it is concerned, my two points are this:

that with hyphenated names, I see absolutely nothing wrong with giving

the latitude to a family to decide that their child should be

represented by both sides of the family. Number two — and I'm being

harassed by one of my colleagues behind me — I believe that this whole

area of vital statistics should be transferred to the Attorney-General,

who has very little to do in any event; maybe this will add a little

bit of responsibility to that ministry. But no, seriously, I think it

should be moved. I just see absolutely no reason why it's in the

Ministry of Health.

MRS. DAILLY: I've seen the anguish on the minister's face; I

want to tell him that it's going to be very short. This is just part of

a windup. The minister, I know, has heard the arguments, so I won't

repeat them, except I ask you not to pay too much attention to one of

the arguments of the last speaker. However....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, that's why I ask you not to pay attention to this particular one.

Actually, the official opposition's majority stance on this bill is

that the state should keep out of the naming of a child. The director

under this bill has too much power, and we would ask the minister —

without my going into all the other arguments; you heard them — to give

time to consider making a basic change, and that change is simply that

the surname of the child should be the surname requested by the mother

and her husband. That's all; it's simple. Why bother with all this

other stuff and all this complication involving the state in the naming

of a child? It seems to us the height of statism. So I'm going to ask

the minister to give himself time to give consideration to our

arguments. I'm really sincere about this. I think the minister must

have had representations

[ Page 7053 ]

from people, as we have had, over this matter. I would, therefore, move adjournment of this debate.

[10:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 16

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Skelly

Stupich

Nicolson

Gabelmann

Williams

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Rose

MacWilliam

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS — 25

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Richmond

Ritchie

Pelton

Passarell

Michael

Johnston

Kempf

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

A. Fraser

Schroeder

Reid

Ree

Strachan

Veitch

Reynolds

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Those who are vitally interested in this are most

welcome to stay.

There are two or three points, Mr. Speaker, that seem to bother some

members, and with the exception of the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke), I think they perhaps are missing the point of what we're

attempting to do with this legislation. The question of registering a

name.... That is what the division is responsible for: not the choosing

of a name, but the registration of the name. We have had applications

over the years where parents wish to name a child with words that are

not traditionally understood or accepted as a name: words, numbers,

descriptions, statements, political, religious and otherwise. The

concern we have is that a statement rather than a name....

I could give examples of what people have requested. Most of them

have been of a religious nature with a very strong statement. Some

requests have been what I think most people would consider to be a

racist statement, and to have a child carry around that type of name —

so-called — I think would in many ways make his life miserable. Members

have spoken about the rights of parents to do these things. I think

that the child has a right as well. I think the child has a right not

to be harassed throughout the early years of life because the parents

at some moment in time decided they wanted to issue a statement by way

of naming the child.

You can argue or you can offer an opinion as to how far the state or

the government should go in interfering with the freedom of choice of

people, but I think all of our statutes do that to some degree. There

are requirements by society of people to perform certain activities,

including names and so on, in a method that is understood to be

acceptable to society. I have confidence that the director is a

reasonable man and would only refuse to register a name if indeed it

was likely to cause embarrassment to that child or another person, or,

as outlined, would be objectionable for any other reason.

Mr. Chairman, we have had a number of applications which have caused

some concern, because the child himself must carry that name around for

many years before he can legally change it. I think we have to take....

As an example, one person wished to name his child "Christ Died For Our Sins." That was to be the name of the child.

MS. BROWN: Call him Sin for short.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Call him which? Call him Qantas for short.

Others — and I know it sounds strange — want to give a child a

number. They want to call their child "28" or something. I don't

really understand that. Others have made applications where they wanted

to make a different type of statement.

Mr. Speaker, my last comment on that: we also have some people who like to

change their names quite frequently, and like to change the names of the children

quite frequently, depending on what they're into at that time. We feel that

that's improper with respect to the child. It's tough enough for a youngster

to get through society, and I don't think we should encourage people to

make it that much more difficult for them.

So that's why we're doing it. There is no intention to deny a person

the opportunity of naming their child with what society considers to be

a name. But some of the others are perhaps going a little too far.

With respect to the hyphenated name question — and it's one that comes

up frequently — the province has never registered hyphenated names that originate

here. We register hyphenated names if the person is already hyphenated and comes

to B.C. We have tried to discourage the use of hyphenated names; also the registration

of such modifications to a name as Junior, Senior, I, II, III and so on. What

we've tried to do is say: Look, why don't we just name the person? Give

them a name, and if you want to add "U" to the end of it and call

yourself that, fine. Or Senior, Junior, son of so and so, or whatever it might

be. You can do that. It's a matter of registering it. You can call yourself

whatever you want as long as you are not attempting to defraud, but it's

a matter of registering the name. We have said we don't want to register

those names.

MR. HANSON: What would you do with "McTeer-Clark?"

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What would I do with them? Well, I was telling them the other day at the airport....

But it is a serious problem to try to keep it reasonable when it's

being dealt with by the registrar. The hyphenated name will not go

away. I'm sure it's going to be a controversy again, and more people

will be asking that we permit it. I don't know why people want

hyphenated names, but that's their business. In some countries it's

very common. Other countries have different customs with respect to

names. We have a custom. It may not satisfy all, but that's the way it

is at the moment. It's the way it always has been, and I have not made

or recommended the amendments to change it.

There was another point....

Interjections.

[ Page 7054 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, yes — with respect to the permission of

the male spouse if the mother of a child wishes to name the child with

her name, provided she has a different name. At the present time it's

automatic that the child of a married woman is registered in the

father's name. What we're saying is that if the two of them wish to

register the child in the mother's name, then fine, they can. But we

have to start somewhere. It would be an intolerable situation if the

mother wanted the child to be named her name, and the father wanted the

child to be named his name. Then we would have no name. Someone has to

register the child in a name, and if they can't agree, then the law

says it's the father's name. But if they agree that it should be the

mother's name, then it's the mother's name. We have to start somewhere.

Otherwise we have no name to be registered.

This is fun, isn't it? It is not an attempt to discriminate; it's an

attempt to provide an opportunity. I think that makes sense, you know.

I think basically those were the three main issues. I agree with the

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that government should not intervene in

the lives of citizens unless it seems to have a very good and

legitimate reason. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) suggests

that vital statistics go to the Attorney-General's ministry. I would

suggest that perhaps this time the member for New Westminster has a

good idea. I hope I'm not quoted.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 44, Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time

and referred to a committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 62.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to

add my personal welcome to my new colleague, the member for Atlin, who

I am sure is going to feel very much at home in this party, which is

truly the grassroots party.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The process used to develop this piece of legislation was one which

took into consideration all parties involved in the administration of

the bill, and also those who could be affected by it. I consider the

bill to be legislation for the legislated rather than the legislators.

It's a bill designed to assist people, which I believe all legislation

should be.

[11:00]

Bill 62 is designed to streamline the community planning process. It

is designed to regulate land use controls, especially in the rural

areas, to facilitate faster and more flexible responses to development

proposals, and to provide greater certainty for land investors and

local residents.

Mr. Speaker, the major highlights of Bill 62 are the introduction of rural

land use bylaws, which combine the basic features of community plans with limited

zoning and subdivision regulations all in one simplified document, enabling

rural residents to petition for deregulation of complex community plans and

zoning controls; the introduction of a revised development permit system requiring

upfront specifications of the type of requirements to be placed on development

projects and the justification for development permit areas to be stated clearly

in community plans. There is greater flexibility in the way that parkland dedication

requirements are met, including cash-in-lieu-of options.

Bill 62 eliminates double-charging by municipalities in requiring

developers to construct outside services or dedicate parkland, and then

imposing a development cost charge bylaw on them. It also provides for

late-comer agreements, to enable the costs of extending trunk services

to be recovered by both local governments and a subdivider; ensures

that land already zoned and subdivided which may be subject to natural

hazards will be developed only when engineering specifications can be

met; and provides for municipal procedural manuals to enable the

builders and subdividers to more readily understand the

development-approval process. And finally, it ensures that intensive

agriculture can be maintained as a productive commercial operation

clearly separated from nearby residential areas.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by indicating the type of support

that this legislation has received by way of letters written to my

office. I have a letter here from the Union of B.C. Municipalities

fully supporting the legislation; a letter from the Planning Institute

of British Columbia; a letter from the Urban Development Institute, the

Pacific region, again supporting the legislation; a letter from the

B.C. Real Estate Association, again supporting the legislation; a

letter from the professional engineers supportive of the legislation; a

letter from the Canadian Home Builders' Association of British Columbia

supporting the legislation; and a letter from the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture supporting the legislation.

I have a letter here from the Cariboo Regional District supporting

the legislation; a letter from the office of the mayor of White Rock

supporting the legislation; from the Regional District of

Okanagan-Similkameen supporting the legislation; a letter from the

Corporation of the District of Central Saanich; a letter from the city

of Trail supporting the legislation; a letter from the Regional

District of East Kootenay supporting the legislation; and finally a

letter from the Thompson-Nicola Regional District. Mr. Speaker, these

are written in support of the legislation, but there were many others

who in a verbal way have expressed their support.

In moving second reading of this bill, I wanted it clearly read into

the record that, indeed, because of the exercise used in producing this

legislation, which I call legislation for the legislated, not for the

legislators.... It's people legislation, but it has received

tremendous support — you might say unanimous support — throughout this

province from those who will have to administer it and those who will

be affected by it. But, Mr. Speaker, most important of all — and

certainly most important to me — is the fact that the legislation will

result in removing many obstacles and delays which have been costly,

costs which are not absorbed by the development industry but which

rather are passed on to the consumer. Whether they are buying a home,

renting a home or purchasing goods or services in the community, this

legislation is designed to cut through a lot of that red tape, remove a

lot of unnecessary obstacles, streamline and indeed deliver the

services and the goods, the homes, etc., to the consumer at the least

cost. With that, I am very pleased indeed to move second reading.

[ Page 7055 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I want to take a little bit of time this

morning, perhaps not too much time, to give our thoughts on this

legislation and the process, and to voice the concerns about this

planning document that are still with us. It's our feeling that

although the process has been somewhat improved in terms of how this

government and this minister have made decisions for local government,

we still have a document before us that is really a grab-bag of

technical amendments. It is really not a concise, detailed strategy for

planning in the province of British Columbia.

The minister indicates that people have written letters saying: "We

see this legislation and we thank you for the consultation." But if we

really get down to the bottom of it, we find that they would have much

preferred a different style of legislation, a different approach.

Unfortunately, from the point of view on this side of the House, we

have a group of amendments that are suddenly before us which are going

to come into committee. We have no idea whether indeed we will get them

or not. They are put before us — we know that. But we would have much

preferred — given about four or five pages of amendments that are

really a band-aid, ad hoc approach to planning in the province of

British Columbia — that you withdraw the legislation and bring it in in

a very concise, precise way, particularly in the area of regional

planning. I'll get on to that in a little bit.

The major concern that we still have today is that there is no

ability to plan cooperatively in a regional sense, particularly in

contiguous metropolitan areas. If this minister wants to create jobs,

regional planning, if it is done properly, is a major stimulus to

economic development. Unless we have that cooperation in major areas

where there are contiguous municipalities — where they have to

cooperate and talk together and lay out a strategy in a number of areas

for the future — you're going to get continuing balkanization and

bickering and no agreement on strategy.

We happen to believe that planning is a very important component of

economic development. Unfortunately, this piece of legislation, perhaps

in a more subtle way than we originally saw in other pieces of

legislation that have been before this House and have been pulled back,

is still a move to erode the traditional autonomy of local government.

The best planning is done by local government making decisions for

itself without the provincial government setting up incredible

bureaucracies and sets of rules and regulations that interfere with

that process. Once again we see a piece of legislation, although much

improved — and I think that's because of our voice on this side and

that of the UBCM saying local government must have the ability to

govern itself.... This bill is still the provincial government

making decisions in critical areas for local government, and we cannot

support that. Local government must have the autonomy and the

flexibility to make decisions for itself, particularly in rural areas.

We see this government once again, as it has done in the past in the

last few years — as in Bill 9.... We saw the Islands Trust

legislation in the other half of this session take away the power of

local government. Once again, in a very subtle way, this piece of

legislation is going to erode the autonomy of local government.

This bill should not be before us in this form, with five pages of amendments

which are technical amendments. They're not long-term objectives for planning

in the province of British Columbia; they are technical amendments that make

it a hodgepodge approach to planning. It should be pulled back, and the Planning

Institute of B.C. and the UBCM should be allowed to really give what they want

in terms of planning. They want regional planning back in the province of British

Columbia, and they're not getting it here in this piece of legislation.

There are a number of components in this legislation that I want to

go over that I think are still of concern. One is the whole question of

development permits. We are very much in favour of development. We are

very much in favour of job creation, and I'll get to that point in a

minute. This minister has dumped all over a major job creation program.

He turned down the infrastructure program that every province except

Alberta and British Columbia is supporting. He turned it down, and he's

turned down thousands of jobs, and he says this legislation is to

create jobs, and this minister has already turned down thousands of

jobs in infrastructure and rebuilding in the province of British

Columbia.

We're in favour of development, but we're in favour....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All members will be allowed an opportunity to address the bill if they wish. The second member for Victoria continues.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the people who are shouting and

complaining in this Legislature know that every province in Canada

except Alberta and British Columbia — and this minister — have endorsed

the infrastructure rebuilding program.

This minister has turned down the prospect of 33-cent dollars to

rebuild British Columbia. That's what we should be supporting. That's

what we should be planning for. That's what should be in this

legislation: rebuilding British Columbia. Jobs now, jobs for the

future, not some grab-bag technical amendments that once again, in a

subtle way, erode the power of local government.

[11:15]

They talk that they want development. Endorse the infrastructure

program. Endorse the finest mayor that Vancouver has seen in a long

time in his work in terms of trying to rebuild Vancouver in British

Columbia in infrastructure rebuilding. Let's plan for that. They say

they're in favour of development, Mr. Speaker. Let me give you the

details on what infrastructure rebuilding could do in British Columbia

now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. First of all, I'll ask all

hon. members not to interject or interrupt when another hon. member is

taking his place. Secondly, I will ask the second member for Victoria

to relate his remarks to the bill before us, Bill 62, and not discuss

other areas that would be outside this legislation that we have.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, we're talking about planning. This

minister has tried to say that this bill is to improve the development

process and therefore create jobs. What I am saying is that this

minister should be planning for the rebuilding of municipalities.

That's what he should be doing, and he is ignoring that. We have the

opportunity to create 4,500 person-years of direct employment annually

with municipal infrastructure, and another 9,000 spinoff jobs. That's

what we should be planning for in the province of British Columbia, Mr.

Speaker.

[ Page 7056 ]

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

suggest that the member get back to Bill 62. He's talking about a

program that was put forward by a committee headed by Mayor Mike

Harcourt. It has absolutely no bearing on this legislation, and he

should get back on track immediately. Otherwise, anything else he has

to say will go down the gutter along with that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order has been made. Thank you,

Mr. Minister. The second member for Victoria and all members who wish

to participate in this debate are reminded that we are on Bill 62, and

we must discuss the principle of this bill and not areas or facets that

would be outside of the scope of this bill. To Bill 62, please.

MR. BLENCOE: I am talking to the concept of regional

planning, and in regional planning all municipalities could cooperate

in an economic sense in a major job creation program to create jobs.

But without regional planning, without cooperation, we're not going to

have that kind of incentive, that kind of cooperation. What I am

suggesting is that this minister should be paying attention to planning

jobs and letting municipalities get ahead to provide jobs in the

province. That's what we should be doing.

Without regional planning, which this bill once again does not

address, we are not going to be able to do serious economic planning in

British Columbia. Regional planning allows local governments to

cooperate on such things as commercial investment and community

development corporations — if we had the legislation — job creation,

cooperative enterprises, housing redevelopment and industrial

redevelopment. Mr. Speaker, with that kind of economic initiative, you

need cooperation, particularly in urban areas and metropolitan areas

that are contiguous to each other.

We don't have this in this piece of legislation. We still have the

old Bill 9 mentality, which eliminated that cooperative framework for

economic development in the province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if we do not have that item that

you are referring to in this bill, then I fail to see how we could

discuss it during debate of this bill. Concern about the administration

of the ministry might be better handled in estimates, but not during

debate of this bill. Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, if we can't talk about regional

planning in a planning document that is supposed to be a forthright and

wholesome piece of legislation for local government, I would suggest

that we're in real trouble. That's the nuts and bolts — in our

estimation — of planning in the province of British Columbia: planning

for jobs. That's what regional planning did: it allowed economic

development on a regional basis for cooperation to get local

municipalities together to plan for jobs. This government, once again,

is spurning that particular concept. Without regional planning there is

no incentive for the Capital Regional District, for instance, or the

Greater Vancouver Regional District to function as brokers between

councils that are just smokestack-chasing. We know what's happened in

the United States because there hasn't been a cooperative framework

between urban areas. They all go around in a willy-nilly fashion,

chasing smokestacks. Town after town and city after city get left out.

Without a cooperative framework we cannot get jobs in the province

of British Columbia. That's the point I'm trying to make. Regional

planning has to happen. Cooperation, I say, makes it happen. Regional

planning was a major component in developing cooperation between

municipalities. Without that we're still going to have this

balkanization, this grab-bag approach to development. In this bill

there is no.... In a contiguous area one municipality does not have to

consult with another municipality on anything, virtually, certainly in

the planning realm. And that is fruitless.

We need strong economic planning. We need development strategies for

economic planning in regional areas. Those regional planning

departments were able to provide that and bring municipalities together

to provide that strategy. Without that happening, we're going to lose

investment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are dealing with Bill 62,

which, although lengthy, is specific and does not deal with the issue

that you're discussing now. Further, you are reflecting on a previous

vote of this session. Would you please confine your remarks to Bill 62.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the exact section, but

there is a

section here which refers to municipalities having to talk

to each other. What I am suggesting is that if you have proper regional

planning you can get that kind of cooperation. We've got to have that

if we're going to provide jobs in the province of British Columbia.

Without regional planning there is absolutely no incentive to get an

economic strategy going in these regions.

What are some of the other concerns we have? The whole development

permit question. Development permits are being hurt in this piece of

legislation; they're being curtailed significantly. Municipalities use

permits to provide flexibility in zoning and bylaw development. They

are particularly useful in urban areas for commercial and residential

areas. They control the integration of projects and the overall design

objectives of the community. And they help develop high design

standards, which, I might add for the government, are attractive to

investors. They want to come to a community that is well developed,

well planned and well designed. I believe the development permit

process should not be touched at all. It should be allowed to remain,

and that flexible component to planning should be allowed to remain

intact. It has worked well. There have been very few abuses.

Unfortunately I think that what this minister is trying to do is to

ensure that the developers have virtually all the rules in their favour

and the communities and local government to have very few rules in

their favour.

Development permits have allowed local government to ensure

developments are actually built according to what the developer

presents at a public hearing. I can assure you that one of the

frustrations in local government is that you have a proposal before you

that when it actually gets constructed is not what you thought it was

going to be at all. Development permits control that. Local government

has used those in a very innovative way, and I think in a very fair

way. But the frustration has been, as I said in the past, that we have

had projects promised, but when it comes down to it we don't have that

happen.

The third area of concern, Mr. Speaker, is the whole government role

in planning, and the minister's role in rural planning. The minister

will have a very effective say in electoral areas as to whether there

should be planning at all,

[ Page

7057 ]

whether it will be in the form of an official community plan, or a

rural land-use bylaw. And there are no criteria to guide the minister.

What it is, once again, is interference by senior government in local

autonomy, local decision-making and local planning. All the evidence in

all jurisdictions, particularly progressive jurisdictions, is that you

don't interfere in the local planning process if that community wishes

to plan for itself. They have elected officials who are capable of

planning for themselves, and we should allow them to continue with that.

This, Mr. Speaker, is one of the more insidious areas of the

legislation. It is a continuation of the centralization of power by

this government — taking away the traditions of local government. We

saw it in the last part of this session — the power grab with the

Islands Trust — and we're continuing to see the erosion of local

government by this government. We have to speak out against that. We

have to say we support local decision-making, local planning processes

and procedures, allowing them to lay the strategies in their areas and

regions for economic development and job creation.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what Partners in Enterprise is all about.

MR. BLENCOE: I've heard a lot about Partners in Enterprise,

Mr. Speaker. We've seen it on television — a great waste of taxpayers'

money on television. But we certainly haven't seen many new jobs or new

industries moving into town.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Bill 62. And please don't interrupt the member.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The second member for Victoria continues on Bill 62.

MR. BLENCOE: Three areas that indicate that we still have

concerns about this legislation are lack of regional planning, the

impact on the development process, and the continuing erosion of local

planning, particularly in rural areas. We believe this legislation

should not be before us in this form. We believe there should be a

solid planning document that....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition rises on a point of order.

MR. SKELLY: Would Mr. Speaker advise whether there is a quorum in the House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well made. Is there a practice recommendation? I will ring the division bells and summon members.

MR. SKELLY: I counted the faces.

AN HON. MEMBER: Count them again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No discussion during a quorum count.

A quorum has been reached. The quorum is satisfied, thank you. The second member for Victoria continues on Bill 62.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, it's our belief.... I've already

indicated that this bill should have been withdrawn and should come

back as an intact package. It should come back with the real concerns

of local government in terms of the proper scope of planning, in terms

of allowing them to plan economically. That particular component is

missing in this legislation. We cannot support this legislation as it

is today.

We gave this government the opportunity with Partners in Enterprise.

We supported partnership in enterprise, and what has happened to that?

It's died on the television ads. If we're going to have recovery in

this province, local government must be given the flexibility, the

regional planning capabilities to pull themselves together to develop

those jobs.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is that what you did when you were on Victoria council — encourage jobs?

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, here we go!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the various groups that the

minister mentions have said, "Well, we're not going to get any more out

of this government." They're not going to get any more changes. They

know that this government won't really come forth with a serious

planning document for recovery in British Columbia. We would like to

see this minister come forward with ideas for job creation. We'd like

to see him planning for infrastructure rebuilding. We don't want to see

a sudden document that is just a grab-bag of all sorts of amendments

and technical amendments. It doesn't fulfil the full scope of planning

that is necessary in the province, and the major aspect missing is the

regional planning component.

[11:30]

We would urge this government not to introduce this legislation as

it is. Take it back, put the amendments into the legislation if they

want; better still, come up with a piece of legislation that people can

be excited about. I can tell you now that the people responsible for

planning in their municipalities, particularly the economic planning,

are not really happy. They would like a precise, concise document. This

doesn't do the job for them. Mr. Speaker, we will not be supporting

this piece of legislation.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns with respect to

Bill 62. There are aspects of it that I think are necessary and good.

One is the temporary zoning aspect. A problem with the temporary zoning

thing was that they brought it in too late. The city of New Westminster

went after the minister, for some time, talking in terms of some

temporary zoning that was necessary for the Expo proposition and so on.

The minister was kind enough to write a note after they brought in the

bill, saying: "Accept it as being proclaimed." It hasn't even been

discussed; it hasn't even been debated in the Legislature, but accept

it as being.... And most of them did. But the problem was that

certain entrepreneurs

[ Page 7058 ]

would not accept that as the kind of assurance that was necessary to

motivate them to put forward the investment that they had planned. So

it came too late from that standpoint. It came late because of the fact

that rather than include that aspect in a statute law amendment act,

they wanted to put it all together under this Municipal Amendment Act,

Bill 62. As far as I'm concerned, there were jobs lost and also a good

opportunity to get something going.

I also worry, having sat through the debates that centred around the

original Land Commission Act. That act was opposed vociferously by the

Socreds of the day, and many of them are still represented in this

House. The minister putting forward this bill has also been heard in

opposition to the agricultural land protection that has occurred and,

for the most part, has continued throughout the last ten years of

Socred government. I certainly worry when we know the bias of some of

those members and their feeling toward the protection of agricultural

land and their feeling of great support of the developer, no matter

what the developer wants to do. So I have major concerns.

The minister put forward this bill and then went around and

indicated to certain municipalities, certain cities and areas in this

province, that there should be support for these amendments. I think

that's a pretty good idea, but I would like to have seen it approached

earlier, and I would like to have seen the kind of input before the

fact as opposed to after the fact.

Going out and telling people "We have a fait accompli here; what do

you think about it?" is very much like all this "partners in

enterprise" and partners this, partners that. The lesser partner feels

that they had better not make too many waves, by virtue of the fact

that they could come off even worse. This government, regardless of

where you sit in this province, is perceived as arrogant and is

perceived as a government that wants its way and will get its way,

through hell and high water. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm not at all surprised

that the minister got some support out there. I have, however, spoken

to municipal officials and elected members who have said that there is

plenty wanting here and had some concerns about this whole question of

ministerial discretion around matters of planning.

We had that first move towards major centralization by a former

Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is no longer part of the Legislature

— he spends his time viewing the political process and talking to Peter

Pollen, out there in Surrey. He brought in

an act that terrified

people. To some extent we're looking at a similar piece of legislation

here, from the standpoint of the minister being the top decision-maker

in the province. Let the municipality step out of line and they can be

confronted with this piece of legislation.

It has, as I said, some good points. I am pleased about the fact

that we finally are going to give the opportunity for temporary zoning.

Interjections.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: The minister told me we were getting it; then he

brings in the bill, and we go home. No proclamation, not even a debate.

Nothing until now.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: It wasn't needed then.

Mr. Speaker, there is something to be said for some aspects of this

bill. I'm particularly pleased with temporary zoning. But, Mr. Speaker,

I am not pleased with the fact that the minister has the kind of

discretion that he has. I worry, particularly with that minister in

this particular portfolio. He has indicated time and time again that he

wants to be the head honcho, the real boss of all planning and zoning

in this province. I don't feel that that minister warrants the kind of

support that he would like. We've often said in this House that a

minister is trying to be a czar. That's one of the problems with....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is having another one of his fits.

Mr. Speaker, I have every intention of asking the minister to put

forward some good reasons why we should support this bill. The member

for Victoria indicated enough to me about the lack of real planning at

this particular level, the provincial level. That worries me. To date

the minister hasn't given us any good reason to support a bill that

once again increases his power over the municipalities and districts of

this province, enabling, in some cases, some little bit of assistance.

For my money, with a bill as comprehensive as this, at a time when the

province is in such trouble, he has to give us some pretty spectacular

reasons for supporting this particular bill.

MR. SKELLY: In part, we are concerned about the process

through which this bill came to the Legislature to be debated today.

The minister brought in a bill, and there was some serious negative

reaction to this bill. To give the minister some credit, he went

through a process of discussion with a number of the people involved

who initially reacted negatively to this bill. As a result, a whole

series of detailed amendments have come down — detailed amendments that

we've only had the opportunity to see in the last day or so.

The consequence is that we're dealing with an unamended bill in the

House, a bill in principle that doesn't have amendments, and the

minister expects us to go on trust as to whether he is going to carry

through those amendments or not. We don't know that for sure.

A much better process would have been to withdraw the bill and

rewrite it so that we would know in principle what we are dealing with

in the Legislature. We had a case in the House yesterday where the

minister said that he has already spent $260 million of a $375 million

cost on a highway project, and now he's coming to the Legislature

asking to borrow that money. Well, I suggest to you that that's a

backward process, and the process that the minister is using here today

is also a backward process.

[11:45]

The minister should have started the process of consultation with

municipalities, developer organizations, UDI and all of those

organizations. He should have started the process first by going out to

the people involved in the development industry, going out to local

governments and finding out what the concerns were and then bringing in

a comprehensive piece of legislation. The government does this all the

time. They bring in the legislation, they hit people with a baseball

bat, and then they respond to it by making amendments. The result is a

crazy quilt of legislation that doesn't really make too much sense when

it's all put together

[ Page

7059 ]

with the original legislation and the amendments. That's why it is

so difficult to deal with a bill like this in the Legislature. It

appears a crazy quilt with the initial bill and the amendments, and

it's very difficult for us to deal responsibly with legislation like

this in this House.

That's a problem with the process. In addition, the minister in

introducing the bill, Mr. Speaker, indicated that this bill was going

to create additional employment. By changing the legislation, he was

going to create additional employment in the province of British

Columbia. Well, we've heard that one before too, Mr. Speaker. The

simple fact is that in the last four years with all of these employment

encouraging policies of the provincial government, we've lost 70,000

jobs in the province of British Columbia. With all of the legislation

they've brought in with respect to special zones and changing the

Labour Code and reducing the burden of government on the people, we

have lost 70,000 jobs in British Columbia.

The minister is saying that this is going to encourage employment.

We can't take the minister's word on this one either, Mr. Speaker. A

total of 70,000 jobs have been lost over the last four years, and

192,000 people are unemployed in British Columbia. The minister says

that this bill is going to create more jobs. I want to know what kind

of economic studies the minister has done to determine the employment

impact of this bill and the economic impact of this bill. Why weren't

those studies tabled in this Legislature so that we would know what

information the minister has with respect to the employment and the

economic impacts of this bill. As far as we're concerned, if this bill

is like all of the other pieces of legislation that they said would

encourage employment in British Columbia, it's going to fail as

miserably as all the rest. That's why we're concerned about it.

We've seen no hard information from this minister that assures us

that there is going to be any positive employment and economic benefit

resulting from this legislation. But we do congratulate the minister

for doing a little better than other ministers have done in this

regard. After hammering the general public, local governments and the

development industry with this bill, at least he has accepted some of

their criticisms and comments and incorporated those in the amendment.

We're concerned about the political process involved in planning and

zoning in the province. I've been advised by a number of people

throughout the province that before approving regional district zoning

amendments — those amendments that have to come down here to Victoria

for approval — the minister sends them out to either the local Social

Credit MLA or the local Social Credit executive to ask their opinion on

zoning amendments that have already been passed by the regional

district. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who currently lives in

Oak Bay, applauds. I think he's recognizing the fact that that does

happen, that the minister sends regional district zoning decisions that

are sent to Victoria for approval out to regional Social Credit

executive members or the Social Credit MLA for political approval.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

MRS. JOHNSTON: For public input.

MR. SKELLY: For political input — the member for Surrey

acknowledges that. And the member for Omineca acknowledges that. Now

what kind of respect for local government is that, when an individual

Social Credit MLA who no longer lives in the constituency and doesn't

really know what is happening in the north is given the power to

approve regional district zoning bylaws that are referred to him by the

minister?

That's one of the concerns we have about this minister and his new-found respect for local government and for....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: The members for Surrey and Omineca have

acknowledged that the minister refers regional district zoning bylaws

that have already been passed at the local level to local Social Credit

MLAs and....

MR. REID: This Surrey MLA says that's not true.

MR. SKELLY: Well, maybe he refers it to one Surrey MLA. The

member for Omineca acknowledged that he receives regional district

zoning bylaws that have to be approved by the minister, and he gives

the final political stamp of approval. If that's the case, what's the

use of all this legislation, because the minister is going to bypass

the decisions of the local government, he is going to consult with the

local Social Credit executive or member of the Legislature, and it's

the political approval process that counts here.

How do we know that a developer who may be, for example — and we

don't have too many examples of this left — a Social Credit member...?

In seeking to overturn a regional district decision with respect to

a rezoning application, might he not approach the MLA and, in exchange

for his continued support, ask that MLA to overturn a decision by a

democratically elected local government? I think there's a tremendous

danger....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'm so flummoxed by these remarks that are coming

across the floor.... I'm so angry, and I don't want to lose

control....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: He's going to move to Oak Bay too, and we won't have a single member from the north left in this Legislature.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I think the member for Omineca needs help.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We will continue with orderly debate.

In view of the fact that the Chair has a couple of small rulings to

bring down, this may be an appropriate time, hon. member, to....

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

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) asked leave to move

[ Page 7060 ]

adjournment of the House under provisions of standing order 35,

the case of the imprisonment of a Canadian citizen in Costa Rica and

subsequent order for his extradition to Guatemala. Sir Erskine May —

sixteenth edition, page 373 — states that a motion for adjournment must

involve the administrative responsibility of the government.

Accordingly, the member, if he so desires, must bring the matter

forward on notice, as the Chair is clearly precluded from accepting the

member's application under standing order 35.

Also, hon. members, yesterday the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked leave

to move adjournment of the House under provisions of standing order 35, and

stated that the matter concerned the unemployment crisis in British Columbia.

I must find, in accordance with many previous rulings from the Chair, that standing

order 35 is not the proper vehicle to embark upon discussions of unemployment.

I refer hon. members to volume 2, page 69, of Speakers' Decisions ; page 285

of the Journals of the House for 1974; pages 364-7 of the seventeenth edition

of Sir Erskine May; and an examination of the Journals of the House will disclose

that numerous similar applications have consistently been disallowed for not

being in conformity with the requirements of standing order 35.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada