1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

MONDAY, JULY 25, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

469 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act To Regulate Smoking In Public Places (Bill M204).

Introduction and first reading.

Mrs. Wallace –– 469

Oral Questions

Government accounting irregularities. Mr. Cocke –– 469

Mr. Barrett

Termination of Community Involvement Program. Mr. Barnes –– 471

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

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 473

Mr. Blencoe –– 474

MONDAY, JULY 25, 1983

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are

two very fine people from Edinburgh, Scotland, Mr. R. Kerr and his wife

Mrs, J. Kerr, and from Burnaby Mr. P. Robertson, Mrs. J. Robertson and

their son Scotty Robertson. I would ask this House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, we have with us today the

mayor of the city of Port Alberni; I would ask the the House to extend

a warm welcome to His Worship Mayor Paul Reitsma. We also have with us

a group of 15 students from Campus Crusade for Christ, and they are

escorted by Mr. Tulloch. Would the House please welcome these visitors.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me

in welcoming friends from Vanderhoof who are visiting in the members'

gallery today: Bill Price and his wife Leslie. Would the House join me

in welcoming them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the gallery today is a good friend of mine from North Peace River, Mr. Eli Framst, and I'd like the House to welcome him.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join

with me in welcoming two of my hard-working constituency office

workers, Mr. and Mrs. Bob Close, who have moved to Esquimalt from

Coquitlam — although I'm not too sure we can afford to lose anyone from

Coquitlam.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, from that great land of sanity, New

Westminster, the Royal City, I'd like to introduce friends of mine,

Frank Shepherd and Janet Pesklevits, who are visiting us.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO REGULATE

SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M204,

An Act to Regulate Smoking

in Public Places, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

the House after today.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING IRREGULARITIES

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Premier this

question, but he's artfully dodging. Look at those empty benches over

there — almost as empty as their heads.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we're in question period.

MR. COCKE: I will, however, ask the Minister of Tourism a question or

two. Mr. Bruce Johnston, who is the chairman of the board of the Spectrum Group,

parent company to both McKim Advertising and Vrlak Robinson, of wide acclaim,

has been dispatched out here to Vancouver to clean up the mess, we're told.

Has the minister taken action to ensure that copies of relevant documents, accounts

and other records pertaining to this matter are not destroyed before a police

investigation can get underway?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As I have informed the member several

times, the whole matter of the report that he questions is under review

not only by my ministry but by the Attorney-General, and a report will

be brought back in due course.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the shredders are moving quickly, and as long as this....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Do you know that?

MR. COCKE: Yes, I know that. Has the minister decided to halt

the government's obvious stonewalling of this matter, on the grounds

that it can only result in vital evidence being destroyed?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To the best of my knowledge, nothing

pertaining to this report has been destroyed, and I can assure the

member that nothing will be, as far as I'm concerned.

MR. BARRETT: I would ask the Attorney-General to explain to

this House what is necessary for review when the facts are that double

accounts have been kept in one department and documents indicate that

double payments have been made. It's not a question of review. When are

you going to call the police?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, this member may prejudge

that report, which is report number two. We have been promised that

there will be a further report. In the meantime my officials will

examine both the first and second reports and the vouchers and

documents on which they were based. No further decision will be taken

until those examinations are made.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a document has been filed with this

House which states categorically that separate accounts were kept and

that bills were paid twice. Are you saying that Mrs. Morrison did not

do her job properly, and you have to review that? The question is this:

does this Attorney-General attempt to maintain the record of one Robert

Bonner and hide this material from the police for 700 days, or is he

going to call the police? There's been theft here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind hon. members about the rules of question period.

[2:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, despite the flamboyant

demonstration of the Leader of the Opposition, criminal intent is a

matter that still has to be proved, and has to be thoroughly

investigated when all the information is in to determine whether or not

there is a case to examine further from that standpoint. You do not

have a prima facie case of criminal intent simply because you have the

kind of information that appears in that report.

[ Page 470 ]

MR. BARRETT: Considering the record of this government in

similar situations, is it the job of the Attorney-General to determine

whether or not there is criminal intent, or of the public prosecutor

through police investigations, as take place in every other situation?

I ask the Attorney-General why there is not an immediate police

investigation, with hands off from this government, right now in this

case.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have said before and I repeat

it, that there will be a police investigation if the facts that my

officials are examining...when these reports are completed and if

examination by my officials of the documents warrants it. There will

not be a police investigation simply because the Leader of the

Opposition thinks that might be politically opportune.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, some very threatening statements

have been made in that report by Mrs. Morrison — unequivocal

accusations with documents to prove that double-accounting, overpayment

and irregularities were taking place. With that evidence in front of

us, every citizen in this province who is not a nincompoop or afraid to

hide something would say: "Call the cops." I want an answer in this

House why the police were not called immediately in this situation,

where there is obvious hanky-panky and criminal intent to anybody who's

got any brains to see that report. I ask the Attorney-General, why the

stall? What is going on here? What is attempted to be covered up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Two weeks have gone by and it's a coverup.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, you have already

posed a series of questions. This is question period, and the

Attorney-General must be given an opportunity to respond to the

questions one at a time. We are not at speech time, hon. member.

HON. MR. SMITH: If the Leader of the Opposition has any

additional information or reason for believing that this matter should

proceed beyond the investigation stage of officials in this ministry to

some other stage, he can bring them forward. I'm interested, though,

and somewhat bemused at his delayed-action rage to this, two weeks

later. Following the report being filed in this Legislature, he has

now, by benefit of the lamp, managed to get up a good deal of rage that

he didn't have two weeks ago.

MR. BARRETT: For two weeks we have politely waited for the

Attorney-General to make that move. For two weeks of coverup we've

waited. I ask the Attorney-General: does he approve of

double-bookkeeping? Does he approve of double payments? Does he see no

wrong in the two weeks that he's studied it? Thirdly, I would ask the

Attorney General: does he advocate that if municipalities or school

boards encounter the same situation, he would not move on them as well?

MR. BARRETT: I ask a final question of the Attorney-General:

how long will he condone this obvious criminal action that has taken

place in that department?

HON. MR. SMITH: As the member knows, no criminal activities

will be condoned. But he implies criminal activities when the evidence

does not establish criminal activity. If the evidence prima facie does

establish criminal activity, he can be sure that there will not only be

a full investigation but that appropriate charges will be laid.

MR. BARRETT: Why were staff suspended if there was no wrongdoing?

HON. MR. SMITH: Again, this member implies criminal conduct

when there may well have been administrative or financial error made in

a ministry. He implies criminal wrongdoing. In this country people are

still entitled to have all the evidence examined before they are put to

a police examination and also before they are accused in this House of

criminal wrongdoing. I'm appalled at the Leader of the Opposition,

MR. BARRETT: How can the Attorney-General justify the suspension of people from their jobs if a case against them has not been proved?

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: It seems that they've been suspended on a whim,

the very argument that the Attorney-General said shouldn't be allowed.

Now I will repeat this question to the Attorney-General: how can civil

servants be suspended without a case being proved against them?

HON. MR. SMITH: Again, this member continues to confuse a

criminal case with a matter of administrative and financial and rule

irregularity. One may become the other, but one doesn't become the

other because of speeches of the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the Attorney-General: if such double

accounting were found in his department, would he suspend staff and let

it go at that, or would he call in outside police?

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Is it not important in cases like this that

these matters go out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of

a public prosecutor for the answer?

HON. MR. SMITH: It is not in the hands of politicians, Mr.

Leader of the Opposition; it is in the hands of loyal and dedicated

public servants in my ministry with experience in the prosecution of

criminal law. If it goes further from there, it will go into the hands

of the commercial crime department and then into the hands of a

prosecutor to decide and advise whether criminal charges will be laid.

That would happen with any citizen, not just persons or organizations

that may be mentioned or referred to in this report, and the Leader of

the Opposition well knows that.

MR. BARRETT: Is it not common procedure for an ordinary

citizen, if double bookkeeping has taken place with public accounts,

that the commercial crime squad is called in first? Why the delay in

calling in the commercial crime

[ Page

471 ]

squad, as would happen with every citizen outside of government?

HON. MR. SMITH: If the commercial crime squad were called in

every time there were bookkeeping irregularities in the private sector,

I daresay that downsizing of government would not only be impossible;

we'd probably have to multiply their numbers by six or seven times.

MR. BARRETT: If the Attorney-General is telling us there are

other kinds of irregularities that are keeping his staff busy, let him

say so. We are dealing with a specific case proven by the statements of

the auditor-general. If those statements and the facts are there and

the auditor-general is incorrect, let the government say so, but for

two weeks we've waited for action. I ask this question of the

Attorney-General: when will he tell the people of British Columbia that

the police are going to be called in on this matter, either to

prosecute or clear it up?

HON. MR. SMITH: At the risk of being repetitive, I will refer

to page 5 of the auditor-general's second report: "I have now reported

on the serious weaknesses found to date in this ministry. Our work

continues and if circumstances warrant I will present further audit

findings either in another special report or in my next annual report

as may seem most appropriate." There will be a further report. There

will also be, and there is being, an examination of these documents and

these allegations. That is taking place, and appropriate further action

will be indicated as soon as that has been completed.

MR. BARRETT: To the Attorney-General: can you guarantee that

every other citizen would have this same protection, or is this a

protection for a former minister? How much more evidence do you need?

There was double bookkeeping, overpayments and civil servants

suspended. What is the nature of this coverup and how long do you

intend to keep it going?

TERMINATION OF COMMUNITY

INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

MR. BARNES: My question is to the Minister of Human

Resources, Mr. Speaker. The minister has destroyed the community

involvement program which provides $50 per month honorarium for

disabled persons on social assistance doing volunteer work. She has

been quoted as saying: "I don't think $50 a month is going to make much

difference." Has the minister made allowances for the fact that $50 per

month means more to a social assistance recipient than to the minister,

who receives $71,330 per year public service salary?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will ignore the language in which the question

is couched, but I would be pleased to respond to the cessation of that particular

program. It was a program which has been in place in the ministry for some time,

but we have discontinued it in the interests of keeping the core programs of

our ministry intact. As you will know, the core programs in our ministry involve

some very important programs, and I do not take away from the importance of

the one that the member brings before the House today. I'm sure that if

he is quoting me, he is not quoting me in the full context. I'm saying that

in relation to other programs that we have in place, this was not the highest

priority in our ministry.

Therefore the decision to cease this program was made by the

ministry and by the government. We believe that keeping the other

programs going was a decision which was done with the best of care.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at the commencement of the last

sitting of the House the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe)

sought, pursuant to standing order 35, to move adjournment of the House

on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, reduction in

funding for a specific community service. The matter of supply for all

government services has been appointed for consideration by the House

on the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to

enter Committee of Supply. As standing order 35(6)(

d) provides that a

motion under standing order 35 must not anticipate a matter which has

been previously appointed for consideration by the House, the

application by the hon. member must fail, particularly in view of the

fact that the House has given the question of supply priority over all

other business of the House except introduction of bills.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 4, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order with respect to

calling a bill other than Bill 3, to which is attached a want of

confidence motion, namely a six-month hoist. As we all know, a

six-month hoist is an amendment designed to kill Bill 3. I submit to

you that the government has an obligation to deal with matters of want

of confidence about its ability to run the affairs of this province

before it proceeds to any other business. If the government is hiding

from the challenge and is, in fact, saying to the House that it is

putting Bill 3 to one side, then it has an obligation to withdraw that

bill completely. Get rid of it. Get it off the order paper. The

government interfered with the budget debate in order to introduce what

it called an urgent matter, namely Bill 3. I submit that now that they

have backed off from that, they should withdraw the bill and get rid of

it. Then we can get down to Bill 4.

HON. MR. GARDOM: As the member well knows, and as every

member of the House well knows, it's the responsibility of government

to govern and to call bills in such order as it sees fit. One cannot

anticipate, as the hon. member suggested, that Bill 3 will be

disappearing. I've called Bill 4.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 4 has been called, hon. members....

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I raised a point of order; I have not yet heard any ruling about the validity of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the ruling would be that the

government does have the right to call those orders. That will be the

ruling of the Chair.

[ Page 472 ]

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move second reading of....

MR. HOWARD: I want to rise on another point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the time to rise on a point of order is hardly during the opening remarks of the minister. Nonetheless, the....

[2:30]

MR. HOWARD: The Minister has now taken the course of moving

second reading, and I indicate to you that we are not entitled to

proceed to deal with a taxation bill, which is what Bill 4 is, and what

it's identified as — the Income Tax Amendment Act — so long as the

budget has not been dealt with and completed. I think if Your Honour

will take that matter under advisement, you will see that we are

involved here with the blocking mechanism of debate. We cannot proceed

now to be asked by the House to deal with a matter of taxation and by

doing that prevent ourselves from discussing the same matter when the

budget is brought back before the House.

I draw Your Honour's attention to a ruling made on March 24, 1932,

by Mr. Speaker Davie, in which he held precisely that. He said: "I am

accordingly obliged to rule that the effect of introducing the

Amusements Tax Act" — it was a tax act; it doesn't matter what the tax

— "will be to prevent discussion on the amusements tax during the

budget or any other debate other than in the debate on second reading

of the Amusements Tax Act. In order to remedy this situation, it would

be a convenient practice in the future if the Finance minister would

delay introducing taxation legislation until after the conclusion of

the budget debate." I submit to you that he can't have it both ways. I

think if Your Honour examines that, you'll find that we cannot proceed

with this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. One moment, please.

Without prejudice to the point of order raised by the member for

Skeena, and as has been the practice of this House on previous

occasions, I will allow debate to continue at this point. I will take

this immediate opportunity to look into the point that was raised by

the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I submit to Your Honour that by

doing that you are prejudicing the case, and we are permitted to engage

in a debate which should not be allowed. I think Your Honour, if he

wants a moment or two to examine this particular fundamental question

of a move to prevent debate on a subsequent occasion.... Perhaps the

proper course — and I say it with respect — would be to declare a short

recess and not permit the Minister of Finance to proceed with a bill

which I submit he is not entitled to proceed with. That was the

decision of Mr. Speaker Davie.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as I stated at the beginning of my

remarks, I would permit debate without prejudice to the member's point.

Therefore, if the Chair should rule in favour of the member, the debate

would then be rescheduled.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I

could read for you our standing order 27(2): "Whenever government

business has precedence, government orders may be called in such

sequence as the government may think fit, and the right is reserved to

the administration of placing government orders at the head of the list

on every day except Wednesday and Thursday."

The proposition of the member for Skeena, Mr. Speaker, is a very

clear violation of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, and

specifically standing order 27(2). There is ample precedent in the

House for government calling business at such times and in such order

as it deems fit on government days.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications has just said proves that he can read

accurately from the standing orders, because what he read was word for

word from those standing orders. Let me draw your attention, Your

Honour, and his attention as well to the standing orders in effect in

1932 when Mr. Speaker Davie made that particular ruling. I will read

them. It says exactly what they say today: "Whenever government

business has precedence, government orders may be called in such

sequence as the government may think fit, and the right is reserved to

the administration of placing government orders at the head of the list

on every day except Wednesday and Thursday." In that regard, Mr.

Speaker Davie had that under his consideration and decided — contrary

to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications — that it

was improper to permit the Minister of Finance to proceed with the

taxation bill in the absence of having dealt with the budget.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it is an intriguing point that

has been raised by the member opposite. I think that in order that you

could spend some time addressing the issue, the government would be

quite prepared to move to second reading of Bill 9.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in that case could I ask the Minister of Finance to adjourn debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate on Bill 4 until later today.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, you are permitting, by that very process, debate itself.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, we're just moving along. At

some point we have to conduct an orderly frame of business if we are to

get into that particular motion.

MR. HOWARD: I rose before the Minister of Finance got to his feet to move the particular motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there seems to be some slight

confusion at this point that the motion was made prior to the

interjection of the point of order by the member. We have to clarify

that point, hon. member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, if it assists the Chair I believe Hansard

will show that I said: "I move second reading of Bill 4." That has

been the pattern on the part of some ministers over time. I was then about to

commence

[ Page

473 ]

remarks opening second reading of debate. It was not my intention that the

motion would stand by itself; rather, I was about to move second reading and

then explain features of the bill.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the whole force of the point of

order that I raised originally was that the Minister of Finance is not

even entitled to move second reading. The very motion itself becomes

debatable. To ask the Minister of Finance to move some other subsidiary

motion about adjourning a debate that was not supposed to have taken

place in the first place is, I think — pending Your Honour's decision —

improper as well. I think the proceedings at that point must be treated

as not having occurred.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, referring to the point raised by

the member for Skeena, and following through on the example that he

gave, he will see that the debate was adjourned until the next sitting.

Therefore, hon. member, in keeping with the tradition to which the

member himself referred the House, I would now entertain the further

motion on the adjournment motion from the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I understood that I made the motion to adjourn until later today.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion was made, hon. members, but it was never put. You've heard the motion. Those in favour say aye.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, if we're going to

raise points of order, can we please do them at the appropriate time

and not when we're into....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the citing that was raised was about an adjourned debate until the next sitting. The minister....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I know what he's moving, but the citing brought

forward by the Speaker, through the Clerks, was about an adjourned

debate until the next sitting of the Legislature. The minister is

moving an adjourned debate until later today. I think that there is a

significant difference.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the propriety of the adjournment

is the key thing, not when debate is adjourned to. The question, hon.

members, is adjournment of debate until later today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 9.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Before moving second reading of Bill 9, I wish to

make the following remarks. This legislation is being introduced to support

the government's objectives for economic recovery by applying deregulation

principles to the planning and development approval system in British Columbia.

The legislation is based on parts of the previously proposed Land Use Act, which

has been the subject of extensive consultation over the past year with the Union

of British Columbia Municipalities and representatives of the development industry.

Specifically, the legislation provides for the removal of the power

of regional districts to enact and enforce official regional plans.

These plans have become an unnecessary level of land use control,

particularly in view of the number of comprehensive municipal plans now

in place. The government also wishes to strengthen municipal

government, and this legislation reinforces the primary role of

municipalities in determining the land use pattern of local

communities. The regional district will still continue to play a role

in official settlement planning in the rural areas of our province.

[2:45]

The legislation also eliminates the technical planning committees of

regional districts as a further streamlining measure. Now that regional

districts have matured as a form of local government, and provincial

agencies have developed efficient procedures for the review of

development proposals, these committees constitute an unnecessary cost

to both local governments and the province.

The legislation will also remove a financial burden from local

governments and their taxpayers in relation to notifying residents of a

public hearing for zoning purposes. A provision of this act enables

local governments to advertise a public hearing in local newspapers

when the subject of a zoning bylaw change involves ten or more parcels

of land owned by ten or more persons. Existing legislation requires

every owner and occupier of a parcel of land to receive a mailed notice

of a public hearing if the land is in any way affected by a zoning

change. Where a zoning bylaw would affect a large area such as the

entire municipality or regional district, the current notification

requirements can result in extensive mailing costs and legal risks.

Members will have noted the impact of this proposed legislation on

regional districts. With this in mind I want to lay to rest a number of

concerns about the concept and future of British Columbia's regional

district system.

I'm convinced that regional districts have a useful role to play.

This bill removes and modifies some regional district planning

functions, not with a view to destroying the usefulness of regional

districts but with a view to making the system more efficient and

focusing on the services that they deliver best. This legislation

should not be interpreted as a signal that regional districts are on

the way out; quite the contrary, they are here to stay, but in a more

streamlined, cost-effective form. Their growth will be brought under

control in the process.

I am sure this legislation will be greeted constructively by local

governments. Since becoming minister I have been encouraged by the

attitude of our planners, our partners in restraint, the elected

members of municipal councils and regional boards throughout the entire

province.

I believe that in an atmosphere of cooperation and good will we can

make even further progress towards the goal of effective, efficient and

low-cost government. We have the appropriate atmosphere. We at the

provincial level share a common goal with our local counterparts: that

is to enrich the lives of all British Columbians through the delivery

of essential services efficiently at the least cost to the taxpayer.

[ Page 474 ]

I'm proud that this legislation will contribute so significantly to

our objectives. Mr. Speaker, I move that this bill be now read a second

time.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I'm learning very fast that one has

to fly by the seat of one's pants around here and be prepared to speak

very quickly to a piece of legislation; one never knows when it's going

to be introduced. Clearly, what we're finding out from this government

is that they are all over the map in terms of what they're going to be

doing next, and what pieces of legislation. We haven't even finished

the budget debate yet. Now they're going to try to push through a piece

of legislation that is indeed extremely controversial in the province

of British Columbia.

We all recognize what this really is. It's technically called a

change to regional government and regional planning. But by all

accounts, what it really does is allow the Spetifore property to be

rezoned and changed around. A better term is "the Spetifore amendment

to regional planning"; that's really what we have before us. Let's be

honest and candid about that. We've already heard various members of

the government express their views about regional government and

regional planning. We've heard their concerns that if a particular

level of government does not espouse the Socred philosophy in terms of

planning, that government has to find some other way to get what they

want.

I would like to say right off the top, before I get into any

particular details, that this bill is a fundamental violation of local

democracy and local civic government. It violates the basic principles

of local democracy. Municipal governments are indeed extremely

democratic institutions. There is a process at the local level whereby

if there are to be zoning changes or amendments to particular land-use

categories, those municipalities go through a very detailed process, I

think one that's been developed over a number of years, and one that

all along tries to involve the public as much as possible. As you and

my colleagues across the floor know, I have been involved in municipal

affairs for a number of years. The process is a good one; it's

democratic; it allows lots of public input, and it has been developed

over a long period of time. What this bill does today is to upset that

democratic process which has been established over a long period of

time.

I've already said that what you are doing is finding a back door to

get through a zoning on agricultural land that you know darned well you

cannot get through the normal procedures and the normal regional

government level. That's what you are doing. Why don't you admit it and

be candid with the people of British Columbia? That's what this act is

all about.

Last year we had the Land Use Act before us, which we know was

extremely controversial. There were a number of public meetings, and

municipality after municipality indicated to the provincial government

that what you were doing through the Land Use Act was interrupting a

long-standing tradition of local land-use planning, local land-use

decisions, with democratically locally elected people making those

decisions on behalf of their electorate. This government took a lot of

heat and criticism over that Land Use Act. They tried very hard to

convince the people and the municipalities, and the elected officials

in the local municipalities, that it was a good act. We know what

happened to it, however. You finally had to withdraw it because it

violated local autonomy, local decision-making and local planning.

We have seen in the last few weeks a lot of moves by this government

to get involved in local decision-making and local processes. We've

seen the government move in and talk about making decisions for local

school boards. We've seen Bill 3, which is not being debated today, as

a move to affect local governments in terms of how they deal with their

own employees. Clearly — and this has been very well demonstrated —

what this government is doing, or is determined to do, is to centralize

many of the democratic institutions in this province into their hands

and into the cabinet. That is something that I think is of concern not

only to this side of the House, but to many elected officials of all

party stripes. I would remind my colleagues across the floor that

indeed the Land Use Act was criticized by people of all political

stripes.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Just by the commies.

MR. BLENCOE: No, Mr. Speaker, it was criticized by people of all political persuasions.

If there is something that local government wants to hold on to and

believes is fundamental, it's the power of local governments to make

their own decisions.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: We know what this bill is. It's a way for this

government to erode a valuable piece of agricultural land reserve and

to find a way around what the GVRD has said to this government.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: That regional government, made up of

representatives of the whole region, doesn't support your desire to see

that piece of land removed from the agricultural land reserve. That's

all you're doing. You're bringing this in.... We heard certain members

and representatives of this government say they'd find some way to get

that Spetifore land out of the agricultural land reserve. Well, you

have found it in Bill 9.

1 go back again to local governments and why local governments get

together in regional planning to look at a total approach to problems.

MR. REID: I thought you were talking about local government. That's not a total approach.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, yes, it is. When civilized societies — which

hopefully we still are in British Columbia despite this government —

decide to collectively....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps the other members can come to order so the second member for Victoria can continue.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When civilized societies decide to collectively amalgamate in urban

areas, and when you have large municipalities adjacent to others,

particularly in urban ridings such as Vancouver and Victoria, there are

some problems that cannot be approached just by one municipality or

another. We have all

[ Page 475 ]

sorts of examples in other parts of the world and

in jurisdictions where you have the balkanization theory that you're so

independent and determined to get through and do what you want that you

pay no attention to your adjacent municipalities. That leads to chaos.

When you have literally millions of people who live in adjacent

municipalities, there comes a time when those municipal governments

have to talk to each other and work together. It's a known fact. All

progressive, well-known planning procedures now recognize that when you

have adjacent municipalities with common problems it makes sense to

talk about those problems in a common fashion. You have then the making

of what's called regional planning.

I was on the regional planning committee of the CRD.

[3:00]

MR. REID: That's why it's a failure.

MR. BLENCOE: It's amazing how these members can accuse

something of being a failure, because very few of them really

understand the municipal operation and the intricacies of trying to

democratically plan for municipal government. Municipal government is

not removed from the people like this government is. They have to make

decisions on a daily basis that have to stand up in council meetings

every two weeks, and those electors can get to those members just like

that — very fast.

What we're doing here is to allow regional planning to be done by

cabinet. The minister shakes his head, but what he has decided is that

local municipalities which want to get together are no longer able to

do that over planning matters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Government back to the people.

MR. BLENCOE: No, it's not government back to the people at all.

When this bill comes into force — and I would hope this government

will consider that, because you're going to create some chaos in local

planning — all existing official regional plans will be cancelled.

Let's talk a little bit about that. For a number of years, local

municipalities and regional districts have spent a lot of time and

effort studying the particular regional planning problems of their

area. Many hours have gone into that process; many public hearings have

been held about how to develop the regional plan.

MRS. JOHNSTON: And much money has been spent.

MR. BLENCOE: Democracy can sometimes cost you a few dollars,

hon. member. I know that perhaps to you democracy should be eroded fast

and quickly, but democracy can sometimes cost money.

Those local governments have held many hearings on how those

communities should be planned. That's very important. If there's one

thing the people relate to in a local and civic government, it's the

fact that they have the opportunity to plan together with their elected

officials. That's very important; it's fundamental. The zoning and

planning process creates the environment that thousands and millions of

people have to live in. That process determines the quality of life,

the lifestyle, the kind of neighbourhoods we live in, how our families

are going to grow up, what our schools are going to be like and where

the schools are going to be. That's what a regional plan does. One of

the things it pays attention to is where schools are going to be and

how they're going to relate to the municipality. It's very important.

Yet this government is saying to the people of British Columbia: "We

don't believe in that kind of planning. We want to eradicate it and

eliminate it." For instance, in the Capital Regional District, this

beautiful part of British Columbia and Vancouver Island, we now say

that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that all you think there is — Vancouver Island?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you ever been past Hope?

MR. BLENCOE: You're beyond it.

I will use the example that I know, because I happen to be elected

here in this region, In the Capital Regional District we have a number

of municipalities and a number of unorganized areas. We're proud that

we have a very beautiful Capital Regional District. One of the reasons

it is beautiful is that those member municipalities and unorganized

areas have gotten together and planned accordingly. They've shared

their regional concerns and aspirations and what they would like to see

happen with the local economy. They've tried to share, for instance,

what should happen with the shopping centres. We have a classic example

up-Island, in the Nanaimo area, of the shopping centre syndrome, and

the highest number of shopping centres per capita virtually anywhere in

Canada, because there has not been a tight regional planning process.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Those people in the private sector, Mr.

Minister, are beginning to wish they had not built as many regional

places up there, I can tell you that right now.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...a donkey like you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll ask the hon. minister to withdraw the term. It is offensive as applied to another member,

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I withdraw the offensive word or words.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm quite used to that member's comments. I'm

glad you asked him to withdraw, but it doesn't bother me one little

bit. We all know what kind of member he is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I had the member withdraw

because I found the term offensive, and I find many terms offensive.

Will the member please speak to the bill.

MR. BLENCOE: We have an example here in the Capital Regional

District which happened a number of years ago: the Tillicum shopping

centre. Deep concern arose when Saanich was going to permit an

extensive centre to be built out where the current centre is — a

massive development. What that did was throw doubt on the survival of

the downtown area. There

[ Page 476 ]

is no question that the core area of Victoria, the

CRD, the downtown community, is a very important part of this region.

Its survival is essential to the whole capital area. Its very

uniqueness is an integral part of why this city draws thousands of

tourists here. Its viability has been maintained sometimes at the

expense, I would say, of entrepreneurs who wanted to develop Tillicum

to the extreme.

The reason I'm giving the example, Mr. Speaker, is that the Capital

Regional District, in its wisdom, decided to challenge Saanich that the

shopping centre would not be in the interests of the community at

large; that it would threaten the very existence of the downtown

business community and you would start to see the results of a

dwindling economy downtown. We all have see the results of that in

other jurisdictions, other parts of North America. You've only got to

go to Portland, Oregon, to see what happens to a downtown community

when regional planning isn't tight and local municipalities take into

consideration the problems of other municipalities. We have a classic

example right here in the capital region, where the regional plan was

upheld and the Tillicum project built, but it was not built to the

degree that the entrepreneurs in Saanich wished it to be; as a

consequence, the viability of our beautiful heritage downtown was

maintained. That's very important.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

There seems to be, in this government, an attitude that anything

that has regulations attached to it, or anything that might be a check

and a balance to rampant free enterprise, or whatever you want to call

it, must be removed as quickly as possible. That's what we've got here.

Municipal and regional planning procedures have been developed over a

long period of time. They are basically developed so that local

municipalities can try to plan on a regional basis, sharing the

concerns of their particular neighbouring municipalities and trying to

develop a regional approach. That's very important. You cannot see a

local economy, school planning or economic development....

Let me give you an example. It's like saying that in the Capital

Regional District each municipality should have an economic development

commissioner. Let's think seriously whether that would be feasible

either financially or otherwise. No, of course it isn't. I should say

that this government was a major supporter of that economic development

commission. It was supported by a well-known local Socred, Alderman

Frank Carson, who said that regional economic planning in this area

should be done on a regional basis. He said, and I'm sure many of these

members said the same thing, that it would be ludicrous for each member

municipality and unorganized area to hire an economic development

commissioner and appoint an economic development commission. It made

sense, and the government supported it and funded it on a regional

basis. I won't go into the fact that they're trying to eliminate some

of that funding now; that's for another debate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that this government supported a

regional approach to economic development. It worked through regional

planning at the CRD and it was local Socreds who supported that. If the

government supports that local regional approach — and I'm using only

one example in the CRD — then really they should think most seriously

about this approach to regional planning. For instance, regional

planning in local Victoria provides extremely useful statistical

information, background studies and analyses for that economic

development commission. Nobody else is doing it. No other planning

department has a regional approach. What you're saying now is that each

municipality will take the responsibility for planning their own area,

but nobody is going to take the responsibility for the whole Capital

Regional District or the GVRD. It's going to be one mess. You're going

to have no one coordinating regional planning processes. You're going

to have municipality fighting municipality,

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, you are, Mr. Minister. If you take away the

regional planning process, whereby you at least try to have some

semblance of order in regional planning, regional matters, you're

asking for chaos, particularly in the greater Vancouver and greater

Victoria areas.

Interjection.

[3:15]

MR. BLENCOE: We hear, "Let's give it a chance." We hear them

talking about Bill 3, saying, "Give it a chance, " If we give this a

chance, if we give Bill 3 and a lot of the other pieces of legislation

a chance, there won't be much left in this province; there won't be

much left at all. You are trying to dismantle every civilized principle

and ideal, which has taken years and years to develop. You are on a

course of dismantling the fundamental institutions of this province.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh yes, you are. You are in a dismantling mood,

and you're going to take apart things that people have accepted for

years and years, things that keep a civilized society alive and well.

You are bent on a course from which you don't know yet the storm you

are to reap.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: When you scratch that minister over there, he sure responds.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I respond to free-thinking free individuals who want to function in a free society.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, sometimes the truth hurts that

minister over there. We've seen him respond over the last few weeks. Of

course, that minister has yet to step up and speak to.... I don't think

he's spoken to anything yet.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Has he? What's he spoken to?

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: But he hasn't gotten up and given any intelligent debate yet.

[ Page 477 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. We're debating a bill, not a minister in this House. Be so kind as to get back to the principle of Bill 9.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, there are lots of friends here. I don't see

many Socreds in this audience, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that. There

aren't many of them left in this province. Even your own candidates are

bailing out. Even your own members.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Back to Bill 9. I will have to give credit to the government. The

government has yet to dismantle official settlement plans; they're

going to leave those intact. But they are virtually worthless when you

don't have a regional planning component. They don't mean anything

they're written on.

Let me give you some more examples of why regional planning is

essential, and again I'll speak from local experience. We have in this

region some very beautiful areas out at Sooke and Metchosin, which I

and many residents out there believe in preserving in some form of

natural state. The Sooke area is represented by Mr. Don Rittaler, who

is opposed to regional planning, opposed to the agricultural land

reserve; he wants to build everything he can out there in that

beautiful Sooke area. Now you have only one member, having gotten rid

of regional planning where there's some sense of order and

civilization, with some members controlling people like Mr. Rittaler,

who would build over everything. That one member is now going to have

the power, because of no regional planning and regional coordination,

to do virtually as he will with agricultural land and beautiful areas

in Sooke.

That's very serious. What happened in the regional planning process

was that if in one particular area, like Sooke and Metchosin, that

representative was bent on a course that was detrimental to the health

of the region as a whole....

When I say "health, " I'm not talking about just physical health;

I'm talking about social health, environmental health. As we all know,

this region is the retirement community of Canada. There are good

reasons why people come here. It's because it has been planned

properly, and regionally planned properly. If you do away with that, I

would say that this region will very soon not have that reputation in

this country. You're going to get those wheeler-dealers, the

fly-by-night developers who can get hold of one particular member in a

region, and not any more through the regional government, where there

is some discussion and democratic debate and a vote. There's one member

now. In walks your fly-by-night developer, who will turn Sooke and

Metchosin into the Scottsdale, Arizona, of the Capital Regional

District. I predict that, Mr. Speaker. That's what this bill is all

about. This bill is to finally do what they have wanted to do for a

long time: allow their special-interest developer friends and

development companies a free rein in ruining some of the most beautiful

countryside and regional districts in this province. It's the Spetifore

amendment, as I said earlier.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, it's not nonsense and you know it, Mr.

Minister; that's why you've introduced it. You've had many members of

your government saying: "We'll find a way to bring Spetifore out of the

agricultural land reserve." Well, Mr. Minister, you're the guinea pig.

They're getting you to do it. You are to be the guinea pig for your

government's friends in the development business, and you're going to

find a way around the democratic zoning and public hearing process any

way you can.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is that the only argument you've got?

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, no, I'm here for a little while longer; don't worry.

I wouldn't want to let the House think that we don't think this is

an important bill, Mr. Speaker. It's a very important bill. It shakes

down some of the important precepts about local government and regional

planning. I'll come back to the CRD, but I want to give my colleagues

across the way some insights into what other people think about what

they are doing.

One of this government's biggest supporters has been the

organization HUDAC. They've supported this government; they're a good

organization.

MR. REID: They've got good leadership too.

MR. BLENCOE: I have no argument with that. They're a

hard-working organization that has supported this government. That's

fine. I have no problems with that. People will support whom they want

to.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: If that member is saying that they supported

good organization and they supported the NDP, he's absolutely correct,

Mr. Speaker. I think that's what he said.

HUDAC has always recognized the need for regional coordination of

municipal plans within the GVRD and CRD. They are on record as saying

that. I think you should perhaps have a further meeting with HUDAC.

They support regional planning. They know it brings a semblance of

order, decorum and agreement, and a sharing of concerns.

MR. REID: Are they for this bill or not? They're for this bill, you can bet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll remind the second member for Surrey that

this is not a coffee klatch. This is the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. Every member has ample opportunity to speak when his

turn comes.

MR. BLENCOE: In a letter to Mr. Heinrich, dated December 3,

1982, when they were dealing with the Land Use Act, which this

particular act has some similarities to in terms of removing regional

planning, HUDAC said: "Indeed, we are now convinced that there would be

some major disadvantages associated with the loss of regional plans

within the lower mainland and the CRD regions." They're not an

organization that says things lightly; they're very serious. They've

generally been supportive of this government. They have a vested

interest in the free enterprise system and how it works, where they can

get their homes built, and where they can get their planning done.

HUDAC are saying that they think there

[ Page 478 ]

are some major disadvantages associated with the

loss of regional plans in the lower mainland and the CRD regions.

That's a very important statement, because one of the major criticisms

and one of the major reasons why we see this bill introduced is that

the planning for it....

Mr. Speaker, I will have to let you know that I will be continuing to speak to this bill; I am the designated speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member designated. Thank you.

MR. BLENCOE: I've lost my train of thought.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: We've got lots of time, Mr. Speaker, and we'll be here quite a while on this particular bill.

Oh, yes, HUDAC. One of the reasons this government tried to

introduce the Land Use Act and is now introducing this particular bill

is that there is a general accusation that municipal governments are

too slow with development proposals, that the zoning procedure holds

them up in some way, that the local democratic system of land use

zoning and public hearings thwarts their friends in the development

industry. I have to agree, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes the process is a

little slower than it should be. When you are dealing with land use

matters that affect the way people live, how they live, where they

live, what's going to happen in their neighbourhood, how their

communities, cities or regions are going to look or what's going to

happen with their families or their schools, that does concern people.

The process may sometimes be a little slower than some would like it to

be. Regional and urban planning and how it is emphasized and supported

is a measure of a civilized and progressive society, Mr. Speaker.

If you eliminate those ways of pulling people together and sharing

common concerns in trying to come up with regional solutions, you

invite all sorts f problems and all sorts of chaos. HUDAC have said in

the past that municipal processes are a little slow and they want the

zoning process to be much quicker, yet they are convinced that there

are major disadvantages associated with a loss of regional plans within

the lower mainland and the CRD regions. HUDAC has criticized local

government and municipal planning procedures for years and years and

they're well known. I have not always agreed with their positions,

because I know that they want to get on as quickly as possible, and the

local official, of course, has other considerations and things he or

she has to take into account.

When you're planning a region or a municipality, and this is

probably the most democratic, accountable and accessible level of

government there is, you have to allow people, through the public

process, the APC public process and the public hearing process, to

speak up on their concerns over a particular aspect of land use zoning

or rezoning. That is slow, I agree, and it takes time. But as I've said

just a few minutes ago, there's nothing more fundamental than someone's

own particular area they live in — maybe it's two or three blocks, or

maybe it's a neighbourhood. Their family has to live there and their

children grow up there, and it really impacts on how that family

develops, where those children go to school, what that community is

going to look like and what the physical and social environment will

be. It's very important in a civilized society. There has to be some

order and some rationalization of aspirations of hundreds of thousands

of people who want to see something happen in a particular urban or

regional area. Somehow there has to be a clearinghouse or a method to

sort through all those aspirations, concepts and ideas to come up with

a plan that tries to take a measure of the common good will, if you

will, of that particular region — a consensus, if you will. If you

eliminated regional planning — and by this bill you will be doing that

— you will no longer have a way to achieve consensus in large urban or

large rural areas. You won't have it. How are you going to do it in

rural communities? How are you going to do it in areas that don't have

local municipalities?

Interjection.

[3:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Well, you know, I keep hearing these words "have

faith," Mr. Speaker. I keep hearing it on all sorts of pieces of

legislation, and I have no rationale for why they want to do things.

All we hear is "have faith." The people don't believe that anymore.

They don't have any faith in you anymore. They don't have any faith

because you keep introducing things that scare people and you keep

saying: "Have faith. We know what's best for you." But you don't tell

them how you're going to do it. The people can't have faith any more in

this government. In the last month or so they've seen what happens when

they put faith in them.

Regional planning and that process is very important to the

civilized, orderly development of regional areas, both urban and rural.

That's a fundamental truth, and you even have HUDAC saying that, Mr.

Speaker.

Official regional plans are prepared by the regional boards and

applied to the regional district as a whole, including member

municipalities. Let's talk a little bit about that. One of the things

that we have problems with in the Capital Regional District — again, I

refer to the Capital Regional District because it's an area I know

well; I'd like to try to give my concern for this bill through living

examples — is that we have the largest unorganized area in Canada:

Colwood, Langford, View Royal, Sooke and Metchosin. That's a known

fact; it's the largest in area. For those unorganized areas and their

representatives the CRD board is their local council. We know that

there are problems with regional governments per se, and we're prepared

to talk about some of those problems and try to work with you to

resolve them. We don't believe that eliminating a particular function

that tries to hold things together is the way to do it.

For that largest unorganized area in Canada, the regional planning

process is the only way that they have some semblance of order and

approach to their area. We've had discussion about amalgamation of

those areas and that they should get together and all have their own

municipal government and their own elected council. There have been

some studies on that, and nothing's happened yet, and I don't know

whether the minister has something in mind for us on that particular

unorganized area. Maybe he does. Maybe he's going to give them a couple

of years to amalgamate or get it together.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Have faith.

MR. BLENCOE: Have faith, he says. Well, we'll wait with bated breath to see what you're going to do.

That area is an extremely large area, and the regional government and regional

planning process are very important to it. Take away that regional component

and regional planning process for that unorganized area, and you've taken

[ Page

479 ]

away one of the fundamental roots of that region's orderly development.

It's ludicrous. You can't do it. They're wondering where they're

going to go. Who's going to do the planning for View Royal and Langford,

or Sooke and Metchosin? Have you thought about that? Do you know who's going

to do it, Mr. Minister?

I know darned well they don't know. They haven't got a contingency

planned for those unorganized areas. In those unorganized areas the

regional planning component through the technical committees is the

only technical advice that those elected officials have — their only

way of obtaining some help in orderly development of their regional

areas. That's the only thing they've got. Where are they going to go?

What are they going to do? They're not going to have a planning

process. You know that when you take away some semblance of order....

It's like in the legal profession: you take away the laws and the

rules, the legal practice, and what do you get? You know what you get;

I don't have to answer that. In the unorganized areas, you're doing the

very same thing. You are going to get thousands of people in those

unorganized areas, but there is going to be no way of organizing the

planning of what's going to happen in particular areas of those

unorganized rural areas. I can't believe even this government would do

that.

In the urban areas, we do have municipal planning departments. They

are very good ones with dedicated staff, developed over years and years

through very good professional schools of planning. I know many of them

personally, from the Waterloo school of planning. We have many

dedicated planners who work in the GVRD and the CRD with lots of

experience. Despite the politicians who tend to meddle in the planning

process too much sometimes, we do have in the province of British

Columbia a fairly healthy planning community. Local municipalities have

maintained municipal planning departments.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The theory behind this particular bill is that the local

municipalities, because they have their own planning departments, don't

need regional planning. The mandate of a municipal planner is that

municipality, that's all. Nothing else. They don't have a mandate....

MR. MOWAT: Get on with it.

MR. BLENCOE: Get on with it! That's the very thing I'm

saying. Get on with it and have regional planning. That's why you have

it. But you are going to vote for this bill, I presume, to eliminate

that thing which you just suggested we get on with. That shows how

illogical this government and some of its members are. He just said:

"Get on with it." Get on and do regional planning.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: We all know there's a government Socred vendetta against

the GVRD. We know they want to eliminate the agricultural land reserve in Spetifore.

This is why this act is here. I am trying to stay away from that nasty piece

of Socred trickery. I don't want to talk about why you want to do that.

That's not my intention, but you keep bringing it up.

I've tried to outline that local municipalities have municipal

planning staffs. Those municipal staffs only have a municipal mandate.

Somewhere along the line somebody has to take responsibility on a

regional basis. What's the population in Vancouver? A few million? When

you've got that many people living as close together as you have in the

GVRD, you're going to need some approach and some way of pulling those

member jurisdictions together to do a regional plan and plan for the

region as a whole. It makes sense. If the Greater Vancouver Regional

District has no regional planning component, how does this government

intend, for instance, to manage major sewer proposals that link one

municipality to another? That's an important planning process. You have

to have those various links, and you have to have people plan that

communication and contact between each municipality. But you're going

to eliminate the fact that you even have to have a regional plan,

either in process or actually currently developed. It's gone.

MRS. JOHNSTON: So you eliminate regional districts.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, now we've got it — eliminate regional

districts. Well, I presume that's the next move, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps,

Mr. Minister, you could confirm or deny that. Is that the intention of

the government?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Did you hear my speech?

MR. BLENCOE: Regional plans are particularly important to the

GVRD and the CRD.

Section 812 of the Municipal Act, which is to be

repealed, states: "A regional board...of a member municipality may not

enact a provision or initiate works which would impair or impede the

ultimate realization of all or part of the objectives of an official

regional plan." Thus the GVRD blocked the proposed housing development

on the Spetifore lands in Delta, and the CRD was successful in reducing

the proposed size of the Tillicum Mall in Victoria, because these

proposed developments were contrary to the overall objectives of the

regional plan.

There are two examples — and I've mentioned them earlier — of why,

indeed, we must have a serious, thoughtful approach to regional

planning.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, these members would like to speak.

Many of them haven't spoken at all since we started any debate in this

House, but they want to debate now.

Regional planning will be totally eliminated by the amendment. The

minister has yet to answer what will happen in particular rural,

unorganized regional districts. Where will they go for planning

functions? They won't have any at all. There will be no semblance of

order in those particular unorganized areas.

[3:45]

1 would like to quote from some local politicians who have attacked

this particular act. The chairman of the Capital Regional District,

Howard Sturrock, has called upon the minister to recognize and accept

that there must be a regional overview. He asked that the minister

instruct his staff to bring four proposals on how this can be

recognized on an individual regional district basis.

[ Page 480 ]

Local governments really would like to work with the government on

this particular aspect. They had the Land Use Act introduced to them

through the back door. They said it was going to be dumped on them; it

was going to be law. Now they have this act, and they've sent hundreds

of people scurrying to find out what it all means and what is going to

happen to regional planning. It's too bad this government doesn't enter

into a consultation process with local government. It might be to your

advantage to actually discuss with local and regional governments what

your intentions are vis-a-vis municipal and regional planning. It might

be useful. You have the UBCM, for instance, at your disposal. It's too

bad the minister — the new minister, at that — did not decide to ask

the UBCM to call a special meeting to deal with municipal problems

rather than dumping it on them just like that. Maybe a consultation

process would be extremely useful, Mr. Minister.

It's unfortunate that unlike the local level of government, whereby you introduce something like a zoning thing.... It

goes through the channels, and there's a public hearing process where

the people can give their concerns about a particular piece of

legislation or zoning. Unlike that process, local government doesn't

have that here at the provincial level. What has to happen is that they

have to react and find some ways to affect the government through the

back door, or to make a lot of noise, create confrontation, get people

upset, get planning departments and municipalities and regional

districts to spend hundreds of hours with their staffs analyzing what

all these various things mean, costing taxpayers thousands and

thousands of dollars in order to react to your legislation in terms of

what it means for the local planning process, the local municipality

and the local taxpayer. I would urge that minister to work with local

government, to consult with local government. They are open; they are

accessible. They wish to work with government, despite who's there. I

believe that if they had consulted local government and the UBCM, they

would have discovered that the reaction to this bill would have been

virtually 100 percent negative.

I would suggest that if this government is serious about trying to

improve the planning process at the local and regional levels, it take

some time to rethink this particular bill. You're going to have some

time, because we're not going to be debating this bill for the next few

days. We're going to get back to other things, I'm sure. Take some

time, perhaps to check this bill out with some of your Socred members

who sit on local government. Check it out with them. Like HUDAC, you

will find that they have some deep concerns about what you're doing

with regional planning. You'll find that out.

It's unfortunate that the government did not decide to consult with

those regional governments before they introduced the bill. What's

happening is that you have once again created all sorts of fear and

concern in planning departments, and in local unorganized and organized

areas, that they're going to lose a regional plan that gives some

semblance of order to what happens in zoning and to how those member

municipalities develop over the years.

Once again, through your inability to communicate with those you are

supposedly governing, you have failed to share with them before you

dump a piece of legislation which will radically alter regional

planning. You have failed to check it out with many of those

municipalities. The reaction, like last time, has been to send people

away to try and find ways to.... How can we affect this government to

look at the fact that regional planning is a useful function in British

Columbia?

I would hope that the minister — because he's going to get a few

days to reconsider this — will consider that perhaps he should meet

immediately with the UBCM and the CRD and perhaps with regional

chairmen. He should meet with them in the next week or two, and sit

down with them. If you do have concerns with that particular level of

the planning process, is there some consensus you can reach on regional

planning?

Mr. Speaker, what I'm trying to do is to take this issue a little

bit out of the partisan and out of this chamber, because I don't think

it really belongs here at this point. We're a little before the fact.

There should be a lot of discussion before this act comes back. It

should, Mr. Speaker, be a consultation process.

I think that minister is a reasonable man. He's open to meeting with

those elected officials. I think what this does today, Mr. Speaker, is

to allow the government.... As I say, they're probably going to have a

few weeks or a few months before this comes back to reflect and to hear

what some of the concerns might be from this side and from the

community as a whole. I think that would be to your advantage. And who

knows, Mr. Speaker? If that government does a democratic consultation

process and supports those people who are locally elected and who

believe in some sane and sensible approach to regional planning, and

they discuss with them in a framework which is non-confrontational but

is problem-solving.... God forbid that we talk about problem-solving in

this chamber, but maybe that's what that minister should talk about

with some of those member municipalities and member regional districts.

Maybe he could come back in a few months with something as achieved

consensus with the UBCM, other regional chairmen, and regional planning

departments. Maybe that's possible.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Professional politician.

MR. BLENCOE: Did I hear right? I understand that minister is

applying for tenure, Mr. Speaker, and he talks about professional

politicians. Interesting! I really want to carry on with this course to

the minister.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I did a little work before I came here.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, he came here on May 6 and he's yet

to get up and speak to anything. I'm waiting for him to speak to

something in this House and prove that he is the workaholic that he

tells everybody he is. We're waiting for it. He says he's very

hard-working, but we haven't seen him speak to it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I did a little work in the private sector before I came in here, my friend.

MR. BLENCOE: Before that member gets into a personal attack,

I'll send him some.... There happen to be some areas in the private

sector I've worked in myself. Maybe he'd a little homework.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that member tends to attack people without

really knowing the background.

I am trying to speak to a reasonable minister, a man who's prepared to consult with the community, and I'm appealing to

[ Page 481 ]

that minister because he is perhaps one of the few

members on that side who will be reasonable and will talk about a piece

of legislation that needs some consultation, that needs another look. I

think he should. I see him nodding, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps he would like

to adjourn debate on this particular bill and bring it back when he's

done some consultation. I'm quite serious about that consultation

process.

One of the things that regional government does.... I admit that

there are problems with regional governments. I was involved for two

years, and I have to admit it was one of the most frustrating times in

my six years at the local level. But just because you have particular

frustrations and concerns and problems, it doesn't mean you have to gut

and eliminate something. This seems to be the attitude of this

government: "Oh, dear. We can't resolve something through the

democratic system of consensus or conciliation. We'll just stomp all

over it and eliminate it." That seems to be the approach. We're

certainly seeing it with other pieces of legislation that we've had the

privilege to debate on this side, with nothing from that side. It's

unfortunate that we get to extremes like that, and I want to talk a

little bit about those extremes and why local government is an

extremely valuable resource from which perhaps we can learn something.

That's why I hope that minister will consult with those regional

leaders.

One of the things that happens at local levels of government and

regional planning is that when you have a particular regional concern

of a planning nature you have a regional planning committee. Rather

than having one municipality get on its high horse and say, "Somehow

we're going to take that municipality to court and kill something or

fight it," there's a process under the regional planning procedure

whereby you get together and say: "We have a concern. We have a

problem. Let's work it out." I think we could learn a lot from that

process.

There may be a lot of criticisms of local government that we all

could give them — I certainly could — but one of the things that

they're able to do is work problems out. It's done through discussion

at the local committee level, and certainly at the regional level you

do have people from a number of municipalities who have particular

hidden agendas or vested interests, but somehow or other they manage to

get through that haze of special interests and try and come up with a

decision that's based on the common good of their particular regional

district.

I think this government needs to do this with this particular bill.

They need to do it with a number of other pieces of legislation, but

I'll deal with the bill. I would really urge this government to take

this bill to UBCM. UBCM is coming up September 14 to 16. Maybe that

minister, if he does not believe that it is the Spetifore amendment and

he isn't the guinea pig for his friends in government who want to see

that particular proposal go ahead, and friends of government who make

astronomical profits out of the agricultural land reserve.... If that

minister does not believe or support those accusations, then he should

show the province and the Greater Vancouver Regional District that he's

serious about trying to improve local planning and the local regional

district planning process. If he insists on pushing this bill through

as it is now, all he and the government are doing is proving to the

province of British Columbia that they want the Spetifore land for

development, with all the various accusations and statements about

who's involved or not involved along with it.

[4:00]

I urge this government and the minister to separate the regional

planning and its usefulness from that whole messy, diabolical Spetifore

issue, which has drawn a lot of shame on this government. If he

believes that his tenure in Municipal Affairs is to have any

credibility at all, he will recommend withdrawing this piece of

legislation and he will start a process of consultation with the

municipalities that he supposedly tries to help in his role as

minister. If he doesn't do that, I would say that his credibility as

the Minister of Municipal Affairs is finished tomorrow. He'll have no

credibility because most people know why this bill was introduced so

quickly. They know why it's on the books. They know why, like Bill 3,

they suddenly try to slip it through today. They didn't let us know

they were going to put this on the books today, and I would like to

tell the people in the gallery that we had no notification today of

this bill.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I think that's important. We were not notified

that this was coming up. It was done without notification of the

opposition. So consequently, this bill, like Bill 3.... This government

has dumped 26 pieces of legislation that they want to get through as

quickly as possible, because they know darned well that if there were

an election next month on what they're doing in the legislation, they'd

be lucky to get 10 or 15 percent of the vote of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I was hoping that somehow that minister would

have heard those words and perhaps recognized that it would be in his

interest to withdraw this bill or ask for an adjournment so he can

reconsider this bill, but clearly he's not going to do that, so I'm

going to have to pursue a different tack.

Bill 9 does all the damage that Mr. Vander Zalm's land use bill

would have done and a lot more. The amendment to the Municipal Act

proposed by Bill 9 will strip all 28 regional districts of their power

to formulate regional plans. We know — and I ask the minister to

consider this — that it has been introduced to try and rationalize the

government's position on the Spetifore amendment. We know the GVRD has

blocked that particular zoning change on the agricultural land removal.

Yet this government continues to be transparent with their intentions.

You are trying, in my estimation, to do an end run around the

established procedures for regional land use planning and

intermunicipal planning. The government would like to pretend that

zoning and planning prevents sensible land use. What they're really

trying to say is that an orderly planning process prevents sensible

land use.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: That's what you're saying, hon. member. By the

fact that you want to get around the GVRD's decision, you're saying

that the planning process stops sensible planning. Well, Mr. Speaker, I

would have to say that if they remove the planning component of

regional governments, there will be no sensible land use

decision-making at the regional government level. It will be gone. The

government prefers that zoning and land-use decisions remain entirely

at the level of the individual municipality, without

[ Page 482 ]

regard to its neighbour or regional impact. That's not possible — I've already said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've said it seven or eight times.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I've got to get the message across to you

people. You don't understand, do you, that the municipal planning

department mandate is not to go beyond the bounds of that municipality.

That's the mandate, and you don't understand that.

The real intent of the bill, however, is not to facilitate planning

or zoning but to prevent it, because there is a feeling from this

government that civilized planning procedures, planning departments and

analysis of particular problems, whether they be social or physical,

stops the development process. What this government is trying to do is

rationalize, under the name of saving local taxpayers' money by

eliminating a particular

section of its planning procedures, the fact

that they're going to save a lot of money under the guise of restraint.

But all this government's trying to do is ensure early and quick

passage of controversial land use development proposals on behalf of

many of those development corporations and landlord organizations that

contributed to their campaign. We've seen that with other bills; Bill 5

does the same thing. You eliminate those areas in a democratically

elected government that hold up your friends in making a few quick

dollars on development proposals.

This bill is a developers' bill. That's what it is. It helps the

friends of government who want to get development proposals through

local municipal and regional governments without having sound analyses

of those proposals. This government does not believe in sound analysis.

It doesn't believe in it at all, because what happens when this

government gets sound analyses of proposals is that nine times out of

ten that sound analysis tells you you're wrong. So what happens? You

shoot the messenger. Shoot those regional....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Shoot the messenger. Well, that's what this bill

will do. It will eliminate a very important function of regional

districts which allows for sound analyses of particular proposals and

development proposals from the private sector. What you want to do is

ensure that your friends in the development industry — the ones who

can't stand scrutiny and analysis, the ones who cannot stand to go

through the public process and the democratic process — find a back

door. That's what you want to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're giving them a front door.

MR. BLENCOE: You're going to find a back door for those people. That's what this bill does. Mr. Minister....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're against free enterprise.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, no, no, no.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: I will try to continue, if the member here can control himself. He does have problems, I know.

Even Mr. Vander Zalm's Bill 9 retains some provision for encouraging

intermunicipal cooperation of land use. Even Bill Vander Zalm's land

use act had some provision for intermunicipality. If that new Minister

of Municipal Affairs wants to be known as being worse than Mr. Vander

Zalm.... We all know what happened to Mr. Vander Zalm in cabinet with

his land use act. Hopefully that minister, Mr. Speaker....

[4:15]

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: That's right, the right rump!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I think we've had quite enough, hon. members. The House will come to order.

MR. BLENCOE: Even Bill Vander Zalm retained some provision

for encouraging local municipality cooperation with Bill 9. That's a

very important aspect, because Bill Vander Zalm's land use act was torn

apart by literally thousands of municipal representatives. Hopefully

this new minister will think and contemplate that his new act does not

encourage any intermunicipal cooperation over land use none at all.

It's gone.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Don't be so negative.

MR. BLENCOE: I tried earlier not to be negative, Mr.

Minister, by suggesting that you.... I gave you the opportunity to live

up to what some say — that you are reasonable and understanding and

believe in communication with other levels of government. I gave you

the opportunity to take this act today — adjourn and go away — and meet

with the UBCM and say: "Look, we may have a few problems with ths act.

We would like to listen to you. We'd like to hear your concerns before

we introduce it." It's

an act that will affect every single British

Columbian in a very dramatic way, because what they're losing is a

regional approach to local planning. In this particular area, in the

CRD, the regional planning component is extremely useful and

experienced. That local regional planning unit manages to pull together

disparate, distinctive and unique municipalities to try to resolve some

of their regional concerns. But this bill, unlike Mr. Vander Zalm's

bill, does not even allow for that any more. I'm going to say this

again because I want the minister to consider it: even Mr. Vander Zalm

allowed for some intermunicipal cooperation over land use; we won't

have that at all now.

So what you're going to have is.... If, for instance, Esquimalt

wanted to build a steel mill or a sewage treatment plant right in the

middle of downtown Esquimalt, without any reference to their other

municipal colleagues in the area, they would be able to do it. There'll

be no reference at all to the other municipalities in the Capital

Regional District. What I'm saying is that if a municipality decides to

do something that is obviously offensive to the regional area, they

will be allowed to do it. One thing that the local regional committees

have been able to do, if they have something that is clearly going to

be offensive to the local regional area, is

[ Page 483 ]

develop a land use pattern they can all live with. This government is removing that.

Before I go back to some of the specific useful things about

regional planning, I'd like to go back to some of the things I've been

trying to say to the new minister. If he's not careful, he's going to

get identified as the guinea pig for getting the Spetifore land out of

the agricultural land reserve through the back door. This is really not

to improve local planning. It's basically a Spetifore amendment that

will allow this government to get around the GVRD, a democratically

elected group.

I want to read from the Province ,

July 5, 1983. The headline is: "Speaker Wants GVRD Scrapped." That's

what it says. Let's just read this and think about perhaps another

reason why we've got this Bill 9 before us. The story reads: "'The

Greater Vancouver Regional District should be scrapped,' said Socred

MLA and House Speaker Walter Davidson."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would remind you now that

standing orders are specific about drawing the Speaker into any debate.

That can only be done by substantive motion. The member will have to

discontinue any reference to the Speaker.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to refer to him

directly, but these are direct quotes. Perhaps I could refer to the MLA

for Delta. Would that be more appropriate?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would also be inappropriate, hon.

member. In our standing orders it's clear, and it's in Sir Erskine May,

that the Speaker may not be drawn into debate, except on a substantive

motion.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me say then: "'The

Greater Vancouver Regional District should be scrapped,' says a

well-known Socred." How would that be, Mr. Speaker? We all know who

they're talking about.

Just days after calling members of the GVRD a communist-socialist

coalition, that member said they should stop gloating over their vote

against excluding rural land for subdivision in Delta. In a newsletter

to his constituents, that member said: "It is my determination to

continue to press for legislation disbanding the present makeup and

responsibility of the GVRD." Well, that's what we've got right now;

it's Bill 9, which will see a very beautiful piece of agricultural land

destroyed for the friends of government who want to develop it.

Mr. Speaker, the story goes on to say that that member came under

fire for his comments. Because of certain traditions, that member

should really try to be somewhat impartial in his role. That has

serious implications.

That same well-known member said that while there may be some

substance to such criticism — he admits there is some substance — "I

feel that my reaction to the Delta situation, while appearing partisan,

does not in any way affect my objectivity towards my duties." That

member went on to say that the people of Delta, through their

council....

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

rules of the House strictly provide that the Speaker cannot be brought

into debate in this House, either directly or indirectly, and I think

the reason for that ruling is simple: he cannot stand in debate to

defend himself or any of his statements. Therefore I would remind the

Speaker of the rules and perhaps encourage him in the implementation of

the same.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order as raised by the Minister

of Agriculture and Food is correct. Your current Speaker has advised

the member about the rules of referring to the Speaker indirectly or

directly; that can only be done by substantive motion. I'm sure the

member understands.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for those points of

order. That member, though, has always insisted that he is also the

member for Delta. He has made that very clear.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, outside the House, that is correct. I want

to read some other reports on the regional planning function and the

elimination of it, this from the Times-Colonist , which at times has had some harsh words to say about regional government:

"Bill Vander Zalm is long gone from municipal affairs

but in the provincial cabinet his spirit lingers on, continuing the

task he began of sterilizing regional districts."

That's what they're up to. They're continuing with

the Land Use Act, except that Mr. Vander Zalm did allow for some sort

of intermunicipal liaison over land-use matters.

"A bill introduced this week by rookie Municipal

Affairs Minister Bill Ritchie effectively abolishes regional planning

in British Columbia, by removing regional districts' powers to enact

and enforce regional plans. Ritchie claims the move will 'streamline

the development process and strengthen the autonomy of local

governments.'

"No doubt, but it will also turn the clock back 30

years to an era of uncoordinated growth, when municipalities did their

own thing regardless of the impact on neighbouring municipalities or

the region as a whole."

This is very important, Mr. Speaker. The Times-Colonist , in

its wisdom, has managed to hit on the nub of the whole problem: this

act removes the ability of local municipalities to collectively share

their concerns at a regional level over regional issues.

"The tangible results of that chaos are still with us.

It was the need for a better system that led to the creation of

regional districts in the 1960s, and to make one of their prime

functions the adoption and enforcement of regional plans. These plans

established the direction of growth and defined the services needed to

accommodate that growth."

Those are all pertinent, useful descriptions of the regional

planning process, and they are all to be eliminated by this particular

act.

"While the drafting and implementation was often a

painful, contentious and cumbersome process, (especially in the Greater

Victoria area) the concept itself was — and remains — sensible."

The operative word is sensible, something we should perhaps try to use a little more often — a little common sense.

[ Page 484 ]

The regional planning process allows for some common sense to enter

into intermunicipal rivalry and bickering. It allows for sensible, sane

discussion over matters that pertain to regional interests and

concerns. By eliminating this particular aspect of regional government,

you eliminate that sensible approach to regional planning. It's common

sense to take issues between municipalities out of the political arena

and the newspapers and take those particular contentious issues to a

regional planning component and technical assistance group to study and

analyse them and come up with a solution that has half a chance of

receiving regional adoption, which is very difficult, I might add.

[4:30]

Regional government is very difficult — we know that — because all

municipalities and their mayors and aldermen think they are the centre

of the universe in terms of their particular region. That's natural

that that would happen. But despite what they might think, there are

other neighbouring municipalities with their own mayors and aldermen

who think very similar kinds of things. At times individual

municipalities cannot pursue a particular course of action that offends

the common interests and good of a particular regional area and its

development. We have learned through many years, often the hard way in

Europe and other parts of North America, that without a coordinating

regional group to pull together member organizations in regional areas,

particularly in urban areas, you get unplanned sprawl. You get

municipalities putting in particular kinds of developments that really

don't fit or meet the needs of that particular regional area. What

you're doing with this act is taking away the ability of regional

governments to have a community plan that tries to create a sensible

overview of regional needs, aspirations and goals. That's what you're

eliminating.

I'll go on to quote an analysis from the Times-Colonist , which I think is very good. It says:

"One of the basic tenets of the regional plan for this

area recognizes the need to protect the economic vitality of downtown

Victoria. But whither the commercial core now that the regional plan is

eliminated? Saanich has long envied the city's shopping malls situated

tantalizingly on the Victoria side of the border. Once the legislation

is adopted, there would be nothing to stop Saanich from a major

expansion of its own — either by permitting a second major department

store in the Tillicum Mall or a similar-sized development elsewhere in

the municipality. How long could downtown businesses fight that kind of

suburban competition?"

It's the regional approach and the ability of the regional

government, particularly over examples like the Tillicum Mall, that

allows the regional government in a collective decision to say, for

instance, that a development proposal is going to be detrimental to the

common good of that regional area. In the Victoria situation, I think

all people now agree that what we've got at Tillicurn is virtually

acceptable. If it had gone any further and the regional district had

not fought and said it violated the regional community plan, the impact

on the downtown Victoria business community and the delicate economic

base, not only in financial terms but in terms of its heritage

significance and its viability as a central component in the tourism of

this region, would have been radically altered and affected by a major

development at Tillicum. What you're doing now is allowing each

municipality at will to bring in developments that clearly will have a

serious implication for the economic, social and physical viability of

other adjacent municipalities. What you're creating is balkanized

states in critical areas of British Columbia. You're creating the

attitude: "I'm all right, Jack. My municipality's fine. I don't have to

care about my neighbours and other municipalities and what happens to

them. I can go ahead and build a huge shopping centre and affect the

downtown area, which has a direct bearing on how this whole region

develops." What you're saying is that any municipality can do what....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On standing order 43, Mr. Speaker: I think

you should draw to the member's attention that the Speaker or the

Chairman after having called the attention of the House or the

committee to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or

tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments

used by other members, may direct him to discontinue his speech. I've

listened to this member be tedious and repetitious here for about three

hours this afternoon, at great expense to the taxpayers of British

Columbia, and I wish you would bring it to his attention.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the same point of order the chair recognizes the member for Rossland-Trail.

MR. D'ARCY: I personally do not find the member tedious or

repetitive, but I do find it amazing that the member for South Peace

River, who spoke for 14 tedious and repetitive hours in this House,

should be casting aspersions on anyone else, whether or not he finds

that member tedious and repetitive.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Both points of order are well taken. The

second member for Victoria will continue and, I'm sure, will make his

speech relevant to the matter before us.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: Try and not be so repetitive. Make it sound better. Talk about something good and positive: leadership and good government.

MR. BLENCOE: The member to my left talks about being

positive. If indeed he wishes to be positive with this piece of

legislation, if he has any influence over that minister, he will allow

him to pursue a positive course of consultation with those

municipalities which are to be affected by this legislation.

Before I was interrupted by the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development, who has conducted some long debates in this House

himself, I was discussing the impact of removing regional plans. I was

trying to read into the record some thoughts that have been given by an

editorial in this community. I will finish off, if I may, some parts of

that editorial: "Looking at other parts of the region, what happens to

the principle of preserving farmland on the Saanich Peninsula if a

development-oriented peninsular municipality decided on hell-bent

growth?" Now, Mr. Speaker, let's take a look at that one.

[ Page 485 ]

One of the things that regional plans do is take a direct look at

the agricultural land reserve. They make decisions on the agricultural

land reserve and whether they should make a recommendation to the

commission as to whether land should be removed. What you're doing is

virtually eliminating the regional planning process and procedure

vis-a-vis the agricultural land reserve. What the editorial is alluding

to is quite true. We could, for instance, now have municipalities that

have no time for the agricultural land reserve quickly move on that

particular aspect the majority of British Columbians accept. It's quite

accurate. In this region, for instance, the regional planning committee

has taken a strong stand on agricultural land reserves, and any move by

this government to allow that to be tampered with — which this act will

do will bring strong reactions from local municipalities.

The Times-Colonist concludes: "The bill to abolish regional

planning is a bad move deserving all the criticism the official

opposition and municipalities can muster." Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is.

I have urged that minister that if he wants to start his term as

Minister of Municipal Affairs on a good footing, he should consult his

member municipalities and see if they can find some consensus on this

particular issue.

I want to read another piece that comes from the Vancouver Sun

for July 8, 1983 entitled "Act Opens the Door to Chaos." Some people

wonder why the opposition is referring to many editorials and articles

being written, not only in British Columbia but across the country. I

think it's very important that we do that, because this government is

being attacked from all areas, from all sides, in all papers by

editorialists of a number of party views. It's very important that that

be known and that this government gets the message. The Vancouver Sun says this act opens the door to chaos. I'll read from the article:

"While Finance Minister Hugh Curtis was making his

budget speech yesterday, he managed to slip in a promise that has less

to do with the province's finances than with its political goals and

those of the Legislature's outspoken..." — a certain member whom we

can't refer to.

"The Municipal Amendment Act will take away from regional

districts the power to enact and enforce official regional plans. It was the

zoning under the Greater Vancouver Regional District's official plan, after

all, that recently deprived Dawn Development (Canada) Corporation of its opportunity

to stick housing on a parcel of prime agricultural land in Delta."

That

well-known member "has already made clear his feelings on that decision.... " This

article goes on to quote a number of well-known phrases that we have come

to know in this House. The

article goes on:

"Taking away the major part of the regional district's

planning and zoning function isn't quite as sweeping a measure as

abolishing them altogether, but it accomplishes the same end. Now Dawn

will be able to go to the Delta municipal council and get its rezoning,

and that will be that."

That's exactly it, Mr. Speaker. When the government

passes this bill, and they immediately go to Delta council, they

violate all the various decisions they've been given against taking

this out of the agricultural land reserve. They violate them by passing

this bill that allows Dawn Development to proceed, contrary to the

wishes of the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

[4:45]

"According to one planner, the Dawn project is as good an

example as any to demonstrate why getting rid of regional planning is a bad

idea. A housing project of the size Dawn proposes would put something like 2,

000 more cars through the Massey Tunnel at rush hour. The tunnel is already

overloaded, and the additional traffic will result in longer and worse traffic

jams on the Deas Island freeway. That's an unnecessary burden when the province

is considering a rapid transit system and an Annacis Island crossing that would

open routes into the city from Surrey.

"The Dawn land is zoned rural in the GVRD's regional plan."

Under the regional plan it is zoned as that.

That was done democratically, Mr. Speaker, and was done through due

process, public hearings, analysis and participation by member

municipalities in that regional district. They made the decision to

make the Dawn land zone zero under the GRVD's regional plan. A clear

and sensible decision was made. Now what we have is a way around that

process. I keep saying that, Mr. Speaker; I keep repeating it. The

members don't like to hear that, I know. They say: "Why don't you say

something new?"

There is nothing much more clear than what this bill is all about.

It's a way, particularly with the Spetifore property, to get around

duly elected bodies — elected by local municipalities, voted in by

local constituents in the local municipalities to make decisions on

local matters. Those constituents in local municipalities take very

seriously what happens in local government. They already know that

they're far removed from the provincial level of government — witness

what it's been doing in the last few weeks and the lack of support

which has developed for your legislation. But now what this government

is intending to do, through the back door, is eliminate one of the very

basic and fundamental procedures: that is, regional planning decided by

local municipalities at the regional level — what should happen for the

common good in that regional district. You are eliminating that.

There is also another, less obvious side to the changes that the

province intends to make. In many ways, the GVRD's planning function —

to take that district as an example — held the GVRD together.

Municipalities had to get together and decide regional development

issues. Think about that. The regional planning process encourages

people to get together. It encourages intelligent debate and discussion

over regional issues and regional matters. That's important. It's

something which should be encouraged, not destroyed. This is what this

act does: it destroys that discussion. That discussion — and I quote

again from the Vancouver Sun

— "gave them an opportunity to dicker with each other over planning

issues that were not regulated by the regional plan but nonetheless had

far-reaching effects." So, Mr. Speaker, through discussion and

negotiation, and sometimes a little bit of confrontation and threats on

one side or the other, nine times out of ten those constituent

municipalities and regional governments resolved their common problems

through a regional plan. And that's a statement that they support.

That's a statement of the aspirations, goals and objectives of that

regional area — a collective statement of the people of those regional

areas.

It's a very important collective statement, because today, more and more, it's becoming very difficult for people to

[ Page 486 ]

collectively state or support something which

involves general principles. Regional plans allow people to

collectively indicate the way they wish their region to go; where they

want their parks, their stream enhancement. Well, no longer will we

have the requirements or those regional plans to ensure there is an

orderly development of such things. It's gone down the tube, all

because this government wishes to ensure the Spetifore land is removed

from the agricultural land reserve so it can be developed as quickly as

possible.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's already out of the agricultural land reserve. Why don't you tell the truth?

MR. BLENCOE: Truth! Coming from this corner is.... Well, it certainly needs some discussion,

Mr. Speaker, the GVRD has said they don't want this land developed.

They've said that clearly and deliberately by a clear majority vote.

They've said that's not what they want to happen and they've said it

twice. And do you know what? If the people of that region don't like

that decision, they have elections coming up. Democracy, I think, will

still be alive and well at the local level. Those people will have the

opportunity to voice their concerns with those who made that decision

and said no to the Dawn developments. That's the nature of the

democratic system at the local level.

What you're saying — and I want to emphasize this now, clearly — is

that from now on, at least until you're kicked out of office in four or

five years, because you will be.... From now on, every time there is a

particular development proposal, or something that somebody wants to

get done at the local level, this government will try to find a way

around it for them. You're saying that if the democratically elected

procedures and institutions at the local level offend what you wish to

do, you are going to find some way around it. That is a fundamental

attack on the municipal and local democratic process.

I would remind my colleagues that municipal government, although

perhaps a junior level of government, is a very traditional and

respected level of government. It has evolved over time, long

discussions, procedures and often, Mr. Speaker, through a process that

is consultative rather than legislative, a process that people have

supported for hundreds of years. It has been allowed to develop.

The public process, input and consultation has grown to the point

now where in many municipalities people really do have the feeling that

if they have a concern over a local, municipal or regional problem,

they have direct access to the elected officials to try to bring some

changes about. That's very important. That's developed over a long

period of time and it still remains and it must not be tampered with.

The cynicism of senior government is incredible, but if you affect

the work of local government and its ability to act quickly for its

residents and taxpayers and its ability to have public discussion over

things like regional plans, then you are really starting to change the

fundamental traditions in terms of three of the four levels of

government we have developed in this country. You are moving into a

sacred area where local officials listen to local concerns in the

public hearing process and make their decisions accordingly. What

you're doing with this particular act is removing that longstanding

tradition.

The minister is about to leave, I think.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I will go on to quote from the Vancouver Sun

article, which calls this act the open door to chaos: "Although it

wasn't always successful, the consultation process demonstrated the

interdependence of municipalities." I want to emphasize that a little,

Mr. Speaker. When municipalities border on each other — like they do in

Vancouver and Victoria — there is and should be a sense of common

interest, common sharing and common help in times of need. We do that,

you know, and this government supports that in a very important area.

An example is the emergency planning program.

Let me just go off on a little tangent here, Mr. Speaker. The

emergency planning program is not coordinated on a municipal basis,

although if we used the logic that this government is using behind Bill

9, emergency planning would be the total responsibility of local

municipalities. This government and those members know that when a

disaster happens in a regional area, often it goes across the borders

of municipalities. One of those municipalities doesn't say: "Oh, well,

that's not my responsibility; it's not in my borders, Therefore no help

should go toward that municipality." No, there's a sense that when it's

a common problem or disaster affecting a number of municipalities

adjacent to each other, there's a common approach to resolving and

helping. It's basic to human nature to help each other, you know, which

this government sometimes seems to forget. There is a sharing, and that

particular emergency program is something this government has supported

and funded.

I use this example because it applies to local municipalities and

regional districts. If we use the logic behind this, they would

eliminate the provincial emergency program in terms of coordination of

problems. It's a planning unit. If they believed in what they're doing

with Bill 9, they would move to eliminate that provincial emergency

program, or they would say: "Well, if there's an emergency, let the

local municipality respond." Local and municipal independence is the

big cry that they're trying to sell this bill on, Well, we know how

ludicrous that is, because when there's a common problem, a common

enemy or a common disaster, there is common action on behalf of the

common good.

[5:00]

That's what regional planning is about. This government is totally

illogical in its approach to this particular segment of planning. There

are lots of examples of collective action at the local level on common

problems. The local provincial planning utilizing local municipalities

is the best example. If this government goes ahead with this bill and

if they are consistent — and heaven forbid they might be consistent —

they would take a look at all sorts of areas where there is collective

action for the common good, and they would say: "Well, either we're

going to privatize it or we're going to make it the responsibility of

each local municipality." We know what would happen. You would break

local municipal taxpayers. You'd bust them. You would finish them off.

What you're trying to do with this bill is to say you're supporting

local autonomy and local municipal decision making and that process. It

doesn't stand up, because if that was your view, you would move ahead

to eliminate other functions that you support.

"What one municipality does affects another or several others,

and that realization strengthened municipalities' perception of their shared

interests." I've used some very important words today: sensible, common sense, interdependence,

[ Page 487 ]

sharing, collective action, common good,

conciliation, consensus, communication, consultation. This government,

with this particular act — and, I have to say, with others — seems to

be prepared to eliminate those key words in the governmental process.

That's sad, because despite all our problems in this province — and

we've got many — there is, within that local network, a framework

that's been developed over the years that allows people to resolve

their problems in a collective way.

"There is no quicker way to break up the political unity of municipalities

than to free them to develop on their own, without regular formal consideration

of each other." You take away the responsibility — and that's what

you will do with this act — to consult with your neighbour municipalities on

particular items that may be of regional interest or concern, and you're

asking for serious trouble. "Without a sense of common cause" — there's

another one; there are a lot of "C's" today — the municipalities

will be saying, as I said earlier: "Well, I'm all right, Jack. I don't

have to worry about the other municipality. If they've got a particular

problem that we can help them with, well, we don't want to bother with that."

Forget that sharing and common understanding, and introduce a bill that will

eliminate regional cooperation, communication....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister continues to refer to having faith.

It's very difficult these days to have faith in this government, I can

assure you of that.

I'll go back to the Vancouver Sun , if I may.

"One municipal politician posits this scenario: a huge

portion of the province's property owners live within regional

districts, so weakened regional districts will make it easier for the

province to load costs onto property owners without having to fight a

strong regional district. That would have been a great help when the

province was trying to saddle property owners with a whopping share of

transit costs, an intention the GVRD fought with at least some success.

"And in case anyone doubted what the Socreds have in

mind, they took the time to weaken the process for public hearings on

rezonings. No longer will it be necessary for municipalities to notify

surrounding residents in writing of a public hearing on a rezoning

application."

I'll get back to that in a minute.

"For any development proposal involving ten or more

parcels of land owned by ten or more people, the council can simply run

a newspaper advertisement announcing the hearing."

MR. REID: That's good stuff — save the taxpayers' money.

MR. BLENCOE: "Save the taxpayers' money." Democracy is the

basic principles of local government and how they make decisions. What

this government is saying, and particularly this member in the corner

over here is: "Democracy is expensive — we'll eliminate certain sectors

of democracy."

MR. REID: I said "bureaucracy."

MR. BLENCOE: That's what that member is saying, Mr. Speaker: "Democracy is too expensive for the Socreds — we'll eliminate it."

MR. REID: Shame!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Surrey rises on a point of order.

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I used the word "bureaucracy," not "democracy."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. member. A point of

order is not acceptable when there is cross banter on the floor; it's

only when something is said by a speaker that offends another member or

something of that nature.

The second member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for

Surrey rose not on a point of order. It has been pointed out by Speaker

Davidson on several occasions that gaining of the floor by fraudulent

means is to be dealt with quite severely by the Chair. Under standing

order....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Speaker is aware of that. Members ought not to gain the floor by fraudulent means.

MR. LAUK: That's right. I point out standing order 42. The

hon. member for Surrey, even under that standing order, cannot rise

after a speech to correct anything that was said about him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, please get to your point of order.

MR. LAUK: My point of order is this: the hon. member for Surrey had no right to the floor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Would you like me to make my point of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it appears to the Chair that you

were chastising another member, and you are committing the same

offence. Unless you have a point of order....

MR. LAUK: Yes, I have.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let's hear the point of order.

MR. LAUK: As Your Honour will note, the member for Surrey

rose stating no standing order but interrupted the speech of the second

member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), and in doing so gained the floor

improperly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the correct time, as you are no

doubt aware, for standing order 42 is after the cessation of the hon.

member's speech.

[ Page 488 ]

MR. LAUK: That's what I've been trying to point out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been dealt with, hon. member, and I thank you very much for drawing it to the Chair's attention.

MR. LAUK: You're welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: I was trying to go through some points here,

before I was interrupted. I was trying to make the point that this

government doesn't believe in democracy. That's the point I was trying

to make.

MR. REID: Well, if you were listening, I said "bureaucracy."

MR. BLENCOE: Despite what this member said — and I've heard

it many times from other members — they are saying that democratic

processes and principles and ideals have become too expensive. That's

what they're saying: what's the bottom line on a public hearing so

people can go out and preserve their neighbourhood or their

neighbourhood environment, or protect their schools, or protect their

parks or farmland? What's the bottom line on the public-hearing process

so people can go out and say no to a government that seems bent on

eradicating some of the very fundamental principles of the democratic

system at all levels of government — municipal, regional, provincial

and federal? They have said that democracy is too expensive. Maybe the

next thing we'll have is a privatization bill for this very House.

Maybe that's the way they should go. Maybe that's what they're saying.

This bill is symbolic of their attitude to local government. It's

symbolic of their contempt for locally elected officials who make a

decision that opposes the government position. That's what you're

saying. "Big Brother is looking over your shoulder, " is what they're

saying to municipalities. "We're looking over your shoulder,

municipalities and mayors and aldermen." Unless they do it right and do

it the wholly Socred way, you're going to step in and say: "Here's a

bill and a piece of legislation that stops the democratic process so

that people can have a say in their local areas."

The Vancouver Sun goes on to say, and I will quote a little more........

[5:15]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps, Mr. Minister, you will get an editorial

supporting your Land Use Act soon. Maybe you'll get that, and then you

can quote from it. So far there has been very little suppo