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 )

WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

533 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Services for mentally retarded. Mr. Barnes –– 533

Diversion centre funding. Ms. Brown –– 534

Probationers' job-finding service. Ms. Brown –– 534

Committee to recommend appointment of auditor-general. Mr. Howard 534

Terminations in the Ministry of Environment. Mrs. Wallace –– 534

Northeast coal. Mr. Lea –– 535

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

Mr. Howard –– 535

Mr. Reynolds –– 536

Mr. Macdonald –– 539

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 544

Mr. Lockstead –– 545

ME Barnes I –– 548

Ms. Brown –– 550

Mr. Skelly –– 554

Tabling Documents

Five-year forest and range program, 1983 to 1988, Ministry of Forests.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 558

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: In the gallery today are a number of the 3,500

volunteers who will this year be involved in the 1983 Summer Games. I'm

sure all members are aware that this year the games are being held in

the beautiful municipality of Maple Ridge. On behalf of the volunteers

who are here today, I would like to invite my colleagues on both sides

of this House, as well as those people in the gallery who might be on

the mainland over the weekend, to come to Maple Ridge and join with us

in the sixth running of the B.C. Summer Games.

MR. COCKE: I would like the House to welcome my friend, Ms.

Pat Blight, here with her mother, Mrs. Glady Portsmouth, and Mrs. Doris

Holland, who are visiting from England. Would the House welcome them.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to Mrs. Jan Field, a constituent of mine who is visiting Victoria.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have two visitors from Vancouver–Little

Mountain today, and on behalf of my colleague in Little Mountain I

would like to welcome Irwin Mangham and Henry Herlihy.

MS. SANFORD: There are a number of visitors here today from

the constituency of Comox. From Parksville there are Kay Chapman, Ann

Klees, Eleanor Lawrence, Elaine Van Horn and Pepper McLeod, and from

Courtenay there is Betty Hlookoff. I'd ask everybody to make them

welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today are two ladies from the

constituency of Boundary–Similkameen, Mrs. Barbara Lawrence and Mrs.

Jean Mitchell. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

Oral Questions

SERVICES FOR MENTALLY RETARDED

MR. BARNES: This question is for the Minister of Human

Resources. The minister announced plans to gradually diminish the role

of the institutions for the mentally retarded, and she said that she

would do this in consideration of the need to have resources in place

as far as volunteers, social service agencies, churches, resource

centres and so forth are concerned. I'm wondering if these private

agencies have been contacted by the minister — the churches, social

service clubs and other facilities that she feels will be made

available on a voluntary basis — and if she could indicate to the House

which ones there are and where they are.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't know if the member is referring to Tranquille

specifically, or in general. If I may just respond to the services for the mentally

retarded: there was a commitment by the government some two years ago that there

would be a deinstitutionalization of our mentally retarded institutions and

it would be done within ten years. The Tranquille facility has already been

announced in the budget speech and within the next two years will be closed

down. Just as we have done in bringing the mentally retarded into the community,

we will work with local chapters of the mentally retarded associations and various

organizations in the province. That model is already in place, has been done

traditionally within the ministry for some years now, and will continue in the

same way.

MR. BARNES: The minister indicates that the original plan for

the Tranquille decentralization of services to the mentally retarded

was to take place over a ten-year period. Could the minister indicate

how she could condense a ten-year decentralization program into a

two-year period, and what facilities are in place with respect to

meeting the needs of those several hundred clients?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the commitment was within

ten years. The B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded, the various

chapters of the mentally retarded associations throughout the province

at that time, were in touch with us to applaud our commitment to the

institutionalization. That it is happening now within the first two

years of that ten-year period means that it will take within the next

two years to finish. It means that it will be done in an orderly way so

that all of the families can be involved in the planning, and so will

all the associations.

The member's question would seem to indicate that when we made the

announcement of the institutionalization over a ten-year period we

would wait ten years until we did it. I have to correct him on that. It

was within ten years. Any person who is in the institution at this

point in time, being consistent with the desires and, indeed, the

lobbying of the mentally retarded associations, would not want to leave

the mentally retarded for another ten years before action.

MR. BARNES: This isn't really a supplementary; it refers back

to the original question to the minister with respect to the community

resources she has referred to as being available. What specific

churches, service clubs and other facilities in the community will be

available as volunteers? Have you been in touch with any specific ones?

Would you please table that information, if you have it available?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, my response to the question,

both yesterday and within the media in the last couple of days, was

that I am quite confident that there are service clubs, that there are

different institutions who will. I don't plan, as the Minister of Human

Resources, to organize those. Those will come from the community as

they have traditionally. They have been inspired by people who want to

do good works in the community, have done good works in the community

and will continue to do so.

[2:15]

MR. BARNES: I can appreciate the tradition of cooperation by

volunteers in the community, but is the minister suggesting to the

House that the government is now expecting people through the

volunteers and through some kind of charity program, by whatever means,

to pick up the statutory responsibilities that it has?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The short answer is no. The extended

answer is the fact that we have many services in place within the

ministry, and we'll continue to do that good

[ Page 534 ]

job we've always done, with a very professional and good staff.

MR. BARNES: Just one final question on this. Could the

minister indicate specifically the churches and the service clubs that

she herself has been in touch with, and would she table that

information? In other words, what consultation has she had with respect

to the plan she has?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

DIVERSION CENTRE FUNDING

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Attorney-General about

another group who've been dumped on the community. He announced last

week that he would be reviewing the decision of his ministry to

terminate the funding for diversion centres, that very valuable

resource which funnels non-violent first offenders into the community.

Can the minister now assure the House that he's decided to continue

funding that very valuable resource?

HON. MR. SMITH: The short answer to the member's question is

no; the longer answer is that no decision has been taken with respect

to the diversion centres. There's no doubt that the concept of

diversion is a valuable and useful concept, because it attempts to deal

with a number of first offenders or prospective offenders outside the

justice system, without bringing them before the courts. It is

extremely valuable and can be very cost-effective. I would not lightly

make alterations to diversion programs. But it is incumbent upon me, as

it is on all ministers, to examine all programs as to the way in which

these services are being delivered, and that examination will continue.

I can tell the member that so far as the concept of diversion is

concerned, I have a good regard for that concept.

MS. BROWN: The concept doesn't work unless the resource is in

place. What I'm hoping is that the minister is going to continue

funding the resources while he examines the concept or whatever.

PROBATIONERS' JOB-FINDING SERVICE

I have another question for the Attorney-General. Maybe he would

like to answer it at the same time as the first question about keeping

the centres going while he re-examines the concept. Can he explain to

us why his ministry has decided to close down the job-finding service

for people on probation? The service has apparently been notified that

effective September 1 they are no longer going to be available to

probationers who need that service. Can you explain that to us?

HON. MR. SMITH: That is one service which, while formerly

funded by this government directly, will have to be performed through

and by other agencies. The funding will not be continued for that

program, as I announced on Friday.

MS. BROWN: I'm really puzzled about this, Mr. Speaker. All

the research done by the ministry and other sources ties the success of

probation to jobs, so I don't understand why the minister would

deliberately terminate the job-finding program when that is so

important in terms of the rehabilitation of the probationer. However,

we are told that other agencies will now have to pick up that slack.

Can the minister tell us then whether he has made a commitment to, for

example, the John Howard Society? Are they going to be funded to carry

on this job, because I gather they have volunteered to do so, or are we

going to depend on the churches and the other groups that the Ministry

of Human Resources talked about?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as we are in question period, it

would be appreciated if we could stick to questions and leave the

speeches for estimates or another place.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I can't assure the member that some other

agency will receive additional funding to take on job-finding

responsibilities for people on probation. The job-finding aspect of

probation is something that will be explored from the standpoint of

existing agencies, and also from the standpoint of existing government

agencies, but I can't assure the member there will be additional funds

for the John Howard Society. There may be encouragement to the society

to do that, but I can't assure the member there will be additional

funds.

COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND

APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR-GENERAL

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could direct a

question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) in his capacity as Government House Leader, and ask him whether

the government has decided to introduce a motion to establish the

requisite special committee of the Legislature which would recommend

the appointment or reappointment, as the case may be, of the

auditor-general, as required by the provisions of the Auditor General

Act.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, hon. member, that measure will be taken in due course, and shortly.

TERMINATIONS IN THE

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Environment.

Some 143 auxiliary employees have been fired — or terminated, if he

prefers that term — all to take effect before July 31. Can the minister

assure the House that this termination will not jeopardize the receipt

of the housing and development bonds as negotiated under the BCGEU

master agreement, which are due August 1? Inasmuch as those

terminations are effective July 31, can he assure us that those 143

employees will receive their development bonds as covered by the master

agreement?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

[ Page

535 ]

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development. Our side of the House and, I'm sure, the

other side of the House and all British Columbians are watching with a

great deal of interest what the Japanese Steel Federation are doing

around the world in terms of renegotiating coal supply — both volume

and prices. We have some real concerns that if the volume is lowered,

it will mean additional payment out of the taxpayers' pockets; if the

price is lowered, it will mean that the companies are the ones to

suffer. We were wondering whether the minister responsible is intending

or has decided to make a report back to the House soon on the

ramifications of northeast coal and the negotiating downward of tonnage

and prices. I know that all British Columbians would like to know what

is currently going on. Has the minister decided to make a report to the

House in that regard?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I am most happy to report on

that great project that is employing thousands of British Columbians

here in the province this summer, the project that the NDP wanted to

see closed down. I am also very happy to report that as of this morning

the project is on

schedule and on budget, and I know that disappoints

you.

Now with regard to rumours about the Japanese steel industry, I am

also very happy to report that as of about two weeks ago the Japanese

steel industry states that their earlier estimate of about 93 million

tonnes production this year has been upped to about 100 million tonnes.

I must report to the House and to those in the press who might be

interested that that is unofficial as yet. But it does state that the

Japanese steel industry bottomed out and is now in a recovery. As I

have told the citizens of British Columbia and, indeed, the opposition,

this project could never have been built at a better time in history,

and will come on at a time in history when it is needed and when all

other jurisdictions, including our great neighbour to the south, have

stopped port development and infrastructure development. This little

government in this great province had the courage to carry on, and I'll

tell you that when the coal is needed, we in this little province, Mr.

Speaker, will be there to capitalize on the additional coal that is

required.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. members, not only must

questions follow the rule of brevity, but answers, in the same vein,

must adhere to those very same rules.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I must advise you that the Hansard lights are unfortunately not working. We will inform the members, in an appropriate method, of their actual time remaining.

MR. HOWARD: I'm rather apprehensive about those appropriate

means of drawing this to our attention, Mr. Speaker. I hope it is you,

Mr. Speaker, who engages in that and not the group opposite that passes

itself off as the government of this province. I'll rely on Mr. Speaker

for my protection.

Yesterday I had indicated that at a previous time the New Democratic

government in 1972-75 undertook to pay respects to democracy and to the

desirability of municipalities and people by appointing a committee to

examine alterations that might be needed in municipal legislation. That

committee travelled throughout the province and heard from various

people. I'm told that the person who now holds the position of

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) in the House was a member of

that committee at that time. The person who is the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was also a member of

that committee, as was the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and, I understand, the

Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). I just picked

out those members because they are currently on the treasury benches

and purport to be part of the government of this province. It would

seem to me that having had that delightful experience of engaging in

democracy and listening to input from groups and municipalities

throughout the province, they would be all the more delighted to

support the idea that that's what should happen with municipal

legislation in this day and age.

I pointed out also that bringing the bill in without regard to the

consultative process, never mind the input process, about legislation

affecting municipalities is basically an affront to that level of

government. Many elected municipal people have expressed opposition to

the bill, and many have expressed regrets and concern about its impact.

I'm sure the minister will clear up any misunderstandings that I may

have about what I have been told or the accuracy of this, but I was

told that there was a meeting scheduled to be held next month on the

23rd of August between at least members of the Greater Vancouver

Regional District. They feel that they are the focal point of the

attack against them. That meeting was to be held to discuss the

implications of this bill. In the face of that we see the government

proceed to call the bill, to insist upon its passage, to intrude it

into the normal course of debate about other matters and thus to ignore

the legitimate concerns of the people of the Greater Vancouver Regional

District and others who wanted to have some say with respect to this

particular piece of legislation.

[2:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If the bill proceeds in the House to receive second reading any time

before that particular August 23rd meeting, or any other meetings with

municipalities and the minister or the government that are to take

place, then it's another insult to local governments. I think it's most

improper and most unfair for the minister or the government to have

gone ahead and

[ Page 536 ]

agreed to a particular meeting to discuss a

particular piece of legislation, as appears to be the case here, and

then go ahead and say: "Well, we're really not interested in what

you've got to say at the meeting. We want to present you with a fait

accompli, with the bill having already been passed. Therefore what

representations you may have to make to it are of no consequence."

It would be wise and prudent, and I'm sure the minister would

receive a great many words of applause from municipal governments, if

he would exert his influence in the cabinet — and he has considerable,

we know that, even though he's just recently been appointed to it; his

authority, power and influence in the cabinet transcends most of the

members who have been there for longer periods of time — and ask that

the bill be pulled back and held in abeyance, at least until August 23

and until the people who are having their rights impinged upon by this

piece of legislation have an opportunity to make their representations

and advise the minister what they think about it.

If he's not prepared to go in that direction, then I'd urge him to

take an alternative course of action which would permit further

examination of the bill without its having actually received the

endorsement of this Legislature at its second-reading level: that is,

to deal with it before the Municipal Affairs and Housing committee of

the Legislature, which was appointed on opening day, you'll recall, Mr.

Speaker, and which exists and is there for the purpose of being an

extension of this Legislature to deal with municipal matters to give

the general public, or anybody interested in specific legislation, an

opportunity to come before the committee and make their views known.

There is a procedure available.

It may be that some of the purists in procedural matters — and there

are some around — would say that what I'm about to suggest would

actually require the leave of the House to accomplish. I argue that it

doesn't require leave of the House and that it's possible to go ahead

and do what I'm about to do by a simple majority vote. That is not to

have the bill read a second time now, as is the case, but instead to

put that to one side and refer the subject matter of the bill to a

committee. It's a procedure that Beauchesne endorses, and we draw upon

the great knowledge of Beauchesne on many occasions in this chamber.

It's a procedure that both in the fourth edition of Beauchesne, which

has existed for a long, long period of time before the current fifth

edition revision, which — I don't see it on the table right at the

moment but I know it's there and they look at it from time to time....

It's a procedure that's available there and that is used in the House

of Commons in Ottawa. It has not been used here, to my knowledge, or at

least I haven't been able to find out where it has been, but I would

argue the point, while the government House Leader shakes his head and

says it has not. Just because something has not been done is no reason

not to do it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There were a lot of things done in this House before you got here.

MR. HOWARD: I refrain from replying to the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing. I know how desperate he is to get his words of

wisdom on the record. I'd suggest if he wants to do that he follow the

normal course of events. I'm advised by the Chair that my time will be

concluded in a matter of a minute or something of that sort — an ideal

opportunity for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, who has such

an abiding interest in decent dealing with people, or so he tells, to

express his views with respect to this particular bill. That way they'd

be on the record and they wouldn't be just sort of, you know, blurts

and puffs of words indicating that perhaps all the member is doing is

relieving his political flatulence by sitting in his seat. He should

get up and talk about matters directly.

In any event, I want to urge....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Time!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has just a few moments left, and I'll ask him to conclude his speech.

MR. HOWARD: I want to urge the minister to take one or two

courses of action to pay respect to the desirability of municipalities

to have some input into this legislation, and that is either to put it

to one side and not proceed with it further until some time later on or

to take the course available procedurally, whether by leave or

otherwise — and if he wants to seek leave to do it, he'd have no

difficulty getting leave from this side of the House; we're very

accommodating indeed when it comes to matters of democracy. We'll give

the minister leave to move that the subject matter be referred to the

Municipal Affairs and Housing committee so it can hold hearings, listen

to input and come back and report to the House what it, the committee,

conceives to be the best course of action. Take either one of those

two, and he'll be applauded tremendously not only by members on this

side of the House but by people all throughout this province as well.

Exert your influence, Mr. Minister — you have a considerable amount.

All we have to do is look at how he got here in the first place to

understand that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please conclude your remarks. Your time has expired.

MR. HOWARD: If my time is expired, then I thank you for your attention and your courtesy.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm only standing up to talk on this bill to

say that I really support it and support what the minister is doing in

this area. Because I was at one time the Member of Parliament in

Burnaby–Richmond–Delta where some of our colleagues for the NDP are

referring to this bill as the Spetifore amendment, I felt that I should

get up and add some of what I know to this topic of the Spetifore

property in Delta and why this act would benefit what is happening. It

would benefit not only that area but also other people in the province.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) says we keep on bringing

it up. I'm not ashamed to talk about it. The hon. second member for

Victoria doesn't know what he's talking about. He's never had to invest

any of his money in any projects or take a risk at anything. He's only

had an opportunity to sit here and criticize people who do take risks

in this province and do take chances with their money to employ a lot

of his friends.

I was going to comment on a number of the comments from the member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard) when he got into the Dawn Development issue and

the stock exchange — I do know a little bit about the stock exchange. I

see he finished off his comments yesterday by saying he was going to

make

[ Page 537 ]

some comments today about the member for

Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) and his ownership in stocks in the

Dawn Development firm. I would be happy to have that debate with him at

any time on shares that other members of this House, including members

of his own party, own in other companies. Since he didn't talk about it

today....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Get the Blues. It's the second to last page — your quote in there.

Since he didn't talk about it today, I'll save it for another debate

and really stick to Bill 9. His comments yesterday, when I read through

them, for a number of pages really didn't refer to Bill 9, except for a

development company and the possibility that they may be developing

something in the Delta area. But I will make some comments on Bill 9,

which the hon. member for Skeena made some comments on himself

yesterday. I quote him from the Blues where he says: "I know the second

member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) spent hours saying what a great need there

is for that development in that area, and that the Spetifore property

could not grow potatoes. They were not viable." The truest thing that

he said in his speech yesterday was: "I'm not a farming expert." I

couldn't help but agree with him more.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member now is not imputing any dishonourable motive to the other member.... I heard a concern....

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I would make it plain that I'm not

a farming expert either. This member said that he was not a farming

expert, and I am not a fanning expert. I don't think there's anything

putting the member in disrepute for saying that.

What I'm trying to point out is that the member himself said he was

not a fanning expert, and I'm quoting out of the Blues what he said

himself: "The only thing I'm worried about is that the legislation

before us right now is not needed in its present form. It must have

some refinement, and it needs additional consultation from those in the

community before it is jammed through." I would suggest to the hon.

member for Skeena that this legislation has had lots of consultation.

If he reads the minister's own statements and press releases he will

see that the people of this province have been consulted on Bill 9 and

that most of the people in this province approve of Bill 9.

I think the members across should also look back at what some of

their ministers said when they were in power. I'm looking at a headline

from the Vancouver Sun of February 14, 1974.

MR. ROSE: That's Valentine's Day.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Coquitlam–Moody, who was a

former colleague in the House of Commons, says February 14 was

Valentine's Day. Well, it wasn't Valentine's for some people that year.

The headline said: "Lauk says Land Commission Act not designed to save

all farmland." How many times have we heard these speakers from the NDP

talk about their Land Commission and its saving farmland? Out of that

article it said: " 'Environmentalists trying to preserve Tilbury Island

from industrial developments should realize the Land Commission Act was

not designed to protect all farmland in British Columbia,' said

Industrial Development minister Gary Lauk," the second member for

Vancouver Centre, on that day. This act that they brought in

themselves, they said at that time, was not designed to save all

farmland. They took a large chunk of land in Delta to put an industrial

park in. At that time, although the municipality agreed with the

industrial park, they wanted a much larger area taken out of the

agricultural land reserve, and because they arbitrarily made the

decision as a government to just take a little piece of land for this

park, the farmers surrounding that industrial park now have farms that

are not viable. The fill that has to be put in the sand that is piled

in to make Tilbury Island has raised the water table surrounding that

industrial park. You cannot grow anything on the surrounding areas, and

those farmers are stuck with land that is worthless. That's because of

legislation the NDP brought in, and because they have no compassion for

the farmers who are in business surrounding Tilbury Island.

I see the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is going:

"Aha, we have compassion." Your party, Mr. Member, has no compassion

when it comes to people in business, and you know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The farmer's a businessman.

MR. REYNOLDS: The farmers of this province support this government, because we have compassion for them.

When it comes to the Spetifore land, the member for Skeena said we

need a little more time. How much time do you have to give anybody?

That land in Delta was first brought up for rezoning in 1972, eleven

years ago. It's been debated. He said the council should have some

input. The council in Delta has voted a number of times to develop that

land. As the NDP knows, even the GVRD voted 100 percent to send it to

their planning committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Originally.

MR. REYNOLDS: That was originally. But only after the NDP

members of this Legislature put pressure on the GVRD and said: "This is

a good hot political issue; we've got a guy here with a farm who

donates to the Social Credit Party. Let's get together and vote this

thing down so we can cause some problems."

MR. BLENCOE: How much did he give?

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Victoria asks how much

the member gave. Well, I would like to know how much his unions gave

him in the last election — $100,000. I would suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that Mr. Spetifore didn't give anywhere near that kind of

money. He's a good card-carrying member of the Social Credit Party and

donates to it, and it's his right to do so. He shouldn't be criticized

for his right to participate in the democracy of this province.

MR. BLENCOE: Sellout! Sell out our farmland!

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Victoria called

"sellout." That's typical of a socialist NDP councilman in Victoria who

doesn't know what he's talking about. He's against the people of this

province participating in business in this province. He just can't

stand the fact that some of them do.

[ Page 538 ]

Back to Bill 9.

[2:45]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is courtesy that if one's going to heckle he at least be in his seat. The member will continue uninterrupted.

MR. REYNOLDS . I was going to mention that the member wasn't in his

seat when he was heckling, but I wasn't sure if that was one of the regulations

here. I see that it is, and I wish he would take his seat. It's a little

easier to hear him when he's sitting next to me. It's an awful lot of

fun to heckle with him, because he doesn't know what he's talking about

most of the time.

If these members of the NDP would like to read the bill, it says:

"Official plans are being eliminated as a deregulation measure to

streamline the development approval process and to strengthen the

autonomy of municipal government."

How can any member in this Legislature be against deregulation,

after what has happened in this country and in this province in the

past few years with the increases in employment in the civil service? I

don't know how they can. They're an anti-business group. They just

don't understand what makes this economy tick. And they don't

understand why they didn't win the last election. How many times have

we heard from the NDP: "God, the way you're going we'll win the next

election"? I'm only 41 years old, but we've been hearing it from before

then. You've only won one election in this province in the last hundred

years, and that seems to make you feel awfully confident.

HON. MR. BENNETT: One too many.

MR. REYNOLDS: The Premier said that was one election too many. It certainly was one election too many for the people of this province.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll ask all hon. members to come to order, and I ask the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound to speak to the bill.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I was just quoting the explanatory

note from Bill 9. It's a little tough when you keep on getting these

barbs and have to answer them; it's very hard to keep quiet. The second

member for Victoria said: "a sellout." Well, Bill 9 is not a sellout to

anyone. It's a positive step in this province to put some power back

into the municipalities where the power belongs, the power to have

municipalities do their own issues.

I was looking at the vote in the GVRD; if you took from that vote

the weighted vote of the city of Vancouver, that proposal for the Dawn

Development would have been 24 to 23 in favour of it. What right do the

elected officials of the city of Vancouver have to tell the citizens of

Delta that they can't have a development in their municipality that's

going to provide homes for people who want to live in Delta, homes out

there on the ocean, in one of the most beautiful areas of the city?

What right do those elected officials of the city of Vancouver have to

tell those people in Delta that they can't have an 89-acre park donated

by the developer? Expensive land, one of the nicest 89 acres of land in

this whole province, right on the Pacific Ocean with a beautiful sandy

beach — donated by a developer to the GVRD, and the NDP says: "That's

no good for the people of this province."

Mr. Speaker, those same people in the city of Vancouver don't mind

sending all their garbage to Delta, and we accept it. The people of

Delta have accepted that garbage. In all the years I was a Member of

Parliament we accepted the garbage, and we never complained. I never

had a complaint in six years; not one resident said: "Let's not take

the garbage from all those people." But we're tired of taking the

garbage of how their councilmen and aldermen vote when it comes to the

GVRD. Somebody who's an appointee on Bowen Island should not be voting

against something in Delta, any more than that member and the council

of Delta should be going to the GVRD and telling us what we should do

in West Vancouver or Bowen Island.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Oh, the man asks about the mayor of West

Vancouver. Why do you think I just made that comment? I have no

complaints at all with the way he wants to vote, but I'll tell him

right now that I disagree with him. I don't think he has any right to

go to a GVRD meeting and tell the people of Delta that they can't have

a housing development, any more than I think the members of the Delta

council can go to him and say: "You shouldn't put any more houses in

the British Properties, or you shouldn't do this in Horseshoe Bay."

That should be up to the local council. The people who live in the area

know best what they want. At least the people in West Vancouver and the

people in Delta don't elect communists to city council; they have free

enterprisers on their council. Why should I, living in West Vancouver

or Delta — I've lived in both locations — have to put up with the likes

of Harry Rankin and Bruce Yorke, all those nonsensical people and the

way they want me to run my community when I'm not even part of what

goes on in their community?

I would suggest to the members of the NDP that the reason I support

Bill 9 is because this is the type of situation.... This party did not

want B.C. Place downtown, that gorgeous new stadium with a dome, yet a

lot of their supporters sure love going there to watch our teams play.

Mr. Speaker, when I first came to this Legislature and heard the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) speak, I thought he was a real

wit; but I've since learned that I was only half right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll remind the member that personal references, even if indirect, are unparliamentary.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Victoria keeps asking me

how Vancouver alderman Don Bellamy voted. For his information, Mr.

Speaker, Mr. Bellamy voted in favour. You should check your facts.

You're usually wrong, and you're wrong once again today. Mr. Bellamy

voted in favour of the GVRD proposal, not against it. Go and check your

records. If you want to look, it's right here.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Don

Bellamy yesterday voted against this government to withdraw 26 pieces

of legislation. That's a matter of record.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will take his place.

[ Page

539 ]

Standing order 42 is quite explicit that no member may speak twice

to a question except to explain a relevant point of his speech that may

have been misinterpreted or misquoted. I will commend to the second

member for Victoria that he read that standing order and not gain the

House on incorrect points of order.

MR. REYNOLDS: Speaking on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker, I have not

mentioned the vote yesterday, as the second member for Victoria stated.

The only thing I've talked about is the vote on Dawn Development, and

he was yelling — I'm sure it was picked up — "How did Bellamy vote?" I

told him how Bellamy voted; he voted in favour of it. If the second

member for Victoria wants to talk about how Mr. Bellamy voted

yesterday, let him wait for his next turn in the debate, as you have

suggested to him. Then he can say what he wants and I will talk back to

him at that time.

I could go on and on, but I think we all want to wrap up this

debate, because it's such a good one. I want to have it on record, Mr.

Speaker, that the new Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie)

has done a great job in his department. I commend him for bringing in

this bill. I commend him for the work he's putting into his department.

I know he's already been in contact with areas of my constituency that

he's never been to. He's trying to find out in his new department what

all these municipalities want, and he knows he will have my support and

the support of the people in the municipalities in my area. I

congratulate him on his appointment. I congratulate him on Bill 9, the

Municipal Amendment Act, and I'm very proud to stand here and say that

I support it.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I'm pleased that you cited

standing order 42(l), which is precisely the standing order I'm rising

under to indicate that a part of my comments yesterday have been

misquoted or misunderstood by the member who just sat down. Let me read

what I said:

"Perhaps what is necessary is to have a

review of the things I was going to say between now and resumption of

the sitting of the House tomorrow, at which time I can expand upon the

shareholdings then declared by the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam

(Mr. Parks) and the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson). In the

interim I'd like to move to adjourn the debate....

There is a vast difference between "can," which is

an ability, and a commitment that one will. I think the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound — or wherever he is from — unconsciously misquoted

that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. Let me

advise the House that it is the practice under standing order 42 for a

member who has finished speaking to use standing order 42 to stand

again and correct a statement he might have inadvertently or

incorrectly made, but that is normally done after his speech and not

during debate on other matters. That is a courtesy; it is not in our

standing orders, but I just thought I'd bring it to your attention.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reply in any detail right

away to what was said by the hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, except

in general terms. The remarks sounded to me like those of a promoter of Dawn

Development. They sounded like the kind of province that we are moving into,

where the great gods that we will be worshipping are the high-flying real estate

speculators, the people who go to municipalities and get the zoning laws changed

in their favour so that their land which was valued at $100,000 becomes worth

$750,000 overnight. This is the kind of new rich who are benefiting from the

radical-right, Social Credit revolution. It is not the ordinary people of this

province. It is the Howe Street hustlers who are benefiting.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: There can be a lot of chatter, but that is the

kind of sad province of British Columbia that we're living in and have

been living in, particularly in these last four or five years.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I'm going to lecture. But I'm going to

take my time and try to put in perspective what is happening in this

little bill. I think it is rather unfortunate that the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, in introducing this very important legislation which

is going to change the face of this province — in my opinion for the

worse, for a long period of time — devoted about one page of Hansard

to his introduction: "Specifically, the legislation provides for the

removal of the power of regional districts to enact and enforce

regional plans. These plans have been an unnecessary level of land use

control."

They go a long way back, Mr. Speaker. I speak for a moment about the

area, which has its green places, its industry and its recreation

spots, known as the lower mainland — the great delta of the Fraser

River — which will be despoiled if we abandon, as this bill does, the

regional plans which have, with a great deal of dedication and

contribution from public citizens of note.... One, for example, is Don

Lanskail of the lumber industry who, as I happen to know for other

reasons, was one of the active persons in developing the first regional

green plan for the Fraser Valley. Those plans are wiped out by a line

in this bill. The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound says: "What does

it matter to the people of Vancouver what happens in Delta? And what

does it matter to the people of Burnaby what happens in Vancouver?"

Interjection.

MR. MacDONALD: Oh, you stopped, but the regional....

Interjection.

MR. MacDONALD: Well, I've misquoted you. You didn't say

Burnaby, that's perfectly true, but what you are saying in this bill is

that every municipality....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I couldn't hear the Premier, I'm sorry.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: All right. But what the bill is doing is

saying that Burnaby's business in terms of planning is just for

Burnaby, and Vancouver's business in terms of planning is

[ Page 540 ]

just for Vancouver — it doesn't affect those other

residents who live across Boundary Road. It's saying that what happens

in West Vancouver where, for example, there are ski and recreation

areas, has nothing to do with the people of Delta, who also happen to

ski.

Interjection.

[3:00]

MR. MACDONALD: You restricted it, but the bill does not

restrict it. The bill is eliminating regional planning throughout the

whole lower mainland. The minister, with that momentous decision....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, the whole province, but I'm just speaking

of the mainland at the present time. I'll mention the Victoria region

too in a moment.

The minister, with one page, wipes out about 20 years of British

Columbian history, from the slow development of the regional planning

in the lower mainland area as a unit, then in other capital regions —

all wiped out with one page of debate. Why? I'll come back later to the

why and what kind of a province we're really creating.

What I'm saying now is that it is a great tragedy in terms of a

livable British Columbia. It is a particular tragedy in terms of a

livable lower mainland region, the Fraser Valley delta. What happens

when you say that each municipality can do it on their own? Two things

happen. To take the first point, you begin to have what is known as

smokestack competition. Smokestack competition means that industries

which may be beneficial in terms of employment, but that also can be

very detrimental in making a livable area, are bid for by each

municipality in order to increase its tax base.

The competition goes in to offer concessions to industry, whether

it's a steel mill, automotive, trucking or whatever, to locate in that

municipality. Each municipality has to bid in terms of lower taxes and

things of that kind to try to attract the industry. But there is no

kind of planning whatsoever in that kind of a situation. There is no

kind of planning so that industry can be allotted to areas within the

greater region which are beneficial and zoned for industry as part of

the regional plan. I feel kind of embarrassed because I'm saying very

commonsense things that have been long accepted in British Columbia,

but they are being wiped out by this little bill which the minister

devotes about five paragraphs to in his speech.

Sure, you're going to have, among other things, smokestack

competition: municipalities bidding and giving particular concessions —

I don't suppose under the table, but they're giving concessions — in

order to attract that industry and develop and bigger tax base to bring

down their mill rates. I'm not blaming the municipalities.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know, and if you want an example of that kind of....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Why didn't the minister say so, then, in his

opening statement in introducing this bill abolishing regional

planning? If this is the government's intention....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm getting some unsolicited help from the Premier

and my good friend the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). I'm making

serious points and I'm still in a good humour, and I should be more angry

than I am, and I am a little bit angry.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is saying from his

seat that municipalities want to bid against one another to attract

industry. If that is part of the defence of the bill, why didn't the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) stand up and say that?

I can take you to places on this North American continent where

they've had smokestack competition for industry between small

municipalities. I think of the Chicago area, where they have Calumet,

which is a famous old Indian name.

AN HON. MEMBER: What were you doing down there?

MR. MACDONALD: What was I doing in Calumet? I didn't go to

see the smokestacks. Nobody visits Calumet to see the smokestacks. But

a lot of people work there, and the area which was once a beautiful,

sort of rural part of Chicago, because of the malplacement of industry,

is a desert of acrid fumes and industrial pollution and bad planning,

and little box-like houses where the steelworkers and others live,

crammed right up against the great factories. Everybody knows we need

factories, but plan them! Plan the location. We have done it. It's all

there in the plan that is being wiped out in the regional district

today. Out near Langley there's all kinds of industrial land waiting to

be developed. B.C. Hydro has also purchased industrial lands. And so

they should, because as industries expand we must have locations for

them. But let's plan it.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Langley has a planning department.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Langley is one municipality, and all of

them will have their planning departments. But all these little

units.... That's what I'm trying to say: the idea that all the little

units should plan one by one for their own interests was something that

was rejected in this province of British Columbia about 20 years ago,

because what happens in one municipality affects the lifestyle of

people outside that municipality. Everybody knows that.

MRS. JOHNSTON: You're saying fire the local planning departments?

MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm not. You're trying to put words in my

mouth. You're trying to say that I intend to fire the municipal

planning departments. The answer is no. I do happen to know there are

problems of jurisdiction between the municipal planning function and

the regional planning function, and in my opinion there's a good

example out here in the Capital Regional District. In my opinion, if

the minister had addressed himself to that particular problem, in terms

of looking carefully at the jurisdiction of each — what the

[ Page 541 ]

municipality did in its planning was purely within

that municipality without regional implications, and the region did the

rest — and clarified those lines of jurisdiction, I would support such

action. And if, as my good friend Bill Vander Zalm — and I don't mind

saying that on a personal, not political, basis — had been able to

proceed with his legislation to expedite the approval process in an

orderly way in this province of British Columbia, I would have been

glad to support the expedition of such approval.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! oh!

MR. MACDONALD: No, the bill was doing.... All right, you're

having your fun, but the bill was doing so much more than that. The

government did two things, because it was far more than that. It was

afraid to go ahead with the bill itself, and then through their

political organization they leaked to poor Bill Vander Zalm false

reports of the polls that had taken place in Surrey so that the fellow

would not run for office again. [Laughter.] Oh, funny! I give you a

little bit of real history and the class breaks out into laughter.

Interjection.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: Well, that one happens to be true. If you want to meet me privately I'll tell you more about it

I've given the first reason why I believe there should be regional

planning as well as local municipal planning within regional areas. I'm

going to give the second reason now.

The second reason is the same reason that the NDP considered when it

brought in the Agricultural Land Reserve. That reason is that if every

little municipality and every council — and they keep changing year by

year — can make these decisions on its own, you're going to get a bunch

of hotshots, real estate speculators, rezoners with a sharp pencil who

know how to make money, unearned money on a fantastic scale, who will

in time knock over this council.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: What Jimmy are you speaking of? I don't even know. Jimmy Rhodes? I'm as serious about my second point as I was about my first.

We brought in the agricultural land reserve because one by one — and

at different times this happened — a municipal council would be knocked

over by real estate speculators who could do what they wanted within

that municipality. And then in time the people recovered and they

elected the kind of council that protected the public interest as well

as sought orderly development.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It's happened in Delta over the last seven

years. Anybody who wants a neighbourhood pub and who's a friend of the

Social Credit government can get the support of the Delta council four

to three.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: That was granted by the Social Credit government.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: What are they?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Aren't they accountable to their people?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. MACDONALD: They will be accountable someday. But I'm

telling you the history. One of them has been accountable to the

courts, and that's the late mayor of the municipality, Tom Goode.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'm just pointing out that in the municipality of Delta you have the

situation where all the elements come together and where the right kind

of developer, whether it's a neighbourhood pub or the Spetifore

development, will have that council behind him four to three. If you do

not have regional planning, and if you leave it to every little council

all over the lower mainland region, that will happen at various times

to every one of those councils. For that reason, the NDP government

brought in legislation which fortunately this government, although they

hate it in their hearts, hasn't been able to dismantle completely — the

agricultural land reserve. We knew very well that if it was left to

each council, one by one they'd be knocked over by the money power of

the speculator; green space in the province of B.C. would continue to

disappear on an enormous scale before our eyes, and we would have been

recreant to future generations.

What I'm talking about is the same thing when you give up regional

planning. The two major reasons why, in my opinion, regional planning

should continue and.... These 26 bills are initiating a new dark age in

the history of British Columbia, and this is one of them. We shouldn't

turn back the clock on something that people of all parties in the past

have supported. In the case of the lower mainland, it is a livable

region where the people can move about freely from one municipality to

the other, where recreation and industry are planned, beaches and

skiing are planned, and where somebody out in Delta does indeed have

some say about a development of regional size in the city of Vancouver.

Why shouldn't they? There are things that the GVRD does which affect

the city of Vancouver.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: If the minister is saying that's not the case,

he doesn't know what he's talking about. And they should, because we're

all part of one great metropolitan area, where what happens in one

place affects what happens in others. That's the 20 years of history

that you're turning your back on. You come back to ask yourself why

it's being done.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: You can make that kind of a proposition if you will, but....

Why is this being done? Why did this government, which for its first

seven years of existence I think supported the regional planning idea,

suddenly cut it off at this time? Why

[ Page 542 ]

are all the back-benchers and all the rest supporting this particular bill?

[3:15]

MR. REID: Because we've just come from the communities that are being dictated to by the GVRD weighted vote.

MR. MACDONALD: If you wanted to change the procedures of your

regional planning, and you and I might disagree on how it might go,

then we could sit down and discuss that. But what you're doing is

taking a knife to the whole process of regional planning; and the

livable nature of the area that you come from, as well as I, is going

to be drastically changed in terms of future unborn generations if this

kind of legislation is allowed to prevail. It won't for long, because

inevitably public opinion will oblige a government of whatever stripe

to protect the area as a whole. Don't think you can do it by protecting

minute parts of it.

It's going to come back, but what damage will be done in the

meantime by this irrational step? I come back to the question, why? The

hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) discusses the

Spetifore thing, and he has all the banalities which he expresses so

well: if you invested money; have you ever done that in your life? Why

shouldn't you have return to it? On Howe Street, the promoter doesn't

invest the money — very, very seldom — except to hire some guy. They

call him to "make market." Most of the time they don't invest the

money; they get the escrow shares and so forth. We're not discussing

Howe Street, but we ought to some day. We're talking about the

Spetifore lands, which is the reason for this bill. I just want to take

my time and give some of the implications of this particular

legislation.

Here is an area of farmland between 500 and 600 acres. When I say

farmland, everybody in the Social Credit ranks says: "It isn't

farmland. It isn't." But all the land experts — forget the politicians

— said it was farmland. The agricultural land reserve commission said

it was farmland, based on the opinion of their experts. The politicians

— the Delta council, four to three — said: "You can never use that as

farmland. The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), who

doesn't know a farm from a stock option, said it's not farmland because

you never grow anything on it. In that particular area some of the

first potatoes ever grown in the history of Canada were grown.

The owner was very anxious to get his land out of the farm reserve.

I can't blame Mr. Spetifore for that. Everybody tries to promote their

own interest in life, and there's no use being indignant about that.

But what he did was to let the farm run down.

MR. REID: Because he couldn't make any money with it, that's why.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, well, I don't know about that. Other

people can. He could have sold it as a farm if he didn't want to keep

it up. There's no way that you can convince me why one of the first

potato-growing areas in the whole of Canada — maybe the first; I'm not

sure of that point — should suddenly become non-farmland.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't sell the potatoes.

MR. MACDONALD: I've obviously got somebody whom I will have to put down as doubtful, if not positively hostile, if not absolutely nuts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: I withdraw the last part, Mr. Speaker. I'm having somebody from Surrey chatter away, and I enjoy his interjections.

Mr. Spetifore had these 500 or 600 acres, which, if you go by the

municipal assessment, were worth $500,000 or $600,000. But if he could

get that out of the land reserve, what would it be worth? Who would get

the money? Who would get the difference between, say, the $500,000 it's

worth as farmland and the figures I'm about to give as to what it was

worth outside of the agricultural land reserve? There was a big pile of

money between those two values which you would call a speculative

capital gain or windfall profit, all of it granted out there by a

stroke of the pen of the cabinet of the province of British Columbia

when they passed the order-in-council on January 16, 1981. So there was

tremendous pressure, strongly supported four to three by the Delta

council, to get that land out of the reserve.

The story is fairly well known. The present Speaker of the

Legislature, the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson), convened a

meeting....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have warned this assembly many

times that the Speaker of the House cannot be drawn directly or

indirectly into debate. Let me quote from Sir Erskine May: "Reflections

upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as

breaches of privilege. His action cannot be criticized incidentally in

debate or in any form of proceeding, except as a substantive motion. If

there is no substantive motion, the member will withdraw any references

to the Speaker."

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I'm

reciting a history of the events leading up to the exclusion of the

Spetifore lands from the agricultural land reserve. The Speaker was

then simply the member for Delta; he was not the Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: On my point of order, are we then to ignore

history as something that cannot be discussed or introduced into

debate, particularly when the actions of the Speaker in question were

as the member for Delta, not the Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is an indirect reference to the

Speaker of this House. The citation from Sir Erskine May is quite

clear. There is a mechanism available, but it is not during this

debate. I will tell the House one more time: the Speaker may not,

directly or indirectly, be brought into any reference in any debate.

His action cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or in any form

of proceeding except a substantive motion.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm abiding by your ruling, but I

must say it is a most extraordinary thing that you have history, and a

gap, and then you say: "A certain member

[ Page 543 ]

who shall be Mr. X..." — and I can't name.... Can I do that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon. member, the rules are clear.

MR. MACDONALD: "...convened the meeting in the Laurel Point

Inn, not far from here, on July 14 to prep his buddies up to go before

ELUC the next day to get the lands removed by ELUC from the

agricultural land reserve."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Do you ever meet with your constituents?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but I don't meet quietly in a hotel room

with cabinet ministers and Delta council members and even the minister

of public works, who walked out of the meeting in indignation. Then,

without anybody with a contrary voice knowing anything about the

meeting in the Laurel Point Inn or about the meeting of ELUC, or having

a chance to object, the thing that happened at ELUC the next day was a

staged manoeuvre that had happened the night before. It took some time

after that. ELUC removed the land from the Agricultural Land

Commission, and then it wasn't until, I think, next January that the

cabinet also did the same thing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I said that the result of that action was to

create quick gold on an enormous scale for insiders, not the ordinary

people of the province of British Columbia. I refuted what the member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) was saying — that people

had invested in it. They didn't invest in it — although some are right

now. They're buying Dawn bonds — I know that — but that's a very late

development, and I feel sorry for those people who happen to be buying

that particular security because what is ahead of it in terms of

mortgage loans is astronomical. When the cabinet of the province of

British Columbia had released the Spetifore lands, Mr. Spetifore and

his partners went to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is this on Bill 9?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, the Spetifore lands — that's what Bill 9

is all about. The Spetifore lands are being released by this bill, and

I'm telling you the story of the Spetifore lands.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Stick to Bill 9.

MR. MACDONALD: What other reasons are there for Bill 9? Get

up and tell us. Just to wipe out regional planning? Just to have

smokestack competition between municipalities? Of course not. Bill 9 is

the Spetifore amendment. A certain member of this House, who cannot be

named, said it was coming. It was already coming. He didn't have to say

that. It was already in the works. To wipe out the opposition of the

GVRD to the Spetifore development — that's what the bill's doing, and

I'm telling you about that development.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Wrong again, Alex.

MR. MACDONALD: Again? I haven't been wrong yet. How can I be wrong again?

The promoters went at once to the Bank of Commerce and they raised

the sum of $17 million. Now here you have this land, which people said

was too poor to farm, assessed at around $500,000 or $600,000, and they

go to the bank after the Social Credit cabinet, with a stroke of its

pen, had given this great windfall profit out there and raised $17

million on July 17, 1981. Then they go to the Bank of Montreal and they

raise $9 million. And then Spetifore and sons, who were the owners of

the land, have a mortgage on there which was $25 million at first but

is now a mortgage for the incredible sum of $102 million. I was kind of

amused at the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound taking exception to

what I said earlier. He says that the Spetifores don't own the land any

more. I know it was sold to Dawn Development for $48 million.

MRS. JOHNSTON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, according to

the government bills before us Bill 9 appears to be the Municipal

Amendment Act, 1983. I see no reference in this bill to the name

Spetifore. Could we please have the member speak on Bill 9, the

Municipal Amendment Act?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. There have been numerous

references during this debate to developments and the principle of this

bill as it applies to developments. However, I will ask the hon. second

member for Vancouver East to be relevant to the bill and the principle

of the bill. I am sure the member is quite prepared to do that.

MR. MACDONALD: I suggest, with respect, to you and your

ruling that the hon. member for Surrey reads this bill in far too

innocent a way. If we were to simply debate it as just a matter of

planning and not appreciate the major effect it's going to have on this

province in terms of the developments that are being allowed to go

ahead because of it, then I suppose we could debate it very shortly.

But I'm saying that it has major implications. Everybody knows that the

Greater Vancouver Regional District, by a vote of a fair majority,

turned down the Spetifore development. Everybody knows that this

legislation brought in by this government will allow the Spetifore

development, because all it needs now is Delta council, and Delta

council is four to three for this or any other kind of development they

want — four to three for the Social Credit Party; true forever in the

ranks of death to the Social Credit Party. So this is an example of

what we are doing. I think Sir Erskine May and Beauchesne and all of

their friends would agree that I'm in order in pointing out the serious

social implications. They also affect Vancouver East, because Vancouver

East people enjoy the Fraser Valley region — Surrey, Delta and all the

rest — as a recreation area.

[3:30]

As a result of this development, the plans of the promoters have got

to be for extremely expensive housing. If you've committed yourself to

this kind of mortgaging of the land to pay off the speculative gains

that were made as a result of this rezoning that has been allowed by

the government, you've got to charge a tremendous price for your

housing. You're going to have to have super-rich housing in that area.

The people of Vancouver, as well as the people of all of the lower

mainland regions, are interested in low-cost, affordable housing for

families. Do you really think that by releasing the prohibition against

this development you are going to get low-cost, affordable housing?

Housing for the super-rich, if it can be sold at all, to begin to

recover these costs.

Interjection.

[ Page 544 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Developer's risk? There was no risk for the

Spetifores. There's going to be risk for people further down the line,

but the promoters have got their nest-egg already.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, I love that. The Premier wants to divert

attention from what I'm saying by referring to the fact that I've got

enough sense not to expose my lifestyle on too wide a scale.

The mortgages against the Spetifore development, including

debentures to Royal Trust, total $163 million. What kind of a province

are we going to have, where get-rich-quick people, with the help of a

cabinet order like that, can have that kind of increased value attached

to their land? And they share in it. The community gets nothing of

that. Oh, I suppose there's a capital gains tax that filters back in

time at the rate of 25 percent, so something comes back. But when we

have people out there who are terribly hungry....

I saw in the paper this morning that a taxi-cab driver gets $120 a

week. She has three children. She has diabetes and she may lose her

licence — I think we all saw the story. When you have that very common

kind of good, hard-working citizen in the province of British Columbia,

and you turn around to the Spetifores, the Jim Andersons, the Dawns and

the speculative fraternity, and you increase the value of this thing

with a capital increment, which they on their figures have mortgaged

now at $163 million.... How can you look in the mirror and say that

there's any kind of social equity in what's happening in this province?

How can you say this is good housing, when these built-in costs have to

be looked after by those who buy the housing units and then on long

mortgages try to bring up their families and pay off the encumbrances

against the land in favour of the promoters? So what we have here, Mr.

Speaker, is a bill which is very destructive of the environment of the

province of British Columbia — and I've only mentioned one region, the

lower mainland.

It is a terribly dangerous bill in terms of making it easier for

get-rich-quick speculators to rip off the ordinary people of this

province who work hard and don't make all that much and don't complain

as much as they should and often don't understand some of the things

that are going on. So what we have in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, in

these 26 bills is not only a radical right revolution, which I don't

think was approved by the people in the last election, but we also have

a destruction of values that up to the present time were commonly

shared between both parties in this House, the Liberal Party and the

Conservative Party. The idea of planning livable regions and some kind

of fairness out there has been cut away, and it should be opposed to

the limits of our ability.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who is a former

Attorney-General, made a comment in his speech with regard to the

former mayor of Delta, who is before the courts on a planning matter. I

know what his....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, it is a correction. The former mayor of Delta, who was also a....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Was the member misquoting a part of your speech?

MR. REYNOLDS: No, he was misquoting....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then it is not a point of order that you can rise on under this debate.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, he was quoting my speech when he mentioned....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If a part of the speech of the member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound has been misquoted or misrepresented, he may

rise under standing order 42 and explain only that. Is that what the

member is seeking to do?

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking to ask the former

Attorney-General on a point of order if he would correct the fact that

this gentleman, who was a mayor of Delta, was not before the courts on

any matter to do with his service as a mayor. I don't....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I think a man's honour is at stake

and I think this party that is very concerned about human rights would

want to make sure they didn't infringe on another person's human rights.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a point of order.

The member will take his chair. The most important thing at stake, I

guess, is the rules of this House, which are quite clear and explicit

and, I'm sure, understood by everyone who will take the time to read

them.

On debate on Bill 9.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support Bill 9. I think the passage of this bill is rather

urgent. Some of the members are commenting on why we are against

regional planning. I don't think any of us in this province or in this

House are against planning, but I think this bill is going to eliminate

some of the duplicate levels of planning which have become the

paramount exercise in itself — in other words to delay or to block. If

you can keep planning for two or three years, you keep employed and you

don't have to worry about other things. So a great deal of development

in this province is held up.

I would like to point out that despite the NDP efforts.... Their

standard stunt is to zero in on one little black spot on a great white

sheet of paper, as I made the analogy one time earlier. Their stunt is

to deflect attention from the real issue, and the real issue here is to

eliminate duplicate planning.

On many occasions they pose themselves as the great defenders of

local autonomy. Yet here is a bill that is trying to provide more local

autonomy and they are against it. They are insisting that the regional

districts have a power over local

[ Page 545 ]

autonomy. They make disparaging remarks about the

intelligence of the elected council members in those municipalities —

that they would make foolish decisions. I pointed out in an

interjection that I think these elected members at the local level are

accountable to the people there, So if they do the wrong things, they

are certainly going to be held to accountability. Are the NDP saying

that they believe in local autonomy but have no respect for the ability

of locally elected aldermen to make decisions? Is that what they are

trying to interject into this debate?

One could probably talk for a long time on this, but we have heard

so much of this anti-development sentiment from the great defenders of

farmland, the opposition. So the question arises in my mind: if they

are so anti-development, why do they, as a party organization, get

involved in development in Nanaimo? I'm sure that after the value of

land increased and they benefited, they said: "No, we will not take the

price increase."

One could go on indefinitely, but I think the point can best be made

by asking: if they are such great defenders of farmland, why don't they

take that fund and invest in farmland and go farming? Why do they act

as developers? In other words, they have one set of principles that

they speak on and a completely different code under which they

practise. There is no use in belabouring the point. I think that is the

point.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I expected the minister — particularly that

minister, because he is the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing — to

get up and attempt to defend this bill which we are debating now, which

is that we move autonomy from regional districts and municipalities in

some way. That's what the bill does. But the minister just said

something about one construction job in Nanaimo, which has no relevance

to this bill whatsoever. He said nothing. I'm surprised to see so many

people on the treasury benches this afternoon. During the course of

routine debate on second reading of a bill the House is usually very

empty, particularly of government members. I know they've got other

things to do, and they have meetings to attend and people to meet. I

just met with some of my friends out on the front lawn — all 25,000 of

them — just a short while ago. They're asking for the Premier of this

province and asking why he isn't out there. My speech is not going to

be great, Mr. Premier, and you have my permission to leave and meet

with those 25,000 people out there on the front lawn. They're asking

for you. They asked me to bring in a message: "Send the Premier out.

We'd very much like to see him." I said I'd bring the message in to you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What can I say about a bill like this that hasn't already been said?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Maybe if all hon. members can come to order, the member can continue.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really appreciate your protection.

I want to talk about my own regional district in a few minutes, but,

to start with, under Bill 9 the explanatory note says — and I'll read

it into the record, at least for my own constituents: "Official plans

are being eliminated as a deregulation measure to streamline the

development approval process and to strengthen the autonomy of

municipal government." Well, if ever an explanatory note was more wrong

or more in error, it's that explanatory note under this bill.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member interjects across the floor:

"Explain it to us." He's the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Ritchie). Has he read the bill? Has he heard from regional boards or

the GVRD? An interesting point, Mr. Speaker. That minister made a

promise to meet with the GVRD on August 23 to discuss this bill before

it came before this House for second reading. August 23 is a month

away. Has he met with the GVRD on this bill before its second reading?

No. Has he kept his promise? No, he has not. Here we are debating this

bill, and we'll be debating this bill for a long time yet, at least

until that minister has the courtesy to meet with the GVRD, the Union

of B.C. Municipalities and other regional district representatives in

this province. In the meantime I suggest he read the bill, and if he

doesn't understand it, I've got explanatory notes here which I'll loan

him.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: John Mika? He's very good. Excellent. I bet you wish you had him.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, what this bill does basically is remove

autonomy from the local regional districts. As I mentioned before....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I keep hearing a chirping sound. That's all right. Some of it is woofing, but most of it is chirping.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I have three large regional districts in

my riding, and parts of two others. There have been problems within

regional districts, but over the long term what regional districts have

done is give people within local areas — in my riding at least, and

throughout the province, I know very well — the ability to plan their

own communities, what kind of industry they wanted in those

communities, what kind of developments they wanted. People had a voice.

People had input. That's what happened. And that's what's being taken

away. That's the kind of power that is being removed from people in

those areas and being centralized here under the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs, in government under that minister, and in cabinet. That is

wrong, wrong, wrong.

[3:45]

When this bill comes into effect, all existing regional plans and

official regional plans are cancelled and will have no effect —

retroactive legislation, as usual, by this government. That in itself

is wrong, Mr. Speaker.

I want to give you a bit of background. We had a Premier in this

province once.... Did the current Premier go outside? Did he go outside

to meet with our friends? Oh, I'm pleased to hear that. That's great. I

thought he'd stay in, because I was going to quote from his....

[ Page 546 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker. Well, I'm really

pleased, just as a little aside, to see the Premier's finally gotten up

the courage to go out and talk to some of our friends on the front lawn.

MR. REID: He's right here listening to you.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, there he is! I'm pleased to see the

Premier in here for the moment, because I'm going to quote something

from a statement put forward by his father. Here he is! This is my

opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to discuss with the Premier certain aspects

of this bill, and the natural gas line to Powell River, which is a very

big topic — and I hope he'll agree with me when I.... Anyway, back to

the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the natural gas line to Powell River would be an excellent debate at another time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I definitely intend to raise it at another

time, Mr. Speaker. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from a

document compiled in 1945 by a great former Premier of this province,

the father of the Premier sitting beside me here, right now, and the

next leader of the official opposition, after the next election in this

province.

The former W.A. C. — you know what we called him at that time....

There were no regional districts in 1945. In fact, we didn't have

regional districts in this province until 1966. Regional districts, by

the way, to the hon. member who's quite loud....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Surrey! I can never remember where he's from.

But wherever he's from he should go back. He will be back after the

next election — back in Surrey.

I want to quote from this document that was part of a plan that

W.A.C. Bennett, who later became Premier of this province for 20 years,

took

part in. Basically what he says here is that for the well-being of

cities, districts, villages, unorganized areas, with populations

growing, a plan, a way and a means of developing these areas in

conjunction with municipalities and outlying areas must be formed. He

said the only way to accomplish this.... Remember, I'm quoting from

W.A.C. Bennett in 1945, when he sat on the commission called the Lower

Mainland Regional Plan Commission. That's a long time ago. Even W.A.C.

Bennett — your father, sir — agreed that planning should take place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you address the Chair, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We're having a little conversation over here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand, but it would be more appropriate if you would address the Chair, and the bill.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Even the former Premier of this province at that time agreed that

regional plans and regional planning should be in place. He became

Premier in 1952, I believe. It took him quite a while. By 1966 — and

our party voted for this — he brought in the legislation forming

regional districts in this province. We're all aware of the background

of that. There was some controversy at the time, but the plan worked

well. Our party voted for the concept, by the way.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Were you there?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No. The Premier asks if I was there — the

present Premier, not the former Premier. No, I wasn't there. But I was

here in the province, and I took

part in those meetings. I remember

when the then Municipal Affairs minister, Mr. Dan Campbell, came to

Powell River. I don't know why, actually; he came up to tell us that we

were going to have a regional district whether we liked it or not, and

that was the end of the meeting. There were about 400 of us at that

meeting. He got kind of a bad time, because he didn't properly explain

functions of regional districts. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that

regional districts were set up by the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett,

for another reason: not only for planning functions, but for another

reason. The Premier at that time wanted to relieve the provincial

government treasury of certain financial functions, so he set up

regional districts so that people within areas, if they wanted a

library, lighting system or sewer project, could have it; but they'd

pay for it themselves and relieve the current provincial government of

that financial burden. That was the other reason, of course, W.A.C.

brought in the regional district concept.

I didn't mean to dwell on that aspect of it for so long, but I was

interrupted by gentlemen to my left. I just wanted to make the point

that the former Premier of this province agreed with planning, and here

in Bill 9 you're taking it away. You're taking away local autonomy from

regional districts and municipalities.

Less than two weeks ago this government received a proposed

legislative framework for intermunicipal planning in metropolitan and

economic areas. They forwarded to this government ten recommendations

that I'm sure they would have discussed with that Minister of Municipal

Affairs, had he met with them as promised, which he didn't. He's going

to meet with them, I understand, at some point. I think the GVRD people

are meeting this afternoon to discuss what we're discussing in this

House today, are they not, Mr. Minister? The point is that here we are

debating this bill without consultation with these regional districts

and the GVRD. That's wrong.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What do you want to do? Make a suggestion.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Resign would be a good start on your part. However, later

on in my speech I was going to offer some solutions to the government. To the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, one of the things you might consider

doing is withdrawing the bill. We know you won't do that. You might consider

amending the bill — we know you won't do that. So I'm suggesting to

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, the House Leader, and to the Minister

of Municipal Affairs, that a standing committee of this Legislature, which is

in effect here while the House is sitting.... This bill should be taken before

that all-party committee in this

[ Page

547 ]

Legislature, and the people, such as GVRD, who want

to make representations regarding the contents of Bill 9, the principle

of which we're discussing now, should be brought to Victoria so their

views can be heard.

I'm terribly tempted to read every one of their ten recommendations

into the record. I should do that. I wonder if the minister has seen

this document. Have you seen this document? He hasn't seen it. I'll

read it. Then you can read Hansard tomorrow and see the

proposed legislative framework for intermunicipal planning and

metropolitan and economic areas. I want you to understand that these

ten recommendations not only apply to the lower mainland area but also

to many rural areas, because the philosophy of what they're saying here

applies all over the province. I didn't want to bore you with all this,

but you asked for it and now you've got it.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You've got it? It's really worth reading into

the record, and I'm sure my constituents would be very interested in

these ten recommendations. I could send it up to them. I could do an

article for my local newspapers. I could talk about it on my local

radio, but.... You're sure you've got it, eh? Do you promise to meet

with these people? Mr. Speaker, if the minister says he'll meet and

consult with these people, I won't read this long document into the

record. You're going to meet with them, aren't you, Mr. Minister? He

says yes. He shakes his head. They'll be pleased to hear that this

afternoon, wherever they're meeting — on the lower mainland somewhere,

I guess.

Do you know who else is opposed to this bill? You won't believe

this. Friends of the government really. An organization called HUDAC.

That's the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, a group

of professional developers. Also the Urban Development Institute, which

is another organization — basically good people who are interested and

involved in development projects. They have very, very deep concerns

about this bill before us today. I don't think the government or the

minister has met with these people either. I don't want to quote from

this whole document, but in terms of HUDAC and the UDI people, I

thought this one paragraph significant because it relates directly to

planning functions and this bill. So quoting from the brief that HUDAC

and the Urban Development Institute have given us.... Actually they

gave it to the minister and presented a copy to us. They say:

"Within the GVRD, however, it has now become evident

that the current official regional plan is well aligned with municipal

positions and therefore provides little opportunity for conflict

between the two levels of government or for becoming another hurdle in

the development approval process."

What they're saying is that legislation now on the books, before

Bill 9 was brought in, is totally adequate for the purposes of

intermunicipal planning. Indeed, they go on to say:

"We are now convinced that there would be some major

disadvantages associated with the loss of regional plans within the

lower mainland and CRD regions."

The fact is that that applies to other parts of the province as well. When

this group of people come out against this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker,

I think the government should pay some attention.

[4:00]

I was going to discuss briefly the implications of this legislation

in terms of agricultural land. I don't suppose there's much point in

dwelling on this too long, since you've pretty well emasculated the

Agricultural Land Commission; you've taken away its funding; people

have been fired and they have no clout since the government changed the

legislation giving cabinet final approval on withdrawals of land from

the agricultural land reserve. In any event, when the commission was

operating, it operated well. They disagree with the principle of this

bill, as has been stated often in this House. I wanted that on the

record.

I want to quote from one other document before I take my place. I'm

not going to tell you now what I'm quoting from, but it deals directly

with this bill, and with land use. Some of the members may recognize

it, because it was put forward by an old friend in this Legislature. I

think I will tell you who it is from. This was written under Mr. Vander

Zalm, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs; it's from a 1980

document he brought to this Legislature entitled: "Land Use Planning

for Tomorrow." It was before the introduction of his famous Bill 9, as

you will recall. By the way, the present Bill 9 goes far beyond Mr.

Vander Zalm's legislation. You will recall the problems that that

caused: the removal of Islands Trust and all those kinds of things in

that particular bill.

In this document Mr. Vander Zalm, the former Minister of Municipal

Affairs, did allow for regional planning and did not completely wipe

out the planning functions of regional districts throughout the

province, even in that much-debated bill which was finally tossed out

because there was an election underway and the government did not wish

to alienate all the regional districts and municipalities in the

province. Although the bill was introduced in this House it was never

read, because there was an election under way. What we have before us

now is a bill much, much broader in its scope and intent which in fact

centralizes all planning and zoning powers here in Victoria under that

minister. We know why the bill was brought in. I promised myself that I

would not mention that one reason, the name Spetifore, in my speech, so

I won't do it. But that's why that bill was brought in, and we all know

it. This document is very lengthy, and I don't feel like reading it

anyway. But in his

preamble Mr. Vander Zalm allowed for regional

districts to have some voice and some

part in municipalities, in

regional planning, in zoning, and some autonomy and some say in their

own affairs. In this document we don't have it.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. Just getting back to my own

riding, that's where my heart is, that's where my concerns are and

that's where I wish I was, but here I am.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Premier says he did his best to keep me

there, but here I am. I was elected to represent those people and that

is exactly what I am attempting to do here this afternoon. I have

discussed this matter with people in my riding, with every regional

district, individual municipalities and regional board members in my

riding. They oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I oppose this bill. I

hope the government will reconsider. I've offered the minister some

alternatives that he could take or at least seriously consider. I know

in his closing remarks next week, when we finally complete

[ Page 548 ]

second reading of this bill — or the week after, whenever it is — he will give serious consideration to my proposals.

MS. BROWN: No, no. He's going to close the debate.

MR. BARNES: Dangerous Dan, over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps before recognizing the member, there

has been great reference made to standing order 42. Standing order 42

also states: "In all cases Mr. Speaker shall inform the House that the

reply of the mover of the original motion closes the debate." I know

there has been some concern about that, so I hope that establishes the

role of the Speaker in closing debate.

MR. BARNES: The intent of this legislation, the Municipal

Amendment Act, 1983, is the concern of the members on this side of the

House. It would appear as though the government wants us to believe

that the intent of the legislation is to improve the local autonomy of

municipalities for no other reason than to provide them with their

democratic right to self-determination. Those of us who care about the

right of local determination and the right to local representation on

concerns have no complaint with that.

I was talking to our critic, the second member for Victoria, just a

day or two ago and I said: "I'm not an expert on all aspects of

regional planning and some of the more complicated procedures that are

involved in getting approvals and getting the kinds of details from the

specialists that we must rely upon to make some kind of sense out of

it." I'm not even that sure that the members of the government know

that much about it themselves.

The bill really doesn't have that much in it other than the fact

that it seems to be taking away something. It's taking something away

while at the same time it states that it is improving the possibilities

for local self-determination for the municipalities. But it is taking

something away, and that's the part that did attract my attention. What

are they taking away? The right to self-determination? It would not

appear so, because the bill claims that it is concerned about the right

of the municipality to make decisions for itself, notwithstanding any

broader concerns by adjacent communities, regions, districts, etc.

Therefore it is insisting, Mr. Speaker, that local municipalities have

that inalienable right to self-determination — to plan for themselves,

notwithstanding anything that any regional district or any other body

may wish. That's not really the situation, because they've taken

something away. They have the right to self-determination but when it

comes to questions of potential lucrative possibilities, gains or the

planning of regions, such as the one in Delta that we've been talking

about — the Spetifore lands, more recently known as the holdings of the

Dawn Development.... That property is really the whole reason and the

sole reason for this charade.

It is amazing to me that this government would go to such lengths in

order to achieve one very self-fulfilling objective. It really is a

very unfortunate situation we're experiencing these days in this

Legislature. There was a time when we could believe that

parliamentarians were committed to the principles they espoused and

talked about, but I'm finding on this bill that when the government

says it is concerned about local autonomy and the right of

municipalities to make decisions for themselves, they take away one of

the most important rights, not to mention all the reasons we need local

people to make planning for themselves on a regional basis, rational

planning to ensure there is efficiency in the use of services and the

provision of the amenities that are necessary in the community. There

are all kinds of reasons why we need cooperation at the local and

regional level. The point that disturbs me is that the planning is the

one main privilege, the one main right, that at one time was protected

because of the collective decisions that were made at the regional

level. The government is maintaining that it is going to give that

right to municipalities, but what it is in fact doing is giving it to

the municipality of Delta. It is turning the clock back and saying, "We

want something and we're going to get it, no matter what."

I expect very soon to see a movement on that side of the House to

abolish the Legislature itself in order to achieve their objectives. I

know the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) finds that humorous;

he's over there shaking his head and chuckling. But the minister has to

admit that it has some merit, although suspect coming from an

opposition member. Nonetheless, there is some possibility that that

could happen. After all, this government has completely desensitized

itself to the desperate attempts of the electorate to communicate with

it with respect to local concerns and their right to communicate with

their government on issues that concern them locally. While we sit in

this Legislature this afternoon, well over 20,000 individuals, voters

of this province, are demonstrating against initiatives by their

democratically elected government. Those people have attempted to sit

down with the Premier and representatives on the government side, to no

avail. Yet the government will bring in a piece of legislation and say

they are concerned about local autonomy and the rights of the

individual. What about the rights of these people who are desperately

trying to communicate with you? The Premier says: "Well, that's just

too bad. I have no time to go out and talk to them. I am a busy, busy

person, and if they have anything to say to me they can say it in the

next election." Well, that's the Premier's prerogative.

MR. REID: Is that on Bill 9?

MR. BARNES: Yes, it is on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker. I'm speaking

directly to the bill, because I'm talking about the contradictions that

seem to evade the mentality of those people on that side of the House.

There are many contradictions that come from that side of the House

which I think we should point out, and this is one.

We are talking about the autonomy of municipalities. How well we

remember just last year, when the city of Vancouver, with Mr. Harcourt,

its mayor at the time, came over with a delegation, bringing a message

from his council requesting that the provincial government amend the

Vancouver charter so that the council could fulfil its mandate to the

people of Vancouver, who voted overwhelmingly to amend the charter in

order to allow a ward system to be implemented. They did that, Mr.

Speaker, the year before, on two separate occasions. Now there is an

example of local determination: a municipality, a city, that went to

the people, got their vote — democratically so, with a clear majority —

came to this government and said: "We are merely asking you to do your

duty and fulfil your responsibilities as a government that respects the

right of local politicians to self-determination. We have followed all

the rules, and all we're asking you to do is the administrative detail

of amending the charter, as you are now amending the Municipal Act.

Just simply change a few words and allow us to carry on our

[ Page 549 ]

business." You said: "No, we're sorry; we're going

to overrule it." In that instance it seems as though the government has

a different perspective with respect to democratic rights and freedoms.

So you see there are some contradictions. It's difficult for me not to

impute some ulterior motive.

[4:15]

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're not allowed to.

MR. BARNES: That's quite true. The House Leader stated that

I'm not allowed to impute any improper motives, and he is quite right.

But I think the actions of the government speak for themselves. All

they need to do is relate the facts as they are, and I think the public

will have to make a determination as to whether this government is

sincere when it comes up with these platitudinous statements about

local autonomy and the right of municipalities to self-determination.

There are some other problems. The government goes on and on about

self-determination. For instance, the city has the right to fire

people; it has the right to do all kinds of horrible things to the

public sector, which we've talked about under a bill that has been

retired for the time being. Under that bill the government was saying

that it cared about local rights, the autonomy of the individual. And

it is a comparison. There again the government is giving the

politically hazardous responsibilities to the local municipalities and

regions, and taking for itself the kinds of central power it needs in

order to dictate the ultimate consequences of any of those initiatives.

I'm opposed to the legislation, first, because I don't think it is a

sincere attempt on the part of the government to provide an opportunity

for local municipalities. I'm not sure how you're going to work this

thing, because in one sense you are creating something that you will

probably want to change as soon as you've resolved the problem with the

Dawn Development land. We'll see what you come up with next year.

You'll probably amend this after second thoughts and say: "Well, we

made a mistake. We think we'll go back to regional planning and give

back that responsibility." It just depends on the politics of the day.

But clearly you are implicated in having conflict of interest on this

particular bill. There seem to be clear indications that there are

members who would profit if they were successful in getting the

Spetifore or the Dawn Development land developed, and that is

unfortunate. It would be far better if that were not a possibility, and

perhaps it won't be. We'll probably have a great deal of difficulty

nailing that one down. But that cloud does exist. It has existed for a

long time. That is why this bill has a cloud over it. It doesn't seem

quite believable.

We're at a very critical time, when it's difficult for me to allow

myself to be manipulated by the kinds of smokescreens the government

uses in talking about things that are really far from what is happening

in this province, far from what is important to the people of British

Columbia, while we play these games on behalf of the government. The

people of British Columbia believe this government is a place unto

itself. It is a government that is attempting to seize, to capture, to

confiscate the fundamental rights and freedoms that people have enjoyed

traditionally in this society. Those are harsh words, but it seems as

though there is nothing that will stop this government from trying

anything, no matter how blatant.

This amendment is suspect. Most of the bills that have been

presented to this Legislature are suspect as well. The people of

British Columbia seem to be powerless; they seem to be without any

recourse. And the amazing thing about it is that despite all the

provocation and the justifiable causes for them to become disruptive,

they maintain their civility; they maintain their discipline, their

respect for the parliamentary system and the right of any government

that is democratically elected to serve uninterrupted. Wouldn't it be

nice if the government began to respond in kind, with some respect and

some courage, rather than gall? I know many members on that side of the

House have said that it takes great courage to pursue some of these

pieces of legislation. But, you know, courage has to be tempered with a

sense of purpose and direction one can live with to enjoy the full

experience of success. I can't see how this government can sincerely

believe that it is going to feel good pursuing the course of action it

is now on, in light of the kinds of desperate attempts by large numbers

of people who come and plead for an audience.

It is very discouraging to have the Premier of the province say that

he has no time to speak to the people because he feels it will only be

a confrontation and therefore a waste of time. And that may be in your

eyes, Mr. Speaker, somewhat of a diversion from the purpose of the

bill, but it is only in the strictest sense. In the general sense it is

every bit relevant, just as all the pieces of legislation are relevant.

They are one and the same, coming from a central source and from a

central mentality with a particular perspective on the problems that we

face in this province. They seem to feel that due process and

democratic rights stop at the golden gates of this Legislature and that

everything inside here is up to the victor — the person who is

successful at the polls. That's hardly correct. I don't know quite

where we're going to go with it, but I'm afraid that this bill, though

it may seem uninnocuous, is quite innocuous when you consider the

ultimate intent.

I would like the members on that side of the House to tell me that

we will never see any change effected from the recent decision by the

Greater Vancouver Regional District to disallow the removal of the Dawn

Development lands from the agricultural land reserve. I would like to

hear the commitment from the Minister of Municipal Affairs that there

will be no motive and there has been no motive. Can he assure us out of

good faith that it will not happen unless he resigns himself. Because

he knows that people are suspicious. He knows that people are going to

be waiting for the day to come, and he knows that that is the only way

he can show that the government is sincere when it said it is trying to

do something that's right for the people. But I suspect this is

arrogance, it's heavy-handed, it's blatant, and it is actually with

impunity because there is very little that any of us can really do to

stop that heavy-handed government with its huge majority that it is now

trying to distort with the idea that it has a mandate to go on some

kind of holy crusade which will destroy the fundamental rights and

traditions in this society on the grounds that they have somehow

developed an insight into the future and know what is best for British

Columbians, notwithstanding 20,000 of them out there jamming at the

door trying to get in to protest.

I'm going to oppose the bill. I think I will conclude by simply

saying that if you really care about local autonomy and the right of

municipalities to make decisions not overruled by other bodies — of

course, other than yourselves — then why not consider the application

by the city of Vancouver to have the Vancouver Charter amended, and why

not give them their right to a ward system?

[ Page 550 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, that is an absolute analogous.... A

perfect comparison to what you're doing with this piece of legislation,

and you should exercise.... You should be consistent.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You blocked the Vancouver Charter for two weeks.

MR. BARNES: I beg your pardon, Mr....?

HON. MR. GARDOM: You wouldn't let it come to debate before the House last session.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Is that right? Well, can I have...?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Check the Journals.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon. members, at this point we're

clearly out of order. We are on Bill 9. We're not discussing a

committee report. Bill 9, please, and I commend that to all members.

MR. BARNES: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the House Leader for the

government, has suggested that the opposition would not allow the

Vancouver Charter to be brought before the House during the committee.

He claims we had some reason for not doing so. You know what the real

reason was, Mr. Speaker, for us not going along with that? They had it

in an omnibus bill and were trying to pull a fastie on us. We wanted a

clean amendment; we did not want it to be piggybacked on something that

we did not want. They were playing games with us. If they bring that

recommendation forward by itself with no strings attached, you bet

we'll support it. You bet we will support it if it comes before this

Legislature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is clearly reflecting now on other matters that have been before the House. Bill 9, please.

MR. BARNES: As I was saying, I realize that I have the

opportunity to speak at length on this bill. I understand we have 40

minutes. At the risk of becoming classified what some public servants

have been classified as in this beautiful public service of ours,

"redundant".... You didn't say anything about repetitious or vexatious,

but you did say redundant. I certainly wouldn't want to be guilty of

being redundant. I think that when you take dead aim and make your

point, that should be sufficient. I think you get my point.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if you would give me a

round of applause for my tolerance under these very difficult

circumstances.

MS. BROWN: I really wish that when the government decides to

pay off its political debts and reward its friends it would take into

account the impact of some of the decisions which it makes. I recognize

that when the government makes promises to its friends — certainly

during election times — it has to keep those promises, but after it

becomes government it has all of the research facilities at its

disposal to take a second look and try to measure the impact of those

kinds of decisions before introducing them in the form of legislation.

If we take Bill 9 as part of the general package of 29 or 30 bills

introduced in this House, we find that like so many of the other bills

it is paying an election debt, and it is rewarding a friend. Like so

many of the other bills in this package it is going to wreak absolute

havoc on a large segment of the community. Although Bill 9 will allow

Mr. Spetifore to develop his land in the way he wants to, despite the

fact that by so doing he will be going counter to the wishes of

regional politicians and to the people whom they represent, Bill 9 will

also do a lot of damage to other areas. In case you are not aware of

it, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Bill 9 does is to repeal all of

the planning functions of the regional level of politics. In other

words, whether it is the GVRD or a municipality on its own which took a

long-term look at the development of its particular area and worked at

preparing plans for some orderly growth and development in that area,

all of those plans are going to be repealed. What this bill says is

that in order for Mr. Spetifore to have the freedom to exploit his land

in the way in which he wants to do it, municipalities like Burnaby, for

example, will not be able to implement some of the plans made on behalf

of the residents of that municipality.

What we find is that in order for this government to pay its

election debts and to repay its friends, it has decided to sacrifice

the people who live in other municipalities. I can only speak about

Burnaby; I can't speak about Vancouver, Victoria or any of the other

municipalities. I want to use my time to talk about what this

government sacrificed in order to reward and pay off Mr. Spetifore.

[4:30]

I want to start out by quoting a statement made in 1969 by the then

Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant. At that time he

reported to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations: "The

city, everywhere in the world, is increasingly unable to adjust. The

challenge in the two decades ahead," the report went on, "is to double

the houses, power systems, sanitation, schools, transportation — in

fact, the whole complex pattern of urban living created over several

centuries." He then went on to suggest that to cope with the pressure

of new people, advance planning had become an imperative. "At least 5

percent of the national income," he suggested, "should be allocated to

this particular function."

So it's not a decision being made in Delta or Victoria or Burnaby

that planning is a good thing. The Economic and Social Council of the

United Nations recognized that as people moved from the rural areas

into the cities the pressure on the urban centres meant that planning

had to be introduced, and that the failure to plan would result in

chaos.

Planning is not a dirty word or even a new idea. It's not something

that was thought up by either Burnaby council or the NDP. Planning came

as a result of a lot of research and study on an international level.

Certain parts of the world, like Canada and British Columbia,

recognized the importance of what the secretary-general said. In fact,

they did so even before the secretary-general said it. As you know, Mr.

Speaker, the GVRD was not implemented by an NDP government. It was

actually introduced by a Social Credit government in 1965 or 1966. So

B.C. was ahead of the United Nations in that respect, which is one

reason why I find it so difficult to understand this particular bill at

this time to repeal

[ Page 551 ]

the planning functions of the regional and municipal governments.

It is not true that the exodus from the rural areas into the city

has ceased. That is still going on. If anything, the pressure on the

urban areas is escalating. I see that the member for the Fraser Valley

is disagreeing with me. It's true that Chilliwack is growing, but so is

Burnaby. It could be that Burnaby's a more pleasant place to live than

anywhere else, and that's why the pressure on Burnaby's escalating and

why the population of Burnaby's growing.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: You've got a secret you haven't told us.

MS. BROWN: Probably. I'm not going to deny that.

That's possibly the way it is, but what I do know for a fact is that

the council in Burnaby took its responsibility for planning very

seriously. As part of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, they

participated in an overall plan for liveability of the community in

1966. So it started nearly 20 years ago. One of the reasons for that

was.... I'm reading a report here, which was published, called " Urban Structure "

and it talked about why. The report started out by saying: "The

district of Burnaby, centrally located in the greater Vancouver

metropolitan area, has, like all urban-oriented municipalities, a keen

desire "to create" an environment that enhances the quality of life, an

environment with which people can identify." That kind of thing doesn't

come by ad hoc growth. That kind of thing has to be planned, and the

planning function of the regional levels of government is very

important to the quality of life of the people living in a region. I

don't think that that should be bartered away lightly either to pay an

election debt or for any other reason. I don't think that's the kind of

thing that we give up easily. We shouldn't, because surely to goodness

the government recognizes the importance of the environment in a

community and the quality of life which the people in that community

would like to enjoy. The report goes on to say that "one of the first

requirements to achieve this general goal is the preparation and

adoption of a master plan." Again, there is recognition on the part of

the director of planning, Tony Parr, and of the municipal government

that ad hockery is not the way to be sure of a good environment for a

community or to enhance the quality of life of the people who live

there. They talk about their goal being the preparation and adoption of

a master plan.

This bill, in case you're wondering, talks about all regional and

official plans being cancelled and having no effect. Of course,

sections 807 and 808, which deal with regional planning, are also

repealed in

section 4 of the bill. I know I'm not supposed to deal with

the sections, but I want to be sure that you know I'm sticking to the

bill. So it said that "such a plan would establish planning goals

capable of dealing with change, describe development programs to

achieve stated objectives, and set down policies leading to the

implementation of these objectives." Now there's one thing that you

have to say about Burnaby: it set out to do things in an orderly

fashion. It set out to create this plan, and then it stated what the

objectives were, and then it talked about the implementation of these

objectives.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It says that "one has to take into account the way in which various

levels of government work and recognize their role and function in the

metropolitan area; and more importantly, one has to gain some insight

into the general desires and aspirations of people." I cannot

understand how a government could ever ignore the general aspirations

of the people who elected that government. Now this is not the only

elected group in our society. We have a government elected at the

municipal level, the regional level, the provincial level and the

federal level, and one of the responsibilities that we have is to

respect the other levels of government and to respect the fact that

they were elected democratically by the people in their particular

areas. We have to respect that. No government has the right, Mr.

Speaker — you get better looking as the minutes go on; still not as

good looking as Sophie, however — to barter away or to show disrespect

for another level of government. That's what this bill has done, by

repealing the planning functions of the municipal level.

It goes on to say that this first plan prepared by the planning arm

of the municipal government that "attempts to formulate these complex

matters, translate them into policies and give them physical form, so

that people can feel at home, both in their immediate neighbourhood and

in the metropolitan area as a whole."

At this point I have to digress just a little bit to tell you

something about Burnaby, because I think it will help you to understand

better why planning is so important to the municipality of Burnaby.

Burnaby has the great fortune — or great misfortune, depending on how

you look at it — of being located right smack in the centre of a

transportation corridor. New Westminster uses it as a transportation

route. Surrey uses it as a transportation route. Vancouver uses it as a

transportation route, as does Coquitlam and everyone else. However,

despite that, the people who are part of the community of Burnaby love

and respect that area and would like to see that community protected.

Now Burnaby doesn't put up barricades. Burnaby doesn't say: "You

cannot travel through Burnaby on your way to New Westminster." Burnaby

doesn't say: "You cannot travel through Burnaby on your way to Surrey."

Burnaby doesn't say: "You cannot travel through Burnaby on your way to

Vancouver." Burnaby, Mr. Speaker, if the truth were known, has been

used and abused by those other municipalities in terms of using it as a

transportation corridor. Despite that, the only thing that Burnaby has

asked is that there be a plan — an orderly transportation plan — which

respects the communities and the neighbourhoods and the families and

people who live there. Burnaby has worked very hard with the other

members of the Greater Vancouver Regional District; it has cooperated

and worked very hard with the other members to see to it that it serves

its function and at the same time protects its neighbourhoods and

protects its community.

MR. REID: Burnaby as a neighbourhood goes all the way to Hope, and then you'll want to protect all of that.

MS. BROWN: There they go again, picking on Burnaby. That's

the reason why Burnaby needs three MLAs to stand on the floor of this

House and fight. Right, Madam Member? Surrey is always attacking

Burnaby. Despite that there are no hard feelings and no ill-will

towards Surrey.

Interjections.

[ Page 552 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order,