1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4341 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Outbreak of little-cherry disease. Mrs. Wallace –– 4341

Alcan route proposals to federal government. MR. Gibson –– 4341

Standing of Church Realty. Hon. Mr. Mair answers –– 4341

Fatal accident on Deas freeway. Mr. Wallace –– 4342

Drug-trafficking business in B.C. Mr. Levi –– 4343

Joint housing committee transcript. Hon. Mr. Curtis answers –– 4343

Employment of Dianne Hartwick. Mrs. Dailly –– 4343

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 70) Second reading.

Mr. Barber –– 4344

Mr. Lockstead –– 4350

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4351

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4352

Mr. Barber –– 4356

Mr. Gibson –– 4362

Mr. Wallace –– 4367

Mr. Lea –– 4370

Mrs. Dailly –– 4374

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works) : Mr. Speaker, I don't very often have the privilege of welcoming from the Cariboo, but today I would like the House to join with me in welcoming Rev. and Mrs. Neil Vant and their family from 100 Mile House in the members' gallery.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition) : Every political party has active workers, and of course the best and the most viable workers for any political party are women. One of the outstanding workers for the NDP is in the gallery today. I would ask the House to welcome Mrs. Edna Carter.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing) : Mr. Speaker, I have constituents and their guests in the gallery today to introduce to the House. First we have Mrs. E. Logan of Sidney - her husband is the well-known and highly respected clerk administrator for the town of Sidney - and Miss Hilary Logan, Mr. and Mrs. Logan's daughter. Visiting from the United Kingdom are: Mr. E.C. Rigby, Mrs. Logan's father; and Mrs. Jacqueline Rigby, Mr. Rigby's granddaughter. They're having a family reunion in British Columbia.

Oral questions.

OUTBREAK OF

LITTLE-CHERRY DISEASE

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat) : I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture a question regarding the little-cherry disease in the Okanagan. As the minister is aware, the outbreak has affected Naramata and Penticton. Most recently, surveys have indicated a spread to Kaleden and Kelowna. This has been shown up by the new microscopic technique, which has proven some 94 per cent accurate. There are affected, as opposed to five orchards last year, something like 40 this year with up to 300 and possibly 3,000 trees being affected. Previously, Mr.

Speaker, there was a programme in place that allowed for one-third participation from each of the BCFGA, the Growers' Pool and the provincial government.

My question is: is the minister prepared to reinstate this programme this year as the growers are requesting?

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture) : The member for Cowichan-Malahat

is correct; approximately 300 trees in the south Okanagan are affected. I've

toured the orchards in this area and examined them first hand. There is a proposal

which will be coming from BCFGA concerning their approach to the problem. We

hope to be assisting in research to try and resolve how little-cherry disease

comes about. We've also indicated the possibility of shared cost of removal

on those trees that are affected at the present time.

ALCAN ROUTE PROPOSALS

TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. On May 14, the Premier was reported as saying the province had a series of proposals that it wanted to put on the bargaining table with Ottawa if the Alcan pipeline was seriously considered. Could the Premier advise the House as to when and by what means these proposals were transmitted to the federal government?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier) : No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON : I have to ask another supplementary that I've planned because of the Premier's answer. Is the Premier saying that the representations have not as yet been made to the federal government in this regard?

HON. MR. BENNETT : Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON : In view of the fact that the House of Commons has debated the matter and federal cabinet is said to be in the final stages of making up its mind, I would ask the Premier if he would communicate with Ottawa with some urgency. Will he ensure that among the conditions would be a substantial contribution to the paving of the Alaska Highway by the federal government?

HON. MR. BENNETT : I appreciate the presumption from the member from North Vancouver-Capilano that the federal government can make up its mind, and I will accept his suggestion.

STANDING OF CHURCH REALTY

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) : The second member for Vancouver-Burrard asked me a question a week or 10 days ago concerning Church Realty, and I'd like to answer it now if I may.

This company, Mr. Member, is indeed not in good standing with the companies branch and has been requested by the deputy registrar to report any

[ Page 4342 ]

changes in directorship and to file annual reports for the years 1976 and 1977 immediately. I think, if I may, Mr. Member, I'll just take about a minute. I'll just quote from the memorandum I received from my staff which I think gives you a full explanation. The memorandum is as follows:

"I wish to confirm that this company is not , in good standing, as the last annual report filed was made up to April 12,1975. Therefore, reports for the years 1976 and 1977 are required. I also confirm that there has been no change of directors filed with us since 1974.

"The directors, according to our records, are Charles Grover Dean and William Austin Hodges. Mr. Dean was shown as secretary and Mr. Hodges as the president. With the records on file in our office, and even if the company is in good standing with us, it is not always possible to ascertain who are the owners of a company as shareholders no longer appear in our records. This information would have to be obtained from the records office.

"The records a company must keep in its Records Office are shown in

section 186 of the Companies Act.

Section 187 indicates which records are available for examination. For your information, when the company is in default, it must be in default for two years or more before proceedings can be started to strike it off under

section 278 of the Companies Act. The default does not begin until 13 months after the filing of the last return. It is therefore three years before we can start proceedings to strike a company off for being in default. If no report is filed, proceedings can be started to strike off this particular company on or after April 12,1978.

"Failure to file an annual report does not appear to be an offence of the Act. If there has been a change in the directors and notice of the change has not been filed with us, this is clearly an offence under sections 136 and 155. Under both of these sections the company would be guilty of an offence if not the directors."

MR. BARRETT : Would the minister be prepared to file the memorandum?

HON. MR. MAIR : Mr. Speaker, the part of the memorandum I read is the part that refers to Church Realty Ltd. I'll be glad to have that extracted and filed to the House.

MR. BARRETT : Is the minister saying that there is information on other companies other than Church Realty on that memo?

HON. MR. MAIR : Mr. Speaker, I have given the information to the member which I think is appropriate under the circumstances. I will file with the House that portion of the memorandum which I have just read,

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, may I have your ruling as to quoting from a memorandum and then only filing excerpts with the House?

MR. SPEAKER : Rather than take the time during the question period, hon. member, I'll deal with your point following question period when I have had time to discuss it with the Clerks. There is a particular

section of May that I wish to refer to.

FATAL ACCIDENT ON

DEAS FREEWAY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay) : Mr. Speaker, this is to the Minister of Highways with regard to the fatal accident on the Deas freeway last Friday when two men died, in which smog and smoke from a bog fire contributed to the accident. Since three less serious accidents had occurred several days previously, and since Corporal Greg Upton of the Deas highway patrol had contacted the Ministry of Highways on Tuesday requesting assistance with signs or sign trucks to warn motorists of the danger, could the minister tell the House why the Ministry of Highways did not respond to these requests?

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, to the member for Oak Bay, Corporal Upton of the RCMP, as I understand it, made this request to the New Westminster office. That's where the first error was made. It should have been made to the Deas Tower, which is in charge of all traffic control and is manned 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. Because of holidays it was not relayed back to the proper people in time to have the signs up prior to the fatal accident that happened on Friday, August 5. 1 might say that the driver of the vehicle involved has been charged with criminal negligence. Where the fatal accident occurred, the visibility was good.

MR. WALLACE : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could tell the House precisely when his ministry was consulted regarding the fact that a fire close to the highway was creating a serious hazard to traffic. When was the ministry first informed?

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure of that, but probably a week prior to the fatal accident, and the regional engineer had been dealing with it.

MR. WALLACE : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can tell us, since he's outlined the fact that

[ Page 4343 ]

breakdown in communications was the reason for the delay, what steps, if any, his ministry has taken to try and prevent this situation developing in the future.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, we have now instituted patrols starting at 5 a.m. every morning, and they will continue until the threat of smog and that is over. We expect that to be for quite a time. We have also communicated with the RCMP that when they have any further concerns, they should notify the Deas Tower, which is in charge of that whole area.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert) : The minister said that the first mistake was made when the RCMP reported what they saw as a problem to the New Westminster highways district office. Is the spot where the accident took place not within the New Westminster highways district?

HON. MR. FRASER : I'm not too sure of that, but the Highways ministry has always had a working arrangement with the RCMP that any problems on that will be reported to the Deas Tower.

MR. LEA : Even though the RCMP reported the problem as they saw it to the district office, wouldn't it be normal that the district office would look after that and get in touch with the tower?

HON. MR. FRASER : As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the district office tried to get back to Corporal Upton, and they weren't able to contact him.

DRUG-TRAFFICKING

BUSINESS IN B.C.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard) : This question is to the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. Last week, the Justice minister for Quebec released a report on behalf of the Quebecois commission dealing with business and organized crime. In view of the recent statements by the Minister of Health (HON. Mr. McClelland) regarding the $250 million that is made from the heroin business in B.C., has the Attorney-General or anyone in his department looked into the problem related to the laundering of money in respect of this $250 million that is made by the drug-trafficking business in British Columbia?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General) : In response to the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, that is a matter that is under continuing investigation and consideration by both the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit and the various applicable police forces in the province. Insofar as the report of the Quebec crime commission is concerned, I signed a letter either this morning or on Friday - I've forgotten which - to the Minister of Justice in Quebec for a copy of his report.

MR. LEVI : Could I ask the minister a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? Do the inquiries that the various law enforcement agencies are making involve discussing this problem with the chartered banks in British Columbia?

HON. MR. GARDOM : I'm not at liberty to discuss or make public the type of inquiry.

JOINT HOUSING COMMITTEE TRANSCRIPT

HON. MR. CURTIS : Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last in question period, the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) , who is not in his place at the moment, inquired with respect to the transcripts for the joint housing committee of 1976. 1 indicated I would return with the information at the earliest possible time.

From the list of those who appeared and made submissions, there were, as of last Friday, 11 individuals who had not responded. As I indicated at the time of the question, follow-up letters have been sent to those individuals.

The member went on to ask how many of these are "private" groups - I believe that was his phrase. There is one from the Vernon and district branch of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada (HUDAC) and one from a construction company in Penticton. The balance were from regional district government or local government. Therefore, taken from the above total of 11, there are nine from local government. I trust that is the information the hon. member sought.

EMPLOYMENT OF DIANNE HARTWICK

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. The minister has now tabled an answer showing that the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy'

s) executive assistant, Dianne Hartwick, appears to work full-time in his ministry while being paid from the Provincial Secretary's vote. The minister stresses her university training and skills related to the specialized work in his department.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is: does the Minister of Human Resources

not consider it an abuse of the House and the public to have an annual salary

expenditure of $19,500 for his ministry which shows up in another minister's

vote? Does he not consider that an abuse of this House?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources) : No.

[ Page 4344 ]

MRS. DAILLY : If he does not consider that an abuse, does the Minister therefore not consider it an abuse of public funds to pay for a political appointee in legitimate public service positions?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan) : The Premier's telling him what to say.

MR. BARRETT : Let's hear it from the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, if you wish to ask that as a supplemental question, I think you should rephrase the question. You're reading into that a supposition on your part which may or may not be correct.

MRS. DAILLY : A supplementary to the minister: is it not true, concerning the position held by Dianne Hartwick, who is a political appointee as the Provincial Secretary's executive assistant, that the definition of her work done in his department should not be included in public service work and should have gone through public service?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, when Miss Hartwick was given the task to co-ordinate various activities between different ministries there was a great need because certainly many programmes had been left unattended to and there was an urgent need to bring these together. Certainly this is what we set out to do and it has been working very effectively and the province has benefited tremendously.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM : Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 70.

STRATA TITLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria) : Mr. Speaker, the official opposition intends to vote for this bill, but will do so with some misgivings. Our first misgiving is that the bill is improperly titled. Were it a more accurate statement of the facts, the bill would be called the "Howie McDiarmid Thank You Act." Indeed, the proper title of this bill, the Howie McDiarmid Thank You Act - and I'll be moving an amendment later on when we get to that

section of committee stage - seems remarkably timed. The Howie McDiarmid Thank You Act was introduced in this House after - conspicuously after - the gentleman in question, a former Social Credit MLA, a developer, a speculator, a landowner in a district municipality in Victoria, had managed to take advantage of the loophole which this bill purports to close.

During question period several weeks ago, I asked the minister whether or not he had received, on February 10, a written communication from a regional district indicating their substantial dissatisfaction with the failure of the government to close the loophole. The minister took the question as notice and has never answered it. We know the question was raised by the regional district at that time because I have a copy of that correspondence. The minister has, in fact, received correspondence pointing out this loophole from both the Capital Regional District and the Sunshine Coast Regional District.

The minister failed conspicuously and miserably to do anything about the loophole until after Howie McDiarmid got his. That's why I think it should be called the Howie McDiarmid Thank You Act.

The minister informs us that in March the government amended by regulation the Real Estate Act and, indeed, allowed portions of that Act to be used to require the publication of a prospectus which would inform municipalities and prospective purchasers of those properties, which through this loophole came onto the market, that something was in the works.

The minister, as early as February -because we have the correspondence - knew there was a problem; as early as March, through another agency of government, he had taken some step in order to publicize the event; but it was not until June 24 that he finally, lately, after the fact, the horses all having escaped from that barn, told this House he proposed to close the loophole.

Howie McDiarmid, therefore, Mr. Chairman, is, I'm sure, a most grateful gentleman. Now the fact of that gentleman's membership in a certain political party will, I'm sure, not prejudice the debate in this House. The fact that he's a developer who has contributed to the Social Credit Party will, I'm sure, not add anything to the complexion of the debate in this House.

The fact that the minister managed to delay and delay, and delay again, action on this when he could in February have brought such a bill forward, when he could in March have won its approval from this House - and we would have voted for it, as we do hesitatingly now - tells us that the proper title, and the only accurate title, for this bill is the Howie McDiarmid Thank You Act. The minister failed to act until after Howie McDiarmid got what he wanted.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that because of the serious nature of this loophole and the serious nature of the offence against good community planning and the offence against proper municipal management, I believe the official opposition would have been pleased to have given leave for all three readings of such a bill, closing such a loophole, to go through on the day the minister introduced it in the

[ Page 4345 ]

House.

I wasn't even asked. I'm the critic for Municipal Affairs; I've previously been asked by that minister on whether or not we would allow something to go through quickly. Indeed, on every occasion he's asked - two previous occasions come to my mind in last session.

HON. MR. CURTIS : On every occasion?

MR. BARBER : On every occasion that he has asked, we have indeed agreed to that, and it has gone through. This opposition would have been most willing to co-operate with that minister had he been willing to look after the public's business before Howie McDiarmid's business was taken care of. Instead, what happened is that another minister closed a loophole in the Real Estate Act and they delayed until today.

HON. MR. CURTIS : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the debate in the last few moments has sunk to one of its lowest points in recent months. I asked that bon. member to withdraw....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : I will listen to the bon. minister on a point of order to determine whether it is a point of order or not. I can't determine that in advance.

HON. MR. CURTIS : Mr. Speaker, I asked the bon. member for Victoria to withdraw the suggestion that the public's business came after the business of an individual whom he has named several times. I ask him also to say that outside this chamber if he really believes it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS : Don't come to his defence. He's dug a hole.

MR. SPEAKER : I'd suggest all members of this House listen to the Speaker, not just any one particular member.

Speaking to the point of order, it's a matter that you can be involved in the type of debate which is found offensive to another member of the House. If that happens, it is in order for the member to draw it to the attention of the person who has possession of the floor and ask for a withdrawal of certain statements or remarks. As bon. members, we withdraw those remarks.

Now if the bon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing finds the remarks of the second member for Victoria offensive, would he please state the remarks that are offensive and ask for a withdrawal?

HON. MR. CURTIS : Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I believe I identified them for you, sir, by paraphrasing. We would have to check the Blues. The suggestion was very clearly made that this government and this ministry took care of the public's business following the business of an individual who has been named several times in the few minutes the bon. member for Victoria has been on his feet. I find that imputation totally, completely, absolutely offensive.

MR. SPEAKER : Would the bon. second member for Victoria withdraw the offensive phrase?

MR. BARBER : Of course, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SPEAKER : Proceed, bon. member. I accept your withdrawal.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There's a clear line between words that members find offensive and request withdrawal and a sense of argument and debate. I would ask you to refer to earlier Speaker's decisions, that when there's offence on lines of debate, that is usually drawn up at the earliest possible opportunity and there's a return to debate, rather than points of order. I would appreciate your ruling on such exchanges.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, there are occasions in this House frequently when members rise to their feet on a point of order to draw the attention of the Speaker to something that they have heard within the debate which they find offensive. The practice of the House has been for the Speaker who has possession of the floor to withdraw the words that are found to be offensive. It's a matter that the Speaker is not the one who determines whether the words are offensive or not, as long as they're parliamentary. However, being parliamentary does not mean that they're always acceptable and provide no offence.

If there is an offence and the member draws the Speaker's attention to it and states his reason, the conduct of the House has always been to withdraw the offending phrase and proceed then with further debate.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, further on the point of order. There's a distinction between a difference of opinion in debate and offensive words. That's the question I'm raising.

MR. SPEAKER : The test has to be between the person who occupies the floor and the one who rises to a point of order and takes offence to the word. If it's words entered in the debate which are found to be offensive by another member in the House, and if the bon. member who has possession of the floor is asked to withdraw those phrases, even though they

[ Page 4346 ]

may not be offensive to him or to some other members of the House, the onus is on the member to withdraw because of the fact that a member finds the words offensive. It's not for the Speaker to determine which words are offensive in every instance and in every circumstance, unless they're clearly unparliamentary words. But we have a tradition in the House that a member does withdraw offensive words and then proceeds to continue as soon as he's recognized again.

MR. BARRETT : I'm asking you to determine between the choice of offensive words and a particular line of debate. That's the point I'm trying to make. On offensive words, of course, I agree completely. But on a line of debate, the tradition has been to respond to that particular debate at the earliest possible opportunity, rather than rising on a point of order on a line of debate.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, if I was to disregard all of the points of order which have been raised on matters of withdrawal in this House and not recognize them at all, then I would be continuously refusing to accept any points of order.

MR. BARBER : This Act, which I expect to amend and have properly re-titled the Howie McDiarmid Thank You Act, has a curious history. I should like to review, just for a moment, Mr. Speaker, the fact that at least as early as February 10, the minister received written correspondence from, I believe, two regional, districts in the province of British Columbia, the Capital Regional District and the Sunshine Coast Regional District, indicating that this loophole existed and that unscrupulous developers were taking advantage of it, And the Cariboo Regional District as well, I understand.

As early as February of this year, if not before - and perhaps the minister will tell us when he first became aware of it - he was on notice that crafty, unscrupulous developers were taking advantage of an unfortunate loophole in the Strata Titles Act. Sure enough, Mr.

Chairman, we discover that in late March and early April of this year, thanks to the energy of the local press in Victoria, we discover that one Howie McDiarmid, former member of this House for the Social Credit Party and presently a developer, had indeed taken advantage of this very same loophole about which the minister several weeks earlier had been warned. There was a great deal of criticism and conflict and controversy about the loophole and the fact that this minister had failed miserably to amend it when he could have -weeks before - prior to Dr. McDiarmid's good work.

Well, indeed, it comes out in the press in late March. The minister informs us that in that month, I believe it was, the Real Estate Act was amended. I'm aware through conversations with civil servants that they have indeed been requiring that prospectuses be filed. We have no quarrel with that at all. However, the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that having learned about it in February, when Mr.

McDiarmid was doing his excellent labours, and when it finally comes out in the press in March and early April that this has been going on, the minister brings down through another agent altogether, the Real Estate Act, a small change to take care of it. But it's not until weeks and weeks and weeks go by that, on June 24, this bill is tabled. It is not until further weeks go by - today is now August 8 - that we are finally presented with an opportunity to discuss it in principle on second reading.

Is it not to you, Mr. Speaker, a curious thing that this government, so boastfully efficient in other areas of activity, should have been so grossly negligent and inefficient in this one? Is is not a matter of more than passing curiosity, Mr. Speaker, that a government which prides itself on their inability to get out this year's first quarterly report before the fourth quarterly report of last year is even out - today was the day that that occurred - should be unable to deal with Dr. McDiarmid and the loophole until after he has been able to take advantage of it?

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not retroactive to any date prior to June 24. To the best of my knowledge, that particular developer, and others of whom the minister was aware, are not in any sense going to be restricted in their - to say the least - peculiar activities by the effect of this bill, if and when it is passed.

What I propose is that it is more than passing strange that the government which tells us that they've got dozens and dozens of bills coming in, which presumably has some kind of order to its business and which was notified in writing by three regional districts that this loophole existed, has managed to delay throughout January, February, March, April, May, June, July and now into August, doing anything to close the loophole. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I propose in all seriousness that this bill be properly recalled and retitled the Howie McDiarrnid Thank You Act, because that is just what it is.

If the minister has an excuse for the gross failure of this government to bring the bill forward when it was needed, which was months and months ago, I would like to hear it. It's clear he has no excuse; he merely has sensitivities. If I were him, I would be very sensitive indeed to his failure to do anything to close the loophole when it should have been closed.

I repeat again: had I or any member of my caucus been asked if we would be willing to give three readings for such a bill on the day it was introduced, I promise you our answer would have been "yes." We will vote for this bill. The problem is that it is months and months overdue. The problem is that Howie

[ Page 4347 ]

McDiarmid and others like him have already got what they wanted, and now it's too late.

There are some other problems with the bill, however, and I propose to review them at this time, Mr. Speaker, if I may. It's been clear for some time that there have been some inadequacies with present law regarding strata-title subdivision in the province of British Columbia. These inadequacies result in setting two principle problems before the minister. The first problem is that there is no readily workable method by which the density of strata lots created by strata-title subdivision can be regulated by local government.

At the moment there is no readily workable and practicable means whereby a municipal council, a village or a regional district has the opportunity and the instrument presently in its grasp in a really practical, immediate and efficacious way to deal with the problem of strata-title subdivision. This amendment gives them no such instrument either.

The density of strata lots is the number of lots that may be created within an original single property. This has allowed the unfortunate creation of strata lots of such a number in some locations as to render some of the lots unusable because of limits placed on the use of the original property by local bylaws. So we discover, Mr. Speaker, that there are frequently situations in which people, purchasing honourably on the open market a strata-title lot obtained in such a manner, find that they simply cannot use the property for that purpose for which it was intended, because the original covenant, so to speak, on the land itself forbids it.

The municipality made one deal in regard to an original whole parcel which now, because of the Strata Titles Act, this loophole and other problems with it, they find they are unable to take advantage of. It doesn't work for the purchaser, who bought honourably and honestly on the open market; it doesn't work for the developer, because he is not able to keep his word, if he gave it; and it doesn't work for the municipality either, because they have another hornets' nest on their hands.

The second problem, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no requirement on the strata title subdivider to provide access through the property being developed to lands beyond or to adjacent waterfront. The provision of such access is normally considered an essential condition for development, for obvious reasons. Indeed, I am informed, Mr.

Speaker, we've occasionally seen in the province illustrations of this problem where municipal councils have had, by fiat, to compel access to be granted through such strata title lots because the strata title itself made no provision for it and because the subdivision of the original property made no allowance for it. Only because a municipal council was enlightened enough to demand it did it happen at all.

These problems become particularly critical when strata title subdivision of land rather than of buildings is the case. These support structures - strata title subdivisions - have been widely viewed as an alternative to conventional land subdivision for certain applications. Although this method does have some merit, it has been rendered over-attractive, so to speak, by the loopholes noted above.

The government has obviously recognized some of these problems and we have on the table two bills -this bill and Strata Titles Amendment Act 1977 (No. 2) . Unfortunately, to discuss the principle ;hat we are dealing with, which is problems in the fair and equitable administration of strata titles throughout the province, it is occasionally necessary, if I may suggest it, Mr. Speaker, to trespass a little on the theme of the other bill. But I will try to avoid that as best I can, and I know you will hold me to it.

The problem of strata titles is much larger than this particular amendment which we are debating today provides for. Reasonably enough, there is another amendment on the table, and we don't quarrel with that. But in discussing the particular principle of strata title administration in the province, I would like to discuss, if I may, other aspects of them, apart from the thank you Act, for which this bill deserves some credit.

In order to improve the situation, the government introduced Bill 70, which will require that all support-structure strata title subdivisions receive the approval of the approving officer for conventional - i.e., not strata title -subdivisions before registration. It will also purport to be retroactive to June 24,1977. The problem with this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, as it occurs to us, is that it does not provide a remedy for the noted problems above - those first two problems that I just described - and, indeed, it may create certain additional difficulties.

I'm hoping very much for the minister's comments on these.

For instance, it specifically does not remove the first problem, which is the regulation of strata lot density. Although the approving officer must refer to local bylaws when considering subdivision approval, Bill 70 merely states that support-structure strata title s u b divisions shall be deemed to be regular subdivisions for the purposes of the Land Registry Act. This begs the question, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't handle at all the issue and the conflict at hand. It does what the minister said it's going to do, but what he said it's going to do isn't going to deal with the problem that he has enunciated.

Local bylaws are created pursuant to the Municipal Act which does not allow such bylaws to regulate strata title subdivision. There is an interior contradiction, Mr. Speaker. There is a logical flaw in the minister's argument as presented in this bill.

Further, Bill 70 does not resolve the second problem, which is the requirement of needed access

[ Page 4348 ]

through property subdivided into strata lots. This is a very major concern for a number of property owners throughout the province. It's a concern for municipal and regional government. It's a legitimate concern of people committed to the principle of good community planning. It makes no commitment whatever to the solution of that problem, nor, if I may point out, does the other strata title bill presently before us.

Certain sections of the Land Registry Act would be made applicable to strata title subdivisions, but

section 86, the crucial

section concerning this access, in not one of the sections to be applied. Indeed, it's been conspicuously omitted from any of the minister's comments in legislation or to the press so far as regards the problem in strata title subdivision.

Bill 70 will, - peculiar as it may be to say it -through poor draftsmanship but obviously not over haste to deal with the problem, end most of the usefulness of the support-structure, strata title subdivision concept. This usefulness presently stems from a number of attributes. These attributes include a speedy processing procedure for homeowners and property owners who are dealing honourably with their municipal or regional government; greater flexibility of project design through less rigidly and centrally controlled standards; local control, particularly outside municipalities; and better definition of individual title in group ownership situations.

The present legislation allows those qualities and those merits to come forward. The amendment that we have before us today diminishes or indeed disallows altogether some of those merits. We see no comparable replacement of them. If the minister has yet another bill to come forward, perhaps he could tell us. We would be happy to hold our criticism until we see that bill. But babies with bathwater appear to have been thrown out in this very special instance. There are some circumstances where support-structure, strata title subdivision makes a very limited special sense.

Certainly that has not been the case earlier in a couple of other situations I've alluded to, but it is in several others that have been drawn to my attention.

The first three of these merits that the present law has will be eliminated by Bill 70. The probable public reaction to the bill will be a return to syndicate or to corporate ownership of group holdings, which would result in the loss of the last benefit also, which is the present clear statement of actual ownership of the lots.

At the moment the legislation provides for a very clear, straightforward, easily understood statement of who actually owns it. If Bill 70 passes in its present form we will revert to a system of cover-up ownership of many of these strata title lots. They will turn out to be owned by the secretaries and the lawyers who work in the 1700 block Georgia Street. They will not turn out to be owned by any human being whose name and home address we can actually obtain. That's one of the problems with what's happening with Bill 70. It will return to corporate and syndicate ownership.

I'm using small "s" in syndicate, of course. I'm not referring to a criminal group but the syndicated ownership among a number of legal identities, be they persons, corporations, personal or public.

In short, by forcing a return to the cumbersome, conventional subdivision approval process, particularly where the approving officer is an official of the Highways ministry, the principal beneficial thrust of the Strata Titles Act for land division will be negated.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to be careful to distinguish between the benefits of strata titles as they apply to the subdivision, so to speak, of buildings. The particular problem here is the subdivision of land. Whatever merit the previous law had in this special regard, loophole and all, is going to be obviated altogether by Bill 70.

The minister, if I may suggest it, in the poor draftsmanship represented by this bill - back to the metaphor of babies in bathwater - has thrown out one of the strengths of the previous legislation. We now lose control, we now lose a statement of the clear and obvious ownership of the land in question. The public loses an opportunity to demand the access to waterfront and recreational opportunities that they should be able to get through an amendment that was properly drafted in the first place.

The most serious problem, however, with this bill, Mr. Chairman, is the following: it is retroactive. The bill was introduced for first reading on June 24, and the minister has indicated in the bill itself and by his own remarks to the press that it is the full intention of his government to allow no persons or corporations to take advantage of the loophole which this bill purports to close after June 24. The problem is, of course, that this bill is not yet law and it is now August 8.

The approving officers and the land registry officers who have been receiving applications under the law as it now stands are in a very difficult position. They are being asked to recognize a law that has not passed this House. They are being asked to tell people to come forward in good conscience, that because on June 24 the minister said: "Don't worry, the bill will pass in its present form, " the present law, therefore, does not stand.

The questionable part of the bill is, of course, its retroactivity. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that had the minister asked for three readings on one day, and had that day been in February and not in June, this opposition, I think, would have been very happy to give it. We did not do that, and here it is in August.

[ Page 4349 ]

Competent developers and administrations at a local level trying to deal with this problem are now forced into a position of committing unlawful acts because the minister has demanded that this bill be considered retroactive until June 24, when the problem is that the other law presently on the books must also be enforced simultaneously. It's a very contradictory situation; it's a very serious problem. Indeed, Mr.

Speaker, I predict a developer, if he wished it, would have a very strong case in court, demanding that the registry officer fulfil his duty under the law as it presently stands regardless of the minister's intention to make it retroactive to June 24. The legal advice I've received is that, indeed, such a person suing in court for, in effect, a writ of mandamus would succeed in court.

What the minister has done is ensure that a number of government officials simply trying to do their jobs are put in a very difficult personal spot because of the failure of this government to bring the bill forward when it should have been brought forward.

This bill is in that special sense then a very questionable legality. The passage of this bill may not be legally anticipated by a land registrar. He must register any support structure plans presented to him which comply with the current law. It is the intent of Bill 70 that such registrations will become invalid on passage of the bill. Fair enough. This is August 8. Between the period June 24 and whatever day this bill finally becomes law, the legal actions that could result when a developer brings a writ of mandamus to force a government official to obey the law as it presently stands would be very expensive indeed.

I should like to know from the minister whether or not he has received legal advice on that problem. If so, what was its nature? If it is possible that government officials - provincial and municipal -who have taken the minister's advice and ignored the law as it presently stands, are liable to civil prosecution in the courts, is the Minister prepared to compensate them personally - or their municipal councils or their regional districts - if, indeed, they should lose at law?

The minister, making it retroactive, has engaged in a principle of government lawmaking that is to say the least, unpopular with many, many people in any area of the British Commonwealth, wherever it's attempted. Retroactive law is not a very common procedure, fortunately enough. In this particular case, the minister has held liable at law in court those officials who are presently required by the Land Registry Act and by the Strata Titles Act to do their jobs as they've been doing them up to date.

So, Mr. Speaker, trying always to draw a positive conclusion from this, I would like to put forward a number of alternative proposals which the minister may well want to consider. There are some other strategies which could and should have been employed in order to deal with this matter. It was not necessary, via the Howie McDiarmid Thank You Act, to do specifically and simply and really rather narrowly what the minister's done. There were many other choices he could have made. I propose to outline to the House some of those alternate choices.

I would suggest that in order to solve some of the current problems while maintaining and preserving the desirable features of the Strata Titles Act as we now know it, Bill 70's literal approach could be abandoned in favour of another approach, which would have within it the following three elements of legislation:

(

a) The requirement could be obtained that all strata title subdivisions have

the written approval of the Strata Titles Act (not the Land Registry Act) approving

officer as a condition of registration. Making such approval conditional in

that way would provide the information in a timely way to any locally interested

citizen or elected official ' allowing them to deal with this matter as

quickly as they can. The fact that such approval would be required, not through

the Land Registry Act, but rather the Strata Titles Act, might well provide

initially the first statement of information required in the case.

(

b) A more desirable legislative strategy could also include the empowering

of this officer, who is to speak, the approving officer under the Strata Titles

Act, to refuse such approval unless

Section 96 of the Land Registry Act and

all relevant local bylaws are complied with.

Parenthetically again, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to note that this is theoretically one of the present requirements of the Highways Act. At the moment, the approving officer in the Highways department for subdivisions is supposed to examine local regional and municipal bylaws in order to determine whether or not the application for subdivision, specifically for highway access, shall be granted. There is no present requirement now, Mr. Speaker, for that kind of reporting and that kind of listening or even that kind of overview of municipal bylaws, and that's where the loophole has existed.

The minister proposes to close the loophole in a very brutal fashion, yet he overlooks the single merit that still exists in the question of land subdivision under the Strata Titles Act.

A new and alternate legislative strategy could empower local government to pass bylaws regulating strata titles subdivision. In my view, Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of some mystery that municipal government has never been authorized to regulate strata titles subdivision in this way. I don't know why the first government that brought this in under Mr. Campbell, our government under Mr. Lorimer, or the present government under this minister, has seen fit, by omission, to decline to grant the local government that right. There may be some reasons with which I'm

[ Page 4350 ]

not familiar, but those that I've obtained from the minister's own department and from the advisory committee which assists me as critic, tells me that no present logical reason stands against allowing municipal councils to regulate strata title subdivisions. Unfortunately, the Municipal Act does not presently grant them that power. So a third part of this alternate strategy to dealing with the problem surely could also include at least a consideration of granting municipal and regional government that authority.

If I may go on in some detail, there are a number of amendments, Mr. Speaker, which we are prepared to put if the minister is prepared to consider them and I would like his advice. I understand it's the policy of the government, if considering amendments, that they be given notice in writing of those amendments. I would be very happy to provide that notice, Mr. Speaker. But I wonder if the minister in his response later on to this might tell us if that is his personal policy. If so, I would be glad to give him in writing notice of such amendments as they may be considered. Otherwise I'll discuss the principle. . . .

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, I think you realize that we're discussing the principle of the bill and not amendments. So it's in order to refer to them, but not in detail at this particular stage.

MR. BARBER : My notes allow me to refer to them in detail, and I am prepared to do so, but I realize that our debate does not. That is why I am asking the minister if he would prefer to have, prior to committee stage, the amendments in writing. If he could tell me that now, then I'll have them ready in time; and if he can't, then I'll move them anyway.

To conclude, if I may then, Mr. Speaker, hoping that the minister will reply to that particular request for his advice about entertaining amendments, it seems that local power to regulate strata title subdivision activity not being granted removes a very considerable power of administration and good planning from the hands of municipal councils. It takes from them, as increasingly strata title subdivisions begin to occur in this province, one of the principal accesses to information and levers of authority they need in order to do their job.

As this phenomenon grows - and we expect it will, as all the indicators say it might - then surely it's time to consider, obviously not through this bill but through another ' that very specific request that by amendment to the Municipal Act municipal councils be empowered and, by the minister's own action, be encouraged to participate in the regulation of strata title subdivisions within their jurisdiction.

They should have that power, they should have that opportunity, they should be given those resources, and the minister hopefully will put on the kinds of workshops and seminars that have been, to date, most helpful in teaching municipal officials how to comply with new laws and how to make them work better and effectively. It seems to me that this particular new law would be at least as desirable as the law we have before us at the moment.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, we will support the bill, with hesitation. I remain extremely critical of the gross neglect of this minister regarding the loophole and his abject failure to introduce this bill and see it through three speedy readings when it should have come through. I think it's shameful that the government has failed in this particular regard. It's a bill that occupies, I believe, about a page - one single page - on the order paper. Obviously it was not a major, lengthy problem of drafting in order to come up with this.

The mere fact that the bill itself does so many things harmful to the Strata Titles Act tells us that they didn't pay it quite as much attention as they alleged to have paid anyway. So it didn't take very long to come up with it; it's not as good as it should be when they finally did come up with it; they came up with it too late; and it doesn't solve all the problems that the minister tells us he would like to solve. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, with some hesitation we support the bill and with much interest we look forward to the minister's comments, in particular on whether or not he will entertain amendments in writing that give him enough notice to consider them when we get to committee stage of the bill.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the second member from Victoria, seems to have pretty well touched all the bases of this particular amendment but there are one or two questions which I will pose to the minister and, hopefully, the minister will answer when he closes debate on this bill.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that I was the first member of this assembly to raise this whole issue in the House, back in the early part of February of this year, when a number of situations were brought to my attention, particularly some situations within the riding which the minister well knows. I won't discuss this at length because we've been over this before, but the minister well knows the situation in Desolation Sound Park, and the extremely grave situation, in my view, on Savary Island.

My first question to the minister then would be: since the strata title plans on both the Savary Island situation and the Desolation Sound situation were filed prior to February 18, the date when the order-in-council came out that the minister had passed at the executive meeting at that time to ban further strata titling until a prospectus had been filed, can the people who now filed these strata titles plans do as, they will in the subdivisions that they have filed? I am really not clear on that answer because they were filed prior to February 18.

[ Page 4351 ]

In the case of Savary Island, I think the minister was there during the committee meetings in 1974, so he is familiar and knows that there are very small lots. There appear to me to be well over 100 such lots -I'm just guessing, because I didn't count them. These are 25-ft. lots on the sandy, barren portion of the island which has no water at all. If the people who filed a subdivision are allowed to sell this property, the buyers will in no way have service to these lots. In fact, in the plan I have before me here I don't even see real road access to these lots.

If the present owners will do as they have done before - sell these lots in Calgary, and Edmonton, and across Canada, sight unseen - the buyers, of course, will have been taken for a ride.

My second question would be somewhat along a different line. I have in my possession a letter undated but received in my office on March 30,1977. It's a letter from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to a Mr. Jim Whent, administrator of the Powell River Regional District, in regard to a strata title plan that had been brought to that regional board's attention around February 24, or around that date.

What is important in this document.... I think I should quote, because it is important, Mr. Speaker, this one paragraph of this correspondence. I'd be pleased to send the minister a copy when I have read it.

"I wish to make it abundantly clear that the legislation was both enacted and proclaimed by the previous administration. The so-called loophole to which you make reference did not arise through haste or imperfect legislative draftsmanship. On the contrary, it represented the stated and deliberate policy of that administration" - meaning the NDP - "and its shortcomings are now visible for all to see."

Well, Mr. Speaker, in my view that's an impertinent reply. I don't think any minister of any government, particularly the former NDP government, would purposely build in a loophole into legislation. For a minister of this government to imply that, in my view, is a deliberate misrepresentation of our government's policy to this Legislature and to the people of this province. My question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs is: where did the Minister or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs receive this type of information? Hopefully, it was not from that minister's department.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we all know that it is a function of any government, particularly of any executive council of that government, when loopholes in legislation are found, to close those loopholes. I would point out that very little legislation goes through this House that does not contain some loopholes of some kind. We spend many, many hours debating those loopholes on all types of legislation in this House. That's so-called housekeeping legislation.

I wish to be fair to the minister. When I did approach the minister early in February of this year about this matter privately and by correspondence, action was taken. At least the start of action was taken.

HON. MR. CURTIS : Thank you, Don.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD : Well, there was the order-in-council. In any event, Mr. Speaker, those are two or three questions. When the minister is closing debate on this Act, he could answer those questions. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER : The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS : The two speakers have raised matters relative to the whole question of strata titles legislation. I was tempted to rise on a point of Order, but after the earlier difference of opinion between the hon. second member for Victoria and myself, I would have looked to you, sir, to point out that, really, we were straying into another bill, and that is Bill 75. It is the major strata titles amendment legislation which has been in the works for a long time.

I don't think I need apologize on my own behalf nor on behalf of the legal people who advised this ministry or the senior people who carry assigned responsibilities within the ministry for the time which has been required for the other bill. That's all I'm going to say about Bill 75 - the point being that it is extremely complex. Not being legally trained, I have found it frequently confusing and very, very difficult. I don't think anyone can or should pretend to be glib about strata title regulation or legislation.

It's 10 years old and, in Bill 70 presently being debated, because of the complexity of the other piece of legislation we extracted that which we wanted to move with, which we knew should be moved on at the earliest possible time.

In opening second reading debate, Mr. Speaker, on Friday morning just before the hour of adjournment, I pointed out that we are in this legislation correcting what is a 1975 oversight. I use the word "oversight" and that will assist the hon. member for Mackenzie whom I find quite reasonable both in this chamber and outside. I suppose that is another indication of the complexity of this type of legislation.

I don't know what was in the mind of the former government with respect to the 1975 changes, but one can assume that they were attempting to follow a

[ Page 4352 ]

certain course of action and to provide good legislation. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt; that's what I assume they were attempting to do. In 1976, following the change of government, we were attempting to do the same. That bill was not proceeded with because it was found to be deficient. Now we have two pieces of legislation relating to this complex, complicated and constantly changing land-use topic.

Therefore, I cannot and will not respond to a number of points made by the first speaker for the official opposition (Mr. Barber) because I think those are matters that can be more appropriately debated with respect to the other bill. I choose quite deliberately to overlook his apparently sincere comments, Mr. Speaker, with respect to an individual who found a loophole, along with others, and abused the strata title legislation as it existed. I make no excuses for the individuals who saw that and proceeded apparently legally but certainly not with any endorsation from this ministry or this government.

Those individuals who have abused the existing legislation should, frankly, be ashamed of themselves.

I would like to see the undated letter to which the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) has referred. Mr. Speaker, I again look to you. Apparently it is a letter from another minister in this government, as the member has said. I can't comment on another minister's letter with respect to strata titles except to observe that the law finds itself partially in the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and partially in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I thank the member for those comments which were constructive.

I now move to second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 70, Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON., MR. GARDOM : Second reading of Bill 42, Mr. Speaker,

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. CURTIS : Bill 42 contains the most significant group of Municipal Act changes introduced in many years. It represents an attempt to come to grips with some of the key issues in the land-use planning field. We're very pleased with the public response to this legislation. In the many weeks since it was introduced in the Legislature on April 1, as I recall, the bill has served much like a White Paper to focus attention on significant policy issues. As a result, I have received constructive representations from many communities, local government, regional districts, professional groups, and individuals.

The best of these suggestions have been translated into amendments which this assembly will have the opportunity to discuss in both principle and detail later on.

By tradition, Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Amendment Act each year is an omnibus bill gathering together substantive amendments of the greatest policy significance with technical amendments of much lesser consequence and resolutions which have been accepted from the annual conference of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. This year's bill is no exception. I would therefore like to discuss the principles underlying the more routine sections before getting into the major changes. I face the problem which previous Ministers of Municipal Affairs have, I'm sure, faced in the chamber, inasmuch as in some respects this is a committee bill, at least in the first half.

One group of amendments seeks to prevent abuse of the

section 80 (

a) instant voting provision by placing a three-month residency requirement on the qualification to vote. The new rule will apply to regional districts as well as to municipalities. A significant reduction of the lame-duck interval following council and regional board elections will be accomplished by another group of amendments. The swearing-in period will be reduced by 30 days and the newly elected council will meet and assume office in early December, rather than January.

Corresponding changes are made to the legislative requirements for the submission of provisional budgets and the election of regional board chairmen. Elected local governments will be able to function more smoothly on a year-round basis by virtue of these amendments.

In short, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing magic in local government about January 1, or the first Monday following January 1. The amendments to sections 259 and 260 are designed to increase the financial flexibility of municipalities. The investment of the proceeds of debenture sales in guaranteed bank, credit union and trust company securities will now be permitted. In addition, the maximum amount a municipality may borrow for short-term capital purposes has been raised from $25 to $35. These measures are an expression of this government's competence in the maturity and fiscal responsibility of British Columbia's local government jurisdictions.

Some uniformity in the procedures for resolving intermunicipal road disputes will be introduced by the amendment to sections 536 and 536 (a) . In the interest of sound transportation and land planning and use, the Minister of Highways and Public Works will be authorized to arbitrate disputes -about roads which traverse adjoining municipalities or form the boundaries between them.

[ Page 4353 ]

Another group of proposed changes is designed to influence the compositions and duties of boards of variance. Provincial appointments will now be made by the minister, while the cabinet will be responsible f o r their dismissal, and on municipal recommendation, for the chairman's dismissal.

Boards of variance will be empowered to hear appeals against municipal regulations dealing with the construction and layout of trailer courts, mobile-home parks and campgrounds, as well as appeals against the enforcement of regulations requiring the provision of water, sewer and drainage facilities in subdivisions in agricultural, rural or industrial zones. The derivative nature of variations is to be confirmed.

From time to time, Mr. Speaker, adjustments in regional district boundaries may become necessary to accommodate new patterns of population growth or economic activity. We've discussed previously this year the fact that regional district government has been here for 10 to I I years and there is need for a change in boundaries now, especially in the less-densely populated areas of the province. Accordingly, the proposed addition of

section 766 (

d) will provide a simple method of accomplishing such boundary changes. However, I emphasize for you, Mr. Speaker, that this measure is not intended as a device for resolving disputes between the communities within any particular regional district. Such disputes will continue to be handled by the democratically elected directors through the medium of the regional board. The amendment of another section, 778 subsection 2, eliminates the double requirement of voting on regional district regulatory bylaws but maintains the approval level at the former two-thirds of the entitled directors possessing two-thirds of the votes.

Another

section of the bill proposes the amendment of 45 Municipal Act clauses. All of these individual amendments are united by a common theme, Mr. Speaker - to relieve the executive council (the cabinet) of the necessity of making minor, non-policy decisions. Each of the clauses listed in column I of the

schedule was chosen on that basis. Its approval provision was accordingly transferred from cabinet to ministerial level. As a result, cabinet will no longer be asked to make such essentially administrative decisions as board of variance appointments and water and sewer rate approvals. The extent of this reform, Mr. Speaker, was determined judiciously and I wish to assure the members of the House that important policy decisions in such matters as incorporation of a municipality, amalgamation, boundary extension, acquisition of a new function by a regional district and planning matters will continue to require executive council approval.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin discussing some of the more innovative and far-reaching features of the bill. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that the main importance of this year's Municipal Amendment Act lies in the land-use planning initiatives it introduces. Over the last several years, British Columbians have become increasingly aware of what I shall call, for the purposes of this debate, the dilemma of development. On the one hand, everyone wants urban development if it provides a satisfactory quality and quantity of housing at prices people can afford.

On the other hand, no one wants urban development when it disrupts the environment, threatens the character of neighbourhoods or imposes heavy servicing costs on the community already in place. The dilemma of development is a matter of opposed pressures, pressures which make almost every decision about development a very sensitive one.

This government, Mr. Speaker, believes that these decisions should be made at the local level and therefore, the Municipal Act should provide a framework for reconciling the forces of development with the interests of the communities which must accommodate that development. I used the word "reconcile" because I'm convinced the existing development-control mechanisms often create confrontations which need not occur. They will occur in some instances; they need not occur in all.

In the long run, every community benefits by development if the quality and the social cost of the development is compatible with the character and resources of the community. To realize this potential, we desperately need the kind of legislative framework that is capable of sorting out questions of quality, quantity and cost in a fair and straightforward fashion. Accordingly-, we are introducing a new development permit policy, a new development-cost charge policy and significant revisions in servicing requirements policy.

Mr. Speaker, in recent years the land-use contract has evolved, unfortunately, into an often confusing, counterproductive roadblock. Its original purpose as a special device for controlling exceptional types of developments has been lost in the shuffle. It is now in general use as a substitute for zoning and as an arbitrary revenue producer. Uncertainty, unnecessary costs and excessive delay are the penalties that it has imposed on the community, consumer and developer alike in many instances.

This bill proposes to phase out the land-use contract and replace it with a development permit system tied to realistic zoning and subdivision controls and fair development cost charges. A paradox of this reform is that although it does away with the land-use contract, it preserves the community's ability to control the characteristics of any exceptional development. We underline "exceptional."

Members will note, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of constructive representations from the local level,

[ Page 4354 ]

we've strengthened this bill's original provision by allowing municipalities to initiate development permits under certain circumstances but, before you call me to order, that is for committee debate.

The key to understanding the development permit concept is its link with zoning and subdivision regulations which, in turn, should be based on longer-range planning principles. A municipality will only be permitted to use development permits in areas where zoning and subdivision bylaws are already in effect and where the zoning bylaw explicitly provides for development permits.

Even then, the development permit will not be mandatory except within development areas established by the council. It will only be issued where projects need variation or supplementation or some of the provisions of the zoning or subdivision bylaws. In other words, the development permit will add just enough flexibility to zoning and subdivision controls to accommodate the exceptional case. If a council wishes to take the additional step of establishing a development area to enable itself to initiate development permits, it may only do so after a public hearing and after a two-thirds affirmative vote.

I stress, Mr. Speaker, that this step must be taken only where justified by clear and exceptional planning needs. The point to remember is that the development permit will not be a carte blanche for either the developer or the municipality. The characteristics which a development permit may regulate are very clearly set out in the bill. The enumerated powers are confined to the qualitative aspects of development. No development permit could be used to tamper with the basic land uses or densities permitted under the zoning bylaw.

The development permit represents much more than a response against the land-use contract. Its introduction will accomplish several important reforms. First, it defines and confirms the municipality's right to control the qualitative aspects of the exceptional development, as I indicated. Secondly, by clarifying the respective powers and responsibilities of both municipality and developer, it should simplify the development approval process to the benefit of both. Finally, by encouraging higher standards in and greater reliance on zoning and subdivision controls, it should place community planning on a more systematic basis.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most telling accusation directed against the land-use contract was that it functioned frequently as an under-the-table tax on development. In this capacity it was from time to time associated with impost fees and other similar ad hoc charges. No other source of municipal revenue has been so arbitrary or confused. We are not, through this legislation, denying the right of municipalities to recover a fair portion of the costs imposed on them by development; quite the contrary.

The ministry believes that reasonable cost recovery must occur and that it must be given a clear and equitable basis in law. That's the reasoning behind the introduction of the development-cost charge.

If I may again emphasize, in abolishing the land-use contract we have not simply left a void. We recognize that the capital cost burden arising from a development should be shared between the development and the existing community. This new development cost charge legislation will permit municipalities to accomplish that sharing in an open and a fair way according to statutory criteria. The legislative framework provides that the capital costs of sewer, water, drainage, highway facilities and public open space can be shared through the use of development -cost charges.

It also stipulates the circumstances under which the charges may vary. Within that framework the municipality may establish the level of its development cost charges provided they are neither discriminatory nor exclusionary.

As with the development permit, we're convinced that the development-cost charge concept represents a substantial improvement over the land-use contract and its companion methods of cost recovery. This new legislation clearly identifies the categories of cost which may be recovered and requires open deliberation and publication of those charges. The imposition of development-cost charges will be uniform rather than negotiable, depending on the mood of the counsel of the day, and the use of the proceeds will be tied to municipal capital programmes.

In basic terms, the twin advantages of this reform are first, that the developer's liability will be fairly identified in advance; and second, that the municipality will have a detailed statutory basis for capital cost recovery.

As members will know, Mr. Speaker, a large proportion of residential development is currently being accomplished by subdivision. This bill therefore introduces improvements to the subdivision regulatory powers of the Act. One of the themes underlying these improvements is unification and clarification. The present Act specifies different servicing requirements for sewer and water and contains no provision for drainage of land other than highways. These weaknesses are to be remedied by amendments permitting municipalities to require subdividers to provide water, sewer and drainage systems and connections conforming to bylaw standards.

Another group of improvements will encourage preservicing and will prevent double taxation. Where land is preserviced by a developer, charges levied to pay for similar facilities provided to others by the

[ Page 4355 ]

municipality may be waived or lessened. The Act will also authorize a municipality to share in the cost of the sizing for future needs of services provided by a developer. In such a case, the municipality could eventually recover its contribution from subsequent developers who benefited from the earlier oversizing.

A final area of change in subdivision requirements is the new land dedication provision. Under this provision, up to 5 per cent of the land in a new subdivision may be required for public use. Realistic exemptions will prevent this requirement from being onerous, and special emphasis will be placed on land dedication adjacent to water bodies.

The development permit and the development-cost charge represent, as indicated earlier, major innovations in development legislation, Their introduction expresses this government's faith in the ability of our municipalities to accommodate and regulate development within their boundaries. Another expression of this faith is the group of planning reforms that I would like to describe now, Mr. Speaker.

One of the most persistent complaints that we've encountered since this government assumed office is that the land-use planning approval process is just too cumbersome. There have been too many cooks, too many second guesses. We are therefore pleased to introduce a substantial reduction in the amount of provincial involvement in community and regional planning.

The reforms proposed in this bill have two main thrusts. The first is to express the provincial interest in planning through statutory criteria rather than administrative intervention, to set the guidelines in advance. The second is to take the province out of land-use bylaw approvals where satisfactory, comprehensive plans exist. While neither of these principles is being implemented with single-minded fervour, their combined effect should be to cut a lot of red tape out of planning. Planning, after all, Mr.

Speaker, is primarily concerned with charting the future direction of our settlements, and it must not become a self-serving bureaucratic exercise in imposing more and more finicky controls over land use.

The planning measures contemplated in this bill will affect both municipalities and regional districts. In both cases criteria are set out regarding the preparation and contents of comprehensive plans called "official community plans" in municipalities and "official settlement plans" in regional districts. What differentiates the two is that regional district settlement plans will require ministerial approval; official community plans will not. For municipalities this means virtually complete planning autonomy, provided their plans observe statutory criteria and are deposited with the inspector of the municipality.

0 f great practical significance to both municipalities and regional districts is the proposed waiver of bylaw approval hitherto required under the Controlled Access Highways Act. Once the Minister of Highways and Public Works has approved a regional district official settlement plan or municipal official community plan, it will no longer be necessary to submit land-use control bylaws to his officials except for the site plans of major industrial and commercial developments.

Now it may be asked if this proposal reduces the provincial voice in planning below acceptable levels. We believe that it does not. In the first place, the required planning criteria are most comprehensive. In the second, the ministerial approval required for regional district settlement plans and for the Controlled Access Highways Act waiver will be conducted with great care. Finally, there is a legislative requirement that land-use control bylaws must be consistent with comprehensive plants. The provincial interest is therefore built into the basic planning documents and will be expressed throughout. The only thing being sacrificed here that is desirable is administrative delay.

I Before departing entirely from the topic of development and planning, I would like to make an unequivocal statement about the intent of this legislation. The provisions of this bill confer a great deal of power and autonomy on municipalities. We expect these responsibilities and privileges to be exercised similarily with great care.

When these new planning and developing initiatives were being designed, the government frankly faced a choice between two options. We could incorporate significant provincial powers of approval and intervention into the legislation, or we could rely on broad legislative guidelines, the implementation of which would require the positive co-operation and the good will of every municipality and regional district. So we choose elements of both options.

In doing so, we recognize that the spirit of this legislation is as important as its substance, and that the municipalities and regional districts supplying it must adhere as much to the spirit as to the letter of the legislation. However, we also recognize that exceptional situations might place local regulations in clear conflict with broader provincial interest, and that municipalities might be tempted to impose occasionally discriminatory or punitive development cost charges.

Accordingly, we've made provision for provincial approval of development-cost charges and provincial revision of land-use regulations conflicting with the provincial interest.

In the latter case, the new legislation will entitle the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to request changes in conflicting local land-use controls. Should that request be refused, the minister would have the power to order the appropriate changes,

[ Page 4356 ]

subject to a built-in appeal to the executive council. I anticipate, Mr. Speaker, that much of the questioning on this bill will focus on one proposed section,

section 879. Unlike many other provinces, where the provincial power of review and intervention is woven into the basic fabric of land-use legislation, we have isolated our powers of retroactive intervention in this single clause. The significance and intent of this arrangement is clear. We intend to use the new

section only in exceptional circumstances and only when all other remedies have been exhausted. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this has been the subject of closest possible consultation and discussion with the Union of B.C. Municipalities since the bill was introduced.

Aside from assuring this assembly that the new

section will be used infrequently, I can also offer the assurance that its powers are amply precedented. In Ontario, for instance, the minister can step in at any time through the process and exercise a municipal council's zoning and subdivision powers for them. In Manitoba the municipal board can intervene to alter a zoning bylaw to suit its own specifications prior to adoption. In Saskatchewan the minister can establish a special planning area in any municipality and then proceed to exercise all of the municipalities! land-use control powers. The Saskatchewan government has already used these powers of intervention six times.

In the light of these examples across the country, I repeat the assurance that

section 879 will be used sparingly, if at all. I can say confidently so because I expect continued responsible performance by local governments. Mr. Speaker, responsibility and good judgment will indeed be the keys to the successful application of this year's Municipal Amendment Act. I do take the opportunity, however, to caution local governments to be as judicious in the use of their new powers as we will be in the use of ours. In particular, we want to advise local government that the use of the development permit must be confined to exceptional circumstances.

We realize that the development approval system of many municipalities relies almost exclusively on the land-use contract. For these communities, a reasonable transition time obviously is required to bring the subdivision and zoning bylaws up to a standard. Beyond that time, however, the abuse of the development permit will jeopardize its future.

I also urge restraint in the use of development cost charges and performance bonds. Their introduction is not the signal for a new gold rush. Their purpose is to accomplish a fair sharing of the risks and costs of development and nothing more.

This year's Municipal Amendment Act is characterized by innovation. Perhaps its most novel initiative is the local community concept introduced in another new section. Many residents of unorganized areas in regional districts are opposed to the idea of municipal incorporation, even if they inhabit relatively large and logically sized communities. The attractions of the statutory mill rate and the high level of provincial services are apparently too great. This proposal therefore seeks to provide an intermediate type of community status which falls short of typical standard municipal incorporation.

The geographic and population characteristics of a local community are clearly described in the legislation. Operationally speaking, the local community would function within the regional district context. The regional district would provide up to three services and tax the local community as a specified area up to 15 mills. The administration of these services would be directed by a locally elected community commission of three members.

I'd like to place special emphasis on two crucial aspects of the local community concept, Mr. Speaker. First, there will be absolutely no compulsion involved in the formation of any of these local communities. Elector assent or sufficient petition will be required, along with the following endorsation of the regional district. Secondly, I repeat the proposition that the local community represents a compromise between unorganized and municipal status - a stepping stone, if you will. Should the population or servicing needs of a local community come to exceed legislated limits, it would find itself face to face with the logic of incorporation.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time for quite a complex piece of legislation. The reforms contained in this bill first took shape upon my appointment as Minister of Municipal Affairs in 1976. They have changed shape as new information has come and new experiences have been introduced with a great deal of discussion within the ministry. I think the reforms contained in the bill have significance for every community in British Columbia. I am pleased with the Act and I therefore move second reading.

MR. BARBER : Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designated speaker for the official opposition on this bill. I'd like to congratulate the real author of the principal sections of this bill: the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) . Indeed, we see very clearly that there is a lineage connecting the report of the now infamous and discredited Bawlf committee to the equally infamous and hopefully to be discredited

section 28, among others, of the bill presently before us.

I'd like to comment before starting, Mr. Speaker, that it seems to me the fact that we have to deal with a bill of such complexity on the floor in this form and that the minister has on two previous occasions admitted that the Municipal Act needs a wholesale rewriting, it is about time to call, once again, for a royal commission to examine in its totality municipal

[ Page 4357 ]

government in the province of British Columbia and, having done so, to draft for the benefit of this House a model Municipal Act.

The fact is that year after year after year the Ministers of Municipal Affairs have come forward with, once again, another body of 30, 40, 50 or 60 revisions of a minor or sometimes major sort and, once again, they apologize to us and tell us: "Yes, we really do need a Municipal Act that is part and parcel of the 20th century and may take us into the 2 1 st." Once again, this minister, as his predecessor, unfortunately, and his predecessor, just as unfortunately, have failed to deliver the goods.

We need a royal commission on local government which will look into the Municipal Act as a corpus and bring forward a model Municipal Act that may serve us a great deal more adequately than the present one does.

All the same, we see that the primary initiatives, at least those that favour developers, come straight from the words and the activities of the now discredited Bawlf committee on housing. Specifically, we're concerned, Mr. Speaker, as the minister quite properly anticipated, with one particular

section of this bill. During committee stage, we propose to discuss in considerable detail a number of the amendments that the minister has brought forward. We propose to discuss the content and the strategy of a development permit and what will be lost when a system of land-use contracts is also lost.

However, it seems to this opposition, Mr. Speaker, that the most important principle at stake here is the principle of local self-government. The principle that is being attacked by

section 28 of this bill is the principle of local self-government.

It has occurred to us that occasionally - from time to time - a government will bring forward a bill of genuine philosophic significance that marks a profound shift from the past and that makes a very radical statement about the government's intentions for the future. Occasionally, a bill will come along which is not technical or mechanical in any form.

Section 28 of this bill is such

an act. The philosophical direction that this government proposes to take is absolutely new to the province of British Columbia.

The minister's reassurances not withstanding, it is absolutely new to the people of Canada. The minister tells us that in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan - it's strange he would select two New Democratic Party-governed provinces - indeed, roughly the same powers are in the hands of their respective Ministers of Municipal Affairs. In my view, that's a wholly inaccurate statement. That's simply not correct.

The minister, if telling the House somewhat more correctly, would have told the House about the role of the Municipal Boards in the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba and would have told us about the role of the municipal appeals authorities that have been created in the province of Saskatchewan. The minister has not informed us correctly and I hope that he will be prepared to correct his statement because at the moment I find it personally unacceptable.

Occasionally a bill comes along which marks a radical and extreme departure from tradition in this province. In our view,

section 28 does just that.

Section 28 provides that the Minister of Municipal Affairs personally may rewrite any municipal or regional bylaw in the province. The only appeal from his personal decision is to the cabinet, of which he is a member. Nowhere in this bill do we see any requirement for a public hearing. Nowhere in this bill is there a requirement that the decision of the minister be gazetted in the British Columbia Gazette, nowhere is there a requirement that the minister provide in writing or in any other way, the reasons he has employed for determining that in the public interest as he sees it.

Section 28 of Bill 42 - or, if it passes, new

section 879 of the Municipal Act - shall empower him to make those changes.

This bill is a radical departure from the traditions of local self-government in this province. Prior to this, the only authority that had power within the province of British Columbia to quash municipal and regional bylaws was the Supreme Court of the Province of British Columbia. Specifically, in sections 237 through 243 of the Municipal Act, the Supreme Court alone had the power to rewrite law or to quash bylaws which were deemed improper or unconstitutional.

Prior to the introduction of this bill in the history of the province, only persons whose political interests are above reproach, only persons whose partisan interests are zero - and I'm referring to the Supreme Court itself - had the authority that the minister himself now wants to exercise.

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

article 28 of Bill 42 amends nothing that was there before. It creates a brand new

section in the Municipal Act,

section 879. The Act as it presently is written simply ends at

section 878. Amending

section 28 amends nothing that is presently on the books. It is a radical, extremist departure from the traditions of local government and autonomy in this province. In our view, this is a dangerous new power. No residual power has been amended. No present piece of legislation has been altered. No amendment is here. Amending

section 28 creates a brand new power; it was not there before.

Now if I may, let me quote the minister himself when he was introducing the bill because he was well aware that it would meet, as he put it, "mixed reaction." As reported in the Sun of April 2, the minister said:

"Curtis had earlier predicted there would be a controversy over the bill but said it was a trade-off. 'We're giving more responsibility to municipalities and regional districts in some

[ Page 4358 ]

areas, while giving the minister authority to make changes when

provincial public interest is concerned. There will be howls from some but we

will use the powers sparingly and with great care and discretion.' "

Indeed, from another source, if I may quote the minister again, the UBCM newsletter, number 91 of April, 1977, reports as follows:

"Under

section 28 of the bill, the minister may overrule a municipal or regional district bylaw under community planning if he considers it contrary to public interest in the province. An appeal from his action in this respect lies with the cabinet. The minister agreed with the executive (of the UBCM) that this

section might cause great controversy from councils and boards but said its provisions would not be used frivolously."

Just this afternoon, the minister reminded us that he intended to use great caution and great discretion in his employ of the major new power created by Bill 42. Well, we find that very touching stuff, Mr. Speaker. We find it very touching and very sentimental and very appealing that the minister stands up with a straight face that he will use "discretion" as if he personally is going to be in office forever and as if his government is going to hold that office forever too. The last time this minister used discretion, three MLAs almost lost their seats.

In our view, no minister in this province should want or hold such power as this minister is demanding for himself. We're not in the least interested in his protestations of discretion and care; they mean nothing in law. His comments today have no standing in law whatever. What does stand in law is the bill before us if, by mistake, it should pass. What does stand in law is the fact that any Minister of Municipal Affairs, until the Act is again amended, from now on may rewrite personally any regional or municipal bylaw in the province.

Previously, only the Supreme Court of British Columbia had that power; now the Minister of Municipal Affairs has it personally. Let me point out again, there is no requirement to gazette his decision. There is no requirement to give any reasons in writing or in any other form for his decision. There is no statement in this bill nor from the minister of what shall constitute the public interest. A definition of the public interest appears nowhere in the definition

section of this or any other bill which I'm aware of. What we see is an attempt by one minister to exercise a personal power, the like of which has never been exercised in this province. It introduces a brand new principle and amends nothing that was there before.

Prior to this minister coming to office, as I mentioned before, only division 5, sections 237 to 243 of the Municipal Act allowed any other authority to quash a municipal bylaw. Specifically, that authority was the Supreme Court. Apart from division 5, which itself is couched in very careful, very mannered language, the only other reference in the present Municipal Act is division 6, sections 244 to 246, but they very specifically apply to money bylaws. They have nothing at all to do with the intent of this amendment.

What we see, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister has created a brand new power. He has a-mended nothing that existed previously in legislation. Now the minister tells us, and the Act provides for it, that there is an appeal to the executive council. Once again, we find this very touching stuff. This particular minister, who has belonged to three political parties in his career - the last one, this one and the next one - tell us that some interested authority may appeal to the cabinet. Oh, ho, ho, ho! Big deal.

There is no public hearing; there is no public meeting; there is no agreement that the documents that the cabinet receives will ever be made public. There is no reason for us to believe for a moment that any cabinet would do no more than simply endorse the position that its Minister of Municipal Affairs took. There is no reason to believe for any instant that this so-called appeal procedure means anything more than the political gibberish that it obviously is. An appeal to that cabinet means you go back to that minister and the minister reinforces his personal decision.

It was personal and arbitrary to begin with; it will be political and arbitrary when it is appealed; and it will end up the very same at the end of the appeal.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has the nerve to ask us to trust him with this power, to trust him with his great discretion and to trust him with his conservative impulse to restrain himself from doing damage to the people of British Columbia. Once again, we find that very touching stuff. I wonder if the minister would trust a New Democratic Minister of Municipal Affairs with the same power. Would the minister trust a New Democratic Party government with the same authority? Of course not. He would never do such a thing.

Were he still in opposition -hopefully, one day he'll be back here - he would be the first to stand up and denounce a New Democratic minister who had the gall and the nerve to command for himself such powers. Neither this minister nor any member of that group over there would trust any New Democrat minister with this authority. He asks us to trust him.

I would like to advise this House, Mr. Speaker, that properly enough the people of British Columbia wouldn't trust either party with the power. No minister, regardless of his political complexion or the number of political parties with which he is personally familiar, should be trusted with this kind of power. I don't care how many membership cards this minister has held. I don't care how broad his political background in this province is. The fact is

[ Page 4359 ]

that neither he nor any other minister has the right to assume that kind of authority. He wouldn't trust us; we don't trust him; the public trusts neither of us. He shouldn't do it.

AN HON. MEMBER : Speak for yourself.

MR. BARBER : I speak for a lot more people than ourselves. I know how you would vote if you were in opposition and we put forward such a bill. You'd attack it for hours and hours. He tells us that he intends to use it in exceptional cases only. What a joke!

What we'd like to ask is something about the nature of this allegedly legitimate appeal to the coalition cabinet now in power. We'd like to know who would have the authority to make these appeals. We'd like to know whether or not there is any subsequent intention to publish the contents or the decisions of those appeals other than by simply upholding what the minister himself is doing, and we would like to point out to the minister that there is no present provision in the Act that that has to be done.

This

section is clearly an attack on the integrity and the autonomy of municipal and regional government in British Columbia. It's a

section whose attack on that local autonomy can allegedly be appealed to a cabinet of which the minister himself is a member. It is an unprecedented grab for personal power by that minister, the like of which this province has never seen before.

Now I wonder if the minister might be interested in telling us why he feels it necessary to introduce such a

section at this present time. The minister tells us that it's part of a trade-off. This is interesting stuff. Whose goods are being traded? I'd like to take a look at this particular

section from another point of view. It seems to me that it is unlikely in the extreme that a municipal council would appeal to cabinet one of its own bylaws. It is unlikely in the extreme that a regional district would go to cabinet and say: "Would you mind taking a look at this? We think our own bylaw isn't very good and we'd like you to overturn it." It seems very unlikely that any mayor or chairman of a regional district would go to the minister and say: "I was able to push this through but I think you should really take a look at it and perhaps you want to squash it with the awesome power you now personally exercise under proposed

section 879 of the Municipal Act." The fact is that no municipal council or regional district would go forward and make such a bizarre request.

Who stands to benefit from this power, Mr. Speaker? Conspicuously the minister failed to tell us anything about that. When we can logically conclude that no municipal or regional government would stand to benefit from it - to the contrary, they'd only stand to lose - then it's equally logical to ask who stands to obtain rewards. Well, thinking through logically, one reads the

section to read: "Socred developers only need apply."

Nowhere here do we see any statement of what the public interest shall constitute. Nowhere here in this debate this afternoon have we heard the minister say anything other than that if some party is dissatisfied with a municipal or regional bylaw, all they need do is grab the ear of the minister, persuade him it's in the public interest and he'll rewrite it for them.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, may I just perhaps interrupt long enough to give you a word of guidance with respect to the debate on this particular bill? While I recognize that it's composed of amendments to a number of different sections of the Municipal Act, and therefore it becomes difficult to debate it in second reading without referring to the sections, it is incumbent upon the Speaker to try to keep the debate to more than just one particular

section of the bill. So while I have no objection to your referring to the particular sections of the bill in passing in second reading, the detailed debate which you seem to be engaging in would be more proper in the committee stage. So please take that as a word of caution that in referring to the bill you may refer to the sections but not in great detail, as you would do if we were in committee state.

MR. BARBER : I appreciate your advice, Mr. Speaker. As you and I are both aware, however, this particular bill, which consists of a variety of amendments, has no single principle. That's the difficulty that we find in opposition when debating it and that's the difficulty that the minister found as well when discussing it. There is no single principle incorporate in this bill to which we can address ourselves. What I've chosen to do is, if I may, address one particular principle, which in our view threatens the autonomy and the integrity of municipal government in British Columbia. I believe that's a....

MR. SPEAKER : I'm quite aware of the problem, hon. member. I'm just trying to retain the debate within some limits.

MR. BARBER : I respect your advice. In my view, going back to the theme of this attack in principle on the integrity of local government, there is only one group in this province that stands to benefit from this bill - developers who have the ear of the minister.

Now I'd like to talk for a minute about the reaction of the public as expressed in three different ways to this particular grab for personal power made by the minister in this bill. If I may quote from The Vancouver Sun of April 11,1977, in an editorial on

[ Page 4360 ]

page 4 entitled "Theory and Practice, " the editorial states:

"It will also be interesting to see whether the wide discretionary

power given to the minister to alter municipal and regional district bylaws

when he considers them to be contrary to the public interest of the province

will be used properly. Mr. Curtis has explained that this is part of a trade-off

in which municipal councils and regional district boards are being given more

autonomy in planning land use and will resolve situations in which local regulations

are in clear conflict with broader provincial powers. 'We will be using

the powers sparingly and with great care and discretion.' Fair enough, but

can Mr. Curtis guarantee that a future minister in another government will do

the same? Of course not.

"What is needed in addition to the provision in the bill for an appeal to the cabinet against a ministerial order altering a bylaw is a requirement that such measures be referred to the Legislature for approval. The minister should be required to give the Legislature his reasons for such an order and justify them if called upon to do so. Similarly, cabinet decisions on appeal should also be placed before the House. It is the Legislature, and not an individual minister or the cabinet, that should be the judge of what is in the public interest of the province and what is not."

Now that was one of the milder responses to this grab for power that the minister has made. Let me read another one. It appeared in The Daily Colonist, April 2,1977. It's an interview with the chairman of the Capital Regional District, Mr. Jim Campbell. Referring to some reaction of regional politicians to this assault on the integrity and the autonomy of local government in British Columbia, the

article reads:

-They were most apprehensive about a

section of the legislation which would give the minister a veto over any zoning and planning decisions by municipal councils or regional boards. Capital regional board chairman James Campbell said what the minister was in effect saying was municipalities and regional boards could do their own thing as long as he agreed. 'It is this kind of massive conceit that is a danger to democracy.'

" 'This proposal, ' he went on, 'was beautifully inconsistent with the minister's past attitude toward local government.' "

Even Alderman Robert Wright of the city of Victoria was moved to criticize it and said:

"Alderman Robert Wright, chairman of Victoria city council's planning and zoning committee, was very critical of the minister's proposed veto power in municipal zoning matters. 'I can only hope the minister will use this power sparingly.' "

Next, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read into the record the reaction of the municipal council in Prince George. On the front page of the Prince George Citizen, dated May 3,1977, there's an

article entitled: "Aldermen Fear Planning Chaos, " subtitled "Changes in Act."

If I may refer to the remarks of the mayor and another alderman, aldermen were outraged also by sections of the proposed Act which give the Municipal Affairs minister a 90-day veto power over city development decisions. " 'That goes too far', said Alderman Art Stauble. 'He can do this whenever he wants?' he asked rhetorically. The mayor replied: 'It's real fascism. You've got just 90 days. I think you should at least go to court about it."'

Well, that's one review of public reaction to this bill, Mr. Speaker. We have The Vancouver Sun telling the minister that no minister, present or future, should be entrusted with this power and that only the Legislature itself should have the final opportunity to determine whether or not municipal or regional bylaws affecting zoning and planning matters should be overturned.

We have the chairman of the Capital Regional District calling this bill a danger to democracy and a massive conceit on the part of that minister who personally appears to have the subtlety, the sensitivity and the knowledge to decide what the public interest constitutes and what it does not, and who will personally make those decisions, the only appeal being to the coalition cabinet, of which he is a member.

Then we have, Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Prince George, hardly a political supporter of my own party, I might point out - hardly a New Democrat in disguise or anything else - describing this bill as "real fascism".

The only group that stands to gain from the minister's power to personally rewrite municipal and regional law is that group in the province whom we describe somewhat charitably as Socred developers. Only the people with the car of the minister have a chance of getting in his door and having the bylaws rewritten. Only developers who have failed to persuade local government to do their bidding will benefit from a new law where the Minister of Municipal Affairs can do it for them.

I suppose it shouldn't surprise anyone at all that these amendments, Mr. Speaker, derive from the notorious and discredited Bawlf committee, itself headed by a former developer. It was a committee that met in secret; that was improperly constituted in the first place; that until scandal hit it, refused to publish its transcripts, and indeed over and over again has been the subject of enormous criticism

[ Page 4361 ]

throughout this province for the way in which it chose, quite happily, to meet with developers, land speculators and others of that like, and refused to meet in public with any representatives of the public, such as tenants' associations, ratepayers' groups, community planning groups and the rest. It's no surprise at all that legislation which clearly appeals to developers in such a generous way should itself derive from that particular report.

Now who stands to benefit from this legislation? I'd like to talk about a company, Mr. Speaker, that stands to benefit from this legislation. Shall we call it Blue Eyes Development? That's the name of the company. It's a holding company.

Now what has the minister done on behalf of Blue Eyes Development over the last little while, Mr. Speaker? Well, you may recall that last year he gave Blue Eyes a vote. Last year a company called Blue Eyes Development, shall we say, had the opportunity to vote as if it were a human being in municipal elections in this province. This year the minister granted to Blue Eyes the opportunity to council for development permits if they found they couldn't obtain their way and have anyone else do their bidding any other way other than by planning for a development permit.

This year as well, of course, it gets a very friendly minister who, if he is so moved, can rule on their behalf and overrule municipal or regional government wherever it wishes.

So what's happened to old Blue Eyes, Mr. Speaker? They get a vote. They get the ear of a minister who is famous for his friendliness to developers. They get development permits. And now they get

Section 28. If it should appear that the solitary vote which they got last year isn't enough to overturn a municipal election - if it appears that the merit of their argument is so thin and the weight of it so light that they can't persuade a municipal council to do their bidding - they can now go to a Minister of Municipal Affairs and get him to do their bidding for them.

If the development permit is refused by a municipal council, once again old Blue Eyes can go to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and get him to do their dirty work for them. If they can't even come to an agreement on the development permit, he can rewrite a bylaw wholesale.

This is a most generous minister. Some of my colleagues have been critical in the past of this minister for being cheap with municipal government. Indeed, I suppose there are some grounds for being critical in that regard. But what he's done for the Blue Eyes Development Corporation of this province is really quite remarkable. It's a gift! It's a huge, generous Christmas present, day in and day out, year after year. That's what he's given them, and he asks us to trust him. How sweet and touching he is! He asks us to trust him. Would the minister himself trust a New Democrat minister with that power? Never.

Not on your life. Even if the minister should change parties for the fourth time and ask to join us, I don't think we'd have him all the same, I'm sure, even then. We wouldn't trust that particular minister nor any other I can think of with that sort of authority.

We are totally opposed to this section, Mr. Speaker. We find no grounds whatever other than political ones for supporting this bill, and that kind of politics we abhor. Only developers with the ear of the minister stand to benefit from this power. No one else does. No municipal government does; no regional government does - only Socred developers who know how to get into the office of H. Curtis stand to benefit from this provision.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

We can see no other merit in it. He asks us to trust him and he knows full well he wouldn't trust any other minister himself. It may be suggested by unkind persons that this particular minister....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, we do not refer to members of this House by their names. I would ask you to refer to the hon. member as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

MR. BARBER : Will do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Some uncharitable people might suggest that this particular minister is even more open than most Socred ministers to the imploring preachments of developers. Some people would suggest that the minister himself likes to hear from these guys, and some would even go so far as to suggest that these developers actually contributed to the Social Credit Party in the last election. Indeed, in their own ranks they have a few of those people. However, I wouldn't suggest that at all. If indeed it is possible, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is not unusually susceptible to the blandishments of Socred developers, then one wonders why else he might find it necessary to bring in such

an Act. The minister tells us he'll use discretion but he confesses that there is no appeal, save to the cabinet of which he is a member. There is no public hearing, there is no requirement even to publish the results in The British Columbia Gazette.

I'd like to quote, if I may, briefly from a remarkable book called "The Conservative Mind." It's an anthology of some of the principal critical examination of conservative thinking, from Burke to Santayana. I've been spending some time recently looking at this book and I'd like to talk, if I may, Mr. Speaker, about the principle of this bill as stated by John Adams who, in the 18th century, had a remarkably prescient analysis to offer of what happens when ministers like this demand power like this. He's talking about the danger of any man, no

[ Page 4362 ]

matter how well intentioned, attempting to obtain for himself personal power that cannot be controverted by the legislative process, save in a general election booting him out of office. John Adams, in the 18th century, had this to say about such a minister, Mr. Speaker:

"It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men

unfit to be trusted with unlimited power. The passions are all unlimited. Nature

has left them so. If they could be bounded, they would be extinct. There is

no doubt they are of indispensable importance in the present system. They certainly

increase too, by exercise, like the body."

What John Adams has pointed out to us, Mr. Speaker, is that the more any human

being exercises this particular muscle - that of power and authority that cannot

be challenged - regardless of their wickedness, their weakness shall prevail

"It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men

unfit to be trusted with unlimited power."

The minister is asking of this House unlimited power, with appeal only to the cabinet of which he is a member. The minister is asking us for something which, were he in opposition, he would never have stood for, even for a moment. The minister is asking us to overlook his own weakness, and that of any other holder of public office, in a radical and dangerous departure from the traditions of local self-government in this province.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, it will lead to deals, it will lead to allegations of scandal and corruption, and it will lead to charges of malfeasance in office. It will lead to a situation where developers may meet in private with a minister to make their case. It will lead to a situation where in private, to the cabinet, they may make their case again. It will lead to situations where developers will indeed, on occasion, I predict, be able to do through the minister what they couldn't do through their local government. Why does the minister want to get himself into this kind of trouble?

The minister is not a wicked or a corrupt man, and no one has ever alleged it. The minister, personally, pecuniarily, will not gain from this. Who will gain? The interests that his party represents will gain, and they alone gain from this legislation. That is a risk he is apparently willing to take. It will lead to charges of scandal and corruption because, in private, developers will ask this minister to do their bidding when they couldn't get a municipal council to do it for them. That is precisely what it will do. It is legislation which, in our view, Mr.

Chairman, does not belong in the province of British Columbia. It is legislation that should not be supported by any honourable member of this House who has any respect whatever for the parliamentary traditions that limits and restrictions shall be placed on the power of ministers. I believe honestly, Mr. Speaker, that were you personally in opposition and we had brought in such a foolish bill, you would have voted against it. I hope you have the guts to do it when this bill comes forward for a vote. No minister - ours or theirs - should be trusted with this power.

No minister, except for wrongful purposes, should ever use it. No minister should have it. I promise, should our government get back into power, this

section will be rescinded instantly. We have no need for such power on this side of the House. That minister shouldn't have any need for it either.

This is a bill that will take us down the road to tyranny. It is a bill that will take us down the road to a kind of tyranny where one man purports and presumes to have the personal knowledge of the public interest. On the basis of that wholly personal and arbitrary definition of the public interest, he will be conceited enough to think that that justifies him overruling any municipal or regional government. There is no municipal board in this province to check that minister's power. There is no appeal in this province, unlike in others, to halt or impede the flow of his personal decisions.

There is no requirement in this province, under this Act, unlike some other provinces, to publish the decisions, to gazette them, and to hold public hearings.

The minister will tell us that others are doing it; I presume he's looking that up right now. The minister's reply will not stand. No other province is doing it like this minister hopes to do it. This province shouldn't do it either. It leads down the road to unchecked power in the hands of one man. It leads to a very peculiar and special kind of tyranny in the field of local government. We reject it absolutely.

MR. GIBSON : You know, I would like to vote for this bill in many ways. It has a lot of desirable features which I will go through and enumerate. I want to say I have a lot of faith in the minister. I think he's been managing his department in a way which has been consultative and sensitive to the public interest. Certainly the way he's been dealing with municipalities in my constituency has been very fair. So for those two reasons, because the bill has many desirable features and because of the minister, I'd like to vote for it.

MR. WALLACE : Let's have the bad news, Gordon.

MR. GIBSON : Well, I'm not going to vote for it. I don't know if the government considers that bad news because I think they're going to win the vote anyway.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Let us know when you're going to vote for one.

[ Page 4363 ]

MR. GIBSON : We try and be evenhanded in these things. I vote for the good ones and against the bad ones. When are you going to get that straight? She loves me, she loves me not. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm overwhelmed by a couple of very adverse factors in this bill. As far as the personality of the minister is concerned, he won't be there forever. So let me say that unfortunately even my faith in him and friendship for him is not going to be sufficient for me to vote for this particular bill.

Now let me just go through the bill, giving a few comments on what I see as the more important areas.

The idea of three months of registration for voters in a municipality I thin