1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1797 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Termination of government employees. Mr. Hanson –– 1797

Youth employment programs. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1798

British Columbia Teachers' Federation. Mr. Ree –– 1798

Mr. Barrett

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

On the amendment

Mr. Lockstead –– 1799

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1802

Mr. Skelly –– 1807

Division –– 1812

Mr. Barrett –– 1812

On the amendment

Mr. Lauk –– 1817

Amendments To Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1983 (Bill 12). Hon. Mr. Ritchie.

Introduction and first reading –– 1821

Amendments To Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983 (Bill 7). Hon. Mr. Ritchie.

Introduction and first reading –– 1821

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today I'd

like to introduce my sister-in-law, Pat Michael, and her friend Gary

Walsh. They are accompanied by Glen and Shirley Bath from the Capital

Regional District. The other two are from the interior of our province.

MR. R. FRASER: The two people I'm going to introduce, who are

in your gallery, came from Labour-oriented Australia, just to see us

with our progressive legislation. Would the House please welcome my

cousins, Dr. and Mrs. Ian Chester from Brisbane, Australia.

MR. GABELMANN: In your gallery this afternoon is the mother of a very dear friend of mine. I'd like the House to welcome Mrs. Ann den Hertog.

MR. REYNOLDS: On behalf of me and the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), there are a number of people in your

gallery that I would like to introduce. They are from the Asian Pacific

Rim, students who are attending New Summits College in Vancouver. In

the gallery with them is Mrs. Peggy Lee, who's a student counsellor;

Lila Chen, the chairman of the board; Dr. Raymond Rodgers, the

president; and Mr. Edward Strang, the vice-chairman of New Summits

College. I'd like the House to make them all very welcome.

MR. CAMPBELL: In your gallery today is a constituent of mine,

Darren Blois, from Vernon. He's going to the University of Victoria,

and I'd like you to make him welcome, please.

MR. ROSE: In the members' gallery, I would like the House to

welcome old friends of mine from Victoria, Bill and Jean Creese, and

they are accompanied by my first wife Isabel.

MR. PARKS: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce

to the House one of the new persons in our Social Credit caucus

research staff and his very charming wife: Charles Lugosi and his wife

Olwin.

Oral Questions

TERMINATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Provincial

Secretary. Last week members of the government, who asked not to be

named, informed reporters that 400 additional government employees will

be fired between now and March and a further 3,700 will be chopped next

year. Has the Provincial Secretary decided to inform the 400 involved

that their jobs will no longer exist? Has he decided to advise them?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome the first

member for Victoria back to the House after his prolonged absence.

No, there has been no notification contemplated at this time. I

would like the member to identify the particular ministries in which

he's relating that there are going to be some terminations.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary is the

person responsible. People under his ministry, under his authority, who

have authority for government employees, either directly or indirectly,

are advising the press that 400 jobs will be cut. Why does he feel that

the opposition should have the responsibility for this? This is

something that the government has undertaken in a callous way — to chop

government employees....

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please.

MR. HANSON: I'll continue this as a supplementary if I can't

get an answer on that from the minister. Is the Provincial Secretary

not aware that that kind of statement — it was covered in the press —

puts a cloud of uncertainty over all public sector employees? Is he not

aware of that, and is he not aware of the fact that banks are not

loaning government employees money? I've had accounts of that. They are

not allowing leased accommodation to government employees; mortgages

are being denied and calls are being made to personnel officers. Why

will he not come clean with these people involved?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly the question is out of order on several grounds. The member may rephrase the question.

MR. HANSON: Is the Provincial Secretary aware that those

kinds of informal reports to the press create a cloud of uncertainty

that hangs over the livelihood of government employees?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Asking a minister to confirm or deny press reports in question period is out of order.

MR. HANSON: Does the government have plans to fire 400 more employees between now and March of next year?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, first of all I hope the member

recognizes the fact that newspapers have made mistakes in various

reports, and there is always the possibility that this is one of those

occasions. But I think that the member should really address that

question to the specific ministry to which he is referring, because any

notices of intention of terminations originate from specific ministries

and not from the Provincial Secretary's office. So what I'm saying to

you, Mr. Member, is that you are addressing the question to the wrong

minister. Address it to the specific minister who might have some

intention of notices of terminations.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Is the Provincial

Secretary's office not advised by the various ministries of government

employees to be terminated? Does your ministry not receive notice from

the various ministries of the cuts?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Notices of terminations come out of specific ministries. If you have some concerns about any

[ Page 1798 ]

particular cutbacks that might be emanating from a

particular ministry, I think you should direct that question to the

proper minister and not to the Provincial Secretary.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Labour. The Canada Employment Centre reports that 50,000

British Columbians have exhausted their UIC benefits in the past six

months. Many of these people have been added to the welfare burden of

British Columbia taxpayers. Has the government decided to increase the

$40 million allotment under the employment development account for

special employment initiatives?

[2:15]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, no, not at this time.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Some 25

percent of British Columbians under age 25 actively seeking employment

are out of work. What initiatives has the minister taken to promote

youth employment, especially for those who are denied access to

post-secondary education because of cutbacks in the student assistance

program?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, an open-ended question in itself elicits an open-ended answer, and I would....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd be happy to give an open-ended answer, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for the question. Of course we've had a number of

initiatives in this government to help both young people and others to

gain employment. Mr. Speaker, our youth employment program this summer,

which was both for students and other young people out of work, was the

most successful program in the history of this province for youth

employment. Last year about 8,000 young people took advantage of that

program. This year it will be closer to 10,000 or perhaps 11,000

people, with the increased funds that the government provided for that

program. In addition we've had the most successful experience in Canada

with our pre-apprenticeship programs and with our simulated

apprenticeship programs.

I'd like to tell that member about our simulated apprenticeship

programs, because that program was especially for those people....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The Leader of the Opposition thinks

that's funny, but I'll tell you, Mr. Leader, that's the best program in

this country for making sure that.... One of the indications of the

economic recovery is that one of the simulated apprenticeship programs

— an electrician program — at the college in Kamloops was cancelled

this year because all of the young people found jobs, most of them in

the Tumbler Ridge area. So I make no apologies for the programs that

this government has, and the most important of those programs is to

continue to develop the kind of economy that will flourish in British

Columbia and make sure that our young people, and everyone else, have

jobs to go to in the future.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, is the minister suggesting that

because his programs are apparently so successful and have led to

results that he's happy with he is content to see one out of four

people under 25, who are actively looking for work, without work in

this coming winter? Is he happy with that number?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker. No one would ever be

happy with any unemployment. Whatever the unemployment rate is, it's

always too high. This government understands that. That's why during

the election campaign — which that party over there lost on May 5 — and

later, in the programs that we have been developing, many of which are

going to be before this Legislature in the next several months as we

sit here to debate those important issues, we put the emphasis on the

economy's recovery and on the private sector being allowed to get

healthy enough to make sure that that figure comes down rapidly.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, if the provincial government

programs are so successful, why is it that while recovery is taking

place in every other part of this country British Columbia's economy

continues to decline, and our unemployment figures continue to rise?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I guess what you....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Daimler Dave! I've got to show you these

to remind you of the times you hired all the Daimler limousines in

London, mister former Premier of British Columbia. Daimler Dave at his

best in London, living off the fat of the trough, Mr. Speaker. Daimler

Dave the strike-out king: three times and out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll say again, Mr. Speaker, no, we are

not satisfied; yes, our programs are successful; and yes, they will get

more successful. Rather than putting all of our children and our

grandchildren and their grandchildren in debt with some kind of

airy-fairy 1930s public works program, we are going to see the private

sector provide the drive to build this province.

BRITISH COLUMBIA TEACHERS' FEDERATION

MR. REE: I have a question for the Minister of Education.

Last week there was a meeting of the teachers of the North Vancouver

Teachers' Federation. Less than 50 percent of the teachers were

present. At that meeting they were being instructed with respect to

participating in a Solidarity petition this coming Saturday. At that

time these teachers were intimidated because they were told that if

they did not participate in the petition or participate in a potential

general strike later they would lose their status with the BCTF and

thus not be able to teach in B.C. If they do lose their status with the

BCTF, may they teach in the public system in B.C.? And does the

federation have the authority to expel them if they do not participate

in this petition, or in a general strike, if one is called?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise you that the member who asked the question approached me

[ Page

1799 ]

about it earlier, as a matter of fact about an hour ago, and I made the appropriate

inquiry. I am not particularly interested in the names of those involved; frankly,

it is not my business. However, I did look, and yes, the School Act is clear:

there is a provision that it is compulsory for all teachers to have membership

in the BCTF before they are eligible to teach in a public school in British

Columbia. I might say, offhand, I think that is probably wise. I believe everybody

should be a member of the BCTF. I understand, through some inquiries, that this

matter has been debated in the House before; I am told that the last time was

in 1976. I would respectfully suggest that any particular organizer

for teachers in any school district who makes a statement like that, without

even contacting the executive or table officers of the BCTF.... I

would suggest that they would be somewhat alarmed that such a statement

would be made by one of their members in the field, particularly to

hold over an alleged threat that their membership will be withdrawn.

I thank the member for bringing the matter to my attention. There's

really not much more I can say except that they do have the authority

to withdraw, but I would say that would be highly unlikely.

MR. REE: A supplementary question, through you, Mr. Speaker,

to the minister. Was I correct in hearing that they can expel a member

if he would not participate in the conduct of this petition this

weekend, or if they did not participate if a general strike was held?

Is that what I heard. Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker. It's not for the Minister of

Education to look into the reasons for policies or decisions made by

the BCTF. What they do is entirely up to them. I would suggest that any

action like that would be highly unlikely.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary question to the Minister of

Education. I would ask the minister to explain to this House, in this

very serious matter the member has raised, what right the BCTF has to

arrogate to themselves power to look at people's files and punish

people that the cabinet has now taken unto itself under Bill 3? How can

we allow the BCTF to do that when the cabinet is going to do it? How

can we allow private groups to have this authority when only the

cabinet will be allowed to investigate people's files?

I want to know and be assured by the minister whether or not he will

stop anybody from taking powers that cabinet is now going to have in a

free society. I want to be sure that police don't have this power

either. Will the minister assure us of that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Will the minister assure us of that?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that there's a question in there for the minister if he cares to answer it.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, before we engage in a supplementary, I must

determine if there is an answer to the first supplementary. There's no answer,

hon. member. The bell terminates question period.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 9.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued debate)

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to the Chair recognizing

the member who has adjourned debate, perhaps we could have some order.

If the members are going to discuss matters other than the amendment

before us, they might wish to do this in some other area.

The member for New Westminster on a point of order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that this is the

kind of chaos that's created when we have a totally uncommunicative

government who never inform anybody what's happening.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I was just extending the

member for Mackenzie some courtesy and notifying the House I was going

to recognize him as soon as all members of the House had arrived at

some order. Now on the amendment to Bill 9, the member for Mackenzie.

On the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do

appreciate having the opportunity to complete my debate on this very

important piece of legislation. It never rains but it pours. This

morning we were on other municipal amendments, and this bill, along

with Bill 7 and Bill 12, I believe, has to be considered as part of a

package. They are all intertwined. This bill does give us some cause

for concern.

As is well known and has been reported by, the press.... We have a

new Clerk. You look good there. You should be there all the time, Mr.

Premier.

Mr. Speaker, back to what I was hoping to get on with. This bill has

been referred to many times as the Spetifore Amendment Act, and in

effect gives the government the right to overrule regional boards,

regional planners, municipalities, the Land Commission.... Is the Land

Commission still in existence. or have they been scrapped'?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're on their way out.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They're on their way out — the Land

Commission, that is. What I'm saying is the cabinet is taking unto

itself, under this particular bill, the power to take out of the

agricultural land reserve any land it wishes to. There have been many

documented cases over the last several years where friends of

government and the cabinet have attempted on behalf of their friends

and colleagues to get land out of the agricultural land reserve. Only

public pressure and public opinion in one or two cases have prevented

this from

[ Page

1800 ]

happening, but under this bill we're sure that it

will happen. In some instances we won't even hear about it. The

Minister of Forests keeps hollering across the floor: "Misleading."

Well, if he's interested, we can go through well-documented accounts

and editorial opinions from all over the province in dealing with this

bill.

[2:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I'll have to ask the Minister of Forests to withdraw the term "misleading" please.

If the minister simply withdraws, that will satisfy....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, there's no implication that

member was intentionally misleading. He is misinformed, and through his

misinformation he is inadvertently misleading the people in this

chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Provincial Secretary on the same point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: My point of order is on the request to have

the Minister of Forests withdraw that remark. It's been long-accepted

parliamentary custom in this House that that particular terminology is

acceptable. When it's not acceptable is when a member says that he's

deliberately misleading. That's when it's offensive.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests made that quite

clear. The Chair accepted that point of order, and the minister has

satisfied the House. The member for Mackenzie continues.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, we do

have a standing rule which provides an opportunity to members of this

House if they feel another member, in his or her speech, has made an

incorrect statement. That is covered by our standing orders. I think

that it's an abuse of the rules of this House for that minister to make

remarks like that when my colleague here is trying to present his case

and his opinions on this particular bill. It is covered by our rules,

and to let him make remarks like that would be completely wrong. There

is an opportunity for him to make a correction if he feels an incorrect

statement has been made.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point is well taken. I'll recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs next.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, the member for

Mackenzie, in his opening remarks, is misleading the House. I will give

you evidence of that. He opened up with his remarks....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will advise the Minister of

Municipal Affairs he is now entering into debate, and he will have

every opportunity to do that at some length during this amendment to

Bill 9. I think we have resolved the matter, hon. members, to the

Chair's satisfaction.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it is not resolved in respect

to the House. The bill does not give anyone the authority to remove

land from the agricultural land reserve.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be correctly taken as part of the debate, which the minister may wish to enter.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to

get up and finish off the few minutes I have left. But I want to make

this statement in regard to those last points of order. I'm not going

to reflect on the points or the ruling, but I want to tell both of

those ministers that I have never intentionally misled this House.

Never! They may not agree with what I'm saying, and that is their

privilege and their right, and as my colleague pointed out, they have

the opportunity to correct those statements. But there is no problem,

and that's....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You're ruining a terrible speech. You know that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests on a point of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just want the member from

Mackenzie to be perfectly clear in his mind that I know that he, as an

honourable member, would never intentionally mislead the House. I tried

to make that very clear. I simply said that he's misinformed and is

inadvertently....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the matter has been well canvassed. The member for Mackenzie continues on the amendment to Bill 9.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I accept the explanation.

Mr. Speaker, there are two other items I want to discuss under this

bill before I have to take my seat. I want to read the explanatory

notes on this bill, which are very short, so that the minister will

remember what those notes are. "Official plans are being eliminated..."

Regional districts will lose their autonomy — he nods his head yes.

We've determined that many times in this debate. "...as a deregulation

measure to streamline the development approval process and to

strengthen the autonomy of municipal government." If you want to talk

about misleading the House, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the part that

says "strengthen the autonomy of municipal government." Quite frankly,

nowhere in this bill — not in one

section or in its principle — does it

strengthen the autonomy of municipal or regional governments. It

removes autonomy, Mr. Speaker. If I am incorrect, why did 600 municipal

delegates at the UBCM convention in Penticton just a week ago ask that

minister to withdraw this bill? This bill was introduced without

consultation with regional districts, with municipalities....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Wrong again.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Who did he talk to? His uncle on a council

somewhere? That doesn't count. The process that should have taken place

is that a legislative committee....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, my

understanding is that we are discussing Bill 9, not the method by which

it was produced, the consultation that took place or those things that

took place at the UBCM convention

[ Page 1801 ]

in Penticton last week. I would suggest the member

address the bill under debate in the House right now, rather than what

happened in Penticton.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, the strict principle of the item

before us now is a hoist motion. I'm sure the member for Mackenzie can

relate his remarks to the principle of the hoist.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I'm trying to give you reasons why the

bill should be hoisted. This bill was introduced without consulting

elected officials and planners and people actually involved in local

government.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Wrong!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll tell you, I am right, and 600 delegates at the convention in Penticton last week will back me up.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just read the minutes of the convention that

you supposedly attended, where you were condemned by the delegates, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forests has a

sense of humour, but he does disturb the debate. I wish he would go out

back to Lillooet and start chasing some of those spruce bugs that have

been bothering him — one bug at a time. They will keep him occupied for

a few weeks and let us get on with our speech.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote very briefly, if I may, from an editorial which appeared in the Times-Colonist on Friday, September 9, with regard to this bill.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Bad reporting.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister says: "Bad reporting." Well, why don't you take it to the Press Council if it's bad reporting?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: What good would that do?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We're not here to debate that. I'm just

suggesting that if the minister has a problem, why doesn't he take it

to the Press Council?

I don't want to read this whole editorial, because it's quite lengthy.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You might as well read it all.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I really don't have the time. I've only got about five minutes left.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have 11 minutes? Well, I'll read this much

of it, because there are two other items I want to touch on before I

sit down. This particular editorial, Mr. Speaker, reflects the feelings

of most elected municipal and regional board officials. administrators,

planners and treasurers in the municipalities in our province. This

editorial is entitled: "Ritchie Displayed Stunning Naivety."

"Suppose a cadre of military planners drafted a

five-day battle strategy. Can you imagine their general then dismissing

them with the argument that he would not need their expertise for the

next five days?

"Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Ritchie is a little

like that hypothetical general. Just the other day the fledgling

minister...."

He's a fledgling; he's proved that in the number of

bills he introduced in debate in this Legislature. He displayed his

ability at the Penticton convention, where he was heartily and

resoundingly....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Endorsed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No. I was going to use a much stronger word, but I don't think it would be acceptable in this Legislature.

"Just the other day the fledgling minister maintained

that once an official municipal plan was in place, planning departments

were no longer needed, and the plan could be updated by consultants

from the private sector every few years." What a bunch of nonsense! "'I

fully believe that once an official municipal plan is in place there is

no further need for planning personnel.' were the minister's exact

words."

Are you telling me that this

article is not correct? That you were

misquoted? If you were misquoted, why don't you take it to the Press

Council? Why don't you sue the reporter, the editorial staff, the

paper? You would you know. Mr. Minister, you would sue that paper if

you thought you had a leg to stand on. You would sue it in a minute,

but you won't, because they're right. By your silence you admit it.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It's not important to me.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, it's not important to you? Fire people.

Lay them off. No regional plans. Pull land out of the agricultural land

reserve and give it away to your friends. Sell it. You don't care, do

you? For all I know you probably got rich that way. I'm not accusing

you of that, but I don't know that.

The

article goes on to say: "That view displays a remarkable

ignorance of the problems and pressures faced by municipal governments.

Victoria Mayor Peter Pollen" — remember him? He's a friend of yours,

isn't he? — "labelled Ritchie's comment 'mindless.'" That's going a

little far. I'm not suggesting that, even in this House where we can

say things which we can't say in the hall. I'm just quoting the

article

as written. It is also frightening when one remembers that this is the

minister who links the province with local governments who have a

missing link. "A few days later Ritchie had apparently been persuaded

that municipal councils should indeed still take primary responsibility

for managing development in their own communities." Well, that's a

contradiction. One day you're saying: "Take it away. Throw them out.

Fire them." And a few days later you say: "Well, they should take the

responsibility."

I think the last part of this

article was ruled out of order in this House two days ago.

[ Page 1802 ]

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I see I only have about one minute left. I move that the House do now adjourn.

[2:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Schroeder

Bennett

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Reid

Ree

Parks

Reynolds

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order

under standing order 20. In recent days the House has been repeatedly

abused as a result of frivolous motions to adjourn. On occasion the

motions, while frivolous, are in order, but on other occasions the

motions are already in violation of the orders of the House. This has

been followed by appeals to the Chair with the Speaker's rulings having

been challenged. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you could make it quite

clear when a motion to adjourn is not in order, so that members

challenging the Chair under such circumstances would know that they are

guilty of disorderly conduct under standing order 20.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at this time the Chair indicates

to the member that the previous motion was clearly in order. While

there may be times when the points of order put forward by the Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications could be considered, this

is not one of those times.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. This morning Your Honour dealt....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair has concluded the matter. We're not open for debate.

MR. D'ARCY: Okay. On Bill 9.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. D'ARCY: We're on a hoist on Bill 9. One of the reasons we

need to give the government a significant amount of time to reconsider this

and other centralized authoritarian, legislative pieces which they've put

before the House is the the problem we just saw with what, we thought, was one

of the more intelligent members of the government benches. Obviously the government

benches are extremely tired: they caved in this morning at 5 o'clock. That

very same point of order was raised this morning, and Your Honour ruled on it.

If the member for Vancouver–Point Grey had been working and paying any attention

at 5 o'clock this morning, he would not have raised that frivolous point.

In any event, on Bill 9 and the hoist thereof and the reason.... I'm

just giving some background, Mr. Speaker, as to why the government needs a break.

Even their more intelligent members are failing to attend the deliberations

of this chamber and making mistakes on frivolous matters.

We want to make it very clear that Bill 9 has absolutely nothing to

do with local autonomy. It's interesting that back when the Social

Credit government was a populist movement, and actually cared about

people, they brought in planning. In spite of what the minister and the

member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson) and other apologists for the

government have said, planning at the municipal level through the

Municipal Act and regional district planning was not and is not a

socialistic and communistic plot. It was not brought in by the New

Democratic government. I don't even know whether the New Democratic

Party of the day even endorsed it.

Planning at the municipal ministry level and the regional district

and municipal level was in fact brought in by the original Social

Credit government — the one that cared, the one that really believed in

decentralization, the one that really believed that less government is

good government and the one that listened to the people. There was a

concern about not only local control but the direction that municipal

development might take, and even development in unorganized areas that

were not incorporated.

I am sure you know what I mean, because I am quite sure that coming

from the Fraser Valley you have areas in your constituency that are not

covered by municipal boundaries. Certainly there is a need, not to cut

off the options of property owners and cut down the rights of

individuals but simply to coordinate the interests of one property

owner or developer with others and with the general mandated interests

of the community as shown by the people whom they elect. I think it is

very important that the electors of each individual community do elect

and give a mandate at the municipal level. The government apologists

are always talking about their mandate. "We have this 49 percent

mandate, and even though 51 percent voted against us, we can do

whatever we want and we will do whatever we want." The fact is that

other levels of government have a mandate too. Throughout the sixties,

the seventies, and into the eighties, through two changes of

administration....

Very few members of this House were members when these changes were

put into place. Municipal voters are the ones who actually pay the

property taxes and actually see their commercial, industrial and

residential property taxed. Under Social Credit those taxes go up

drastically each and every year, far and beyond the level of inflation.

A real increase is seen almost every year. When those voters go to the

polls on election day, they have been giving mayors, aldermen and

regional district directors a mandate to carry on with planning both at

the municipal level and at the regional district level. This is not an

isolated incident. Anybody who has paid close attention to what local

government is doing,

[ Page 1803 ]

taken an interest or been a member of local

government will know. I am sure there are a number here in the chamber

who have. I assume everybody who has run for this chamber has had a

public interest in local affairs long before they considered running

for provincial office.

[3:00]

In municipality after municipality, large and small villages,

townships such as Chilliwack and Esquimalt, large cities such as

Vancouver, far flung regional districts with the massive areas to be

concerned about and throughout the entire province with very few

exceptions, overwhelmingly those taxpayers and those electors have

given a mandate to aldermen, mayors and regional district directors who

believed in planning. They believed in the proper management of

developmental resources within their jurisdiction. They believed in

coordinating their plans and interests of their own property owners

with the plans and best interests of property owners in adjoining

municipalities and adjoining neighbourhoods, and even in adjoining

regional districts.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), I know, is a

new kid on the block as far as knowing very much about municipal

activity. But he should have bothered — and he still has a chance, and

that is why we still want to give him that chance — to consult with

municipally elected people with a mandate, whether or not they have any

political persuasion at all. They may be non-partisan, they may lean

toward the Social Credit Party or the Liberal Party — although there

are not too many Liberals in B.C. — the New Democratic Party, the

Conservatives or perhaps they have no politics. If he had consulted

with them, he would know that in the West Kootenay, the Fraser Valley,

up and down Vancouver Island, the Peace River and in the extreme

northwest, regional district after regional district, electoral area

after electoral area, village after village, town after town, township

after township, city after city, not just once or twice, but in each

and every election, which we all know come every two years at the local

level, we are endorsing people, of whatever political persuasion, who

believe in coordination and planning.

The minister and his treasury bench colleagues, who are so committed

to centralized authoritarianism, have plenty of time to take a second

look. They have plenty of time to consult — to go out there and listen

to the people who gave them that 49 percent mandate. Those people not

only pay the property taxes but they pay the provincial taxes, the user

fees and the interest on the Social Credit debt, which will be close to

$18 billion by the end of this fiscal year. Those people out there want

and need more economic activity in this province, but they are prepared

to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to coordinated

planning and development of their municipality and their regional

district.

We hear this rather hackneyed expression about how the government or

the people want to turn the clock back. Well, this is one case where I

wish they would go back to the early or middle 1960s, back when the

B.C. economy was growing steadily and inflation was low. They could

even consult with the architect of municipal and regional district

planning, Mr. Campbell, who I understand is living in happy retirement

up there on Cortes Island. He's still around; they could consult with

him.

They could even consult with that fine fellow from Kamloops, Phil

Gaglardi, who was Minister of Highways at the time. He had a concern

about this; he believed in planning and very much believed that the

provincial government or some authority should have some jurisdiction

over planning as it related to the Ministry of Highways and the

tremendous expense that the Minister of Highways could be and often is

subjected to by municipal decisions or willy-nilly development which

happens like Topsy. You find out that you suddenly need another tunnel,

another bridge or another four-lane highway, and perhaps you have other

facilities which are underutilized and other infrastructure which have

cost the taxpayer a tremendous amount of money. So he had an interest

in this. And we all know, as often happens with government, that Flying

Phil and Dapper Dan did not always agree on everything, but

philosophically they knew that something had to be done to coordinate

planning and give some local autonomy. The result, of course, was that

the Highways ministry took certain planning functions and had certain

responsibilities and participated, which they still do. That's one

thing the Social Credit government have not chopped. There is still a

municipal programs branch of the Ministry of Highways that participates

with local government when there is an arterial or major highway

running through a municipal area. It participates on projects such as

drainage, curb and gutter, and so on, which, no doubt, you're very

familiar with. You have the Lougheed Highway running right down through

the middle of your riding.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, they may cut that out too, but that's one area where there has been participation.

So this is one area where the government really could set the clock

back. They could go back and consult with some of their own Social

Credit members who really believed in decentralization and local

autonomy. They didn't want to have to make what some people might say

are "silly little local decisions" down here in the ivory tower. They

said that this may seem like a minor thing to people here in Victoria,

but perhaps it's a major issue in Rossland or in Maple Ridge. They

didn't want to be telling the local people what to do, so they said:

"Here. you make those decisions." And they were right,

As with any development, of course, we know that regional districts

and municipal planning, and so on, have matured over the years. They've

taken on more functions, such as overall responsibility for hospital

participation in capital financing, for coordinated sewer and water

projects through regional districts and for recreation as well, which

is very, very good, especially in an area like mine where you have a

large industrial tax base and a number of dormitory or bedroom

communities who do not have a large industrial tax base or even much of

a commercial base. This sharing of revenue for various functions was a

real step in the right direction. People of all political persuasions

endorsed that. Now the minister wants to set the clock back and change

that.

I want to go back for a minute to talking about the mandate the

government claims they had and their commitment to democracy. Again,

apologists for the government — there are very few available in this

chamber; I suppose they're all doing research for the speeches they're

going to give in their spirited defence of the minister and this

bill.... I know that most of the government members have been staying

in the precinct area, and I know that they're all working very hard.

The member for Seymour is waiting for his chance to speak; he demanded

it on Monday afternoon — whenever that was: 72 hours ago — and he's

still waiting for his chance.

[ Page 1804 ]

I hope he takes his chance as soon as I finish these few remarks that I have to make.

One thing that is particularly relative to Bill 9 and why we want

the government members to reconsider is that they said: "Well, we don't

want to particularly step on the toes of the municipality of Delta,"

because they want to do something different from what the GVRD wants. I

would love Delta, Castlegar and Prince George to have all the local

autonomy they possibly could have. But the Greater Vancouver Regional

District represents the electors who elect the people to the GVRD. They

represent a very sizeable portion of the population of British

Columbia, and certainly a sizeable proportion of the population of the

lower mainland.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give some of the lazy government

members who are not prepared to take their place in debate the

opportunity to get on their feet and back that minister — particularly

the members for Surrey and North Vancouver. If they were backing what

their duly elected, mandated municipal councils had to say, they'd be

supporting this hoist and opposing this bill. If they were doing their

job....

MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take exception

to the member's comment about the lazy members of the government side.

When I look at the Votes and Proceedings and look at the number

of people present from the opposition's side during the votes on

September 20 — 7, 12, 10, 9, 9, 9, 9. Out of 22 members on that side,

only once were there 12 members; the rest of the time there were fewer

than 10 members. Fewer than half of their members were present in this

House, and they're calling us lazy! I take exception to that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests. On the same point of order?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, another point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The member was just getting into high flight on an excellent speech;

however, his speech was about all the wrong things. He was talking

about which members of this party have spoken and which have not. I

think he should really address his remarks to the hoist motion before

the House at this time.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I welcome what the member for Yale-Lillooet has to say. Certainly we're going to get to the hoist motion.

What I was relating to the House, Mr. Speaker, was the fact that the

mandated, elected people who represent the actual people who pay

property taxes in Surrey and in North Vancouver have said that they

don't like this bill. They want their members to stand up and defend

the actual property tax payers of North Vancouver and Surrey, but all

they get is silence.

In passing, I do want to thank the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) for giving me such strong support. What he

has said is that a few opposition members debating these bills before

the House, with all seriousness and with good research, are in fact

putting to shame all 35 government members. I think that is very

significant.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the plans of

regional districts. I know there are many regional districts with

coordinated planning agencies in many municipalities. As I said

earlier, this provincial government has 49 percent of the support of

the population of B.C., and that's why they have a majority in this

House. However, because they have a majority.... Certainly the greater

Vancouver area is a smaller proportion than that. There's no question

about it. As much as I said I would love to see the municipality of

Delta have all the local autonomy they possibly could have — the same

way I would like the city that I live in to have all the autonomy it

could possibly have — while Delta is growing, thriving and has a

progressive council, the fact is that it represents only 5 or 6 percent

of the people of the lower mainland. Are they to make a decision? Dan

Campbell, Phil Gaglardi and W.A.C. Bennett recognized this. Are they to

be allowed to make decisions which would cost the other 90-plus percent

of electors and property owners tremendous amounts of money in

infrastructure? Are they to be allowed to make a decision in times of

restraint that will cost this provincial government and the taxpayers

of B.C. hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure perhaps for

another tunnel under the Fraser River, a greater urgency for bridges

across the Fraser River, extended water and sewer lines and for the

tremendous cost of people commuting to and from their place of work?

Those were the reasons that nearly 20 years ago a Social Credit

government that cared made these changes. That's why I want the

minister to consider the historical precedents for why these sections

of the Municipal Act were put in place, and act on them.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker, I alluded a while ago to the fact that election after

election, throughout the length and breadth of this province, electors

went to the polls knowing that their personal property taxes, their

cost of doing business, their cost of running their industry, would be

directly affected by the kind of people they elected on municipal

election day. And everywhere, almost unanimously, they have, over a

period of nearly 20 years, elected people who believed in coordinated

planning. It was not only good aesthetically, but good economically for

their areas. It saved money. People got the best value for their

dollars. It protected neighbourhoods and property values, and led not

to stultifying growth but to organized growth, responsive to how people

voted on election day.

I can't say whether this is an isolated case or simply peculiar to

my own area, but Rossland-Trail has in it what's called the east end of

the Kootenay-Boundary Regional District, which is, from a population

point of view, roughly three quarters to 80 percent of

Kootenay-Boundary. About 20 percent of Central Kootenay Regional

District lives largely in the city of Castlegar and its immediate

environs. Like every other MLA, I have a number of citizens who

consider themselves developers, or who own property which they would

like to see developed at some point in the future, whether for

residential, commercial or industrial purposes. For years regional

district planning didn't just sort of zap in there; it's a laborious,

slow, exasperating process. You no doubt know that from Prince George,

Mr. Speaker. It doesn't just happen. You wait for years with these

draft plans; there are public meetings in the electoral areas and

different communities; and people grab microphones and there are great

fights; they come down to Victoria with the plans, which are rejected

for some reason by Highways or Municipal Affairs. On and on it

[ Page 1805 ]

goes, while the developers, or the people who wish

to develop their property, tear their hair. I sympathize with them,

because they don't know what they're going to be allowed to do, or

where they're going to be allowed to do it; what areas are going to be

recommended to go into or come out of the agricultural land reserve;

what areas are likely to be zoned residential — five-acre lots,

half-acre lots, and so on and so forth.

Gradually, though, Mr. Speaker, after a period of agonizingly slow

consultation, regional district after regional district, city after

city, town after town, electoral area after electoral area, have put

their development plans in place. They've come down to Victoria and

been approved by the Municipal Affairs planners, who I understand have

been cashiered summarily by the minister in many cases — or will be.

Eventually these came back; and, Mr. Speaker, I said I didn't know

whether my area is perhaps different in this respect, but the

developers, and the people with property which they thought they would

like to develop. were delighted. They were delighted that at long last

these regional and municipal plans were in place, so they knew where

the heck they were going. They knew what they could do, what they

couldn't do. Of course, we know these plans are not set in stone; they

can be amended, democratically. There's a process, just as zoning in an

area can be changed either over a whole area or neighbourhood, or on an

individual property basis. Municipal councils and regional district

boards have that option. But at least people who had property knew

where they were going with that property, and municipal taxpayers had

some idea of what they had to do in terms of arterial street

extensions, bridge construction, additions to sewer and water systems.

Even the utility companies — private companies in my case, thank

goodness: Inland Gas and West Kootenay Power and Light — had the

opportunity to do their planning. B.C. Tel and so forth. Even the

television cable companies could plan their budgets.

Now, through Bill 9, the minister says: "Scrap it all." Years of

work, years of consultation, years of thoughtful planning, years of

responding to what individual property owners wanted or didn't want,

are being thrown out the window because the minister is too insensitive

simply to go back and consult, even with his own Social Credit

supporters, at the local government level. They don't believe in Bill

9. They believe in planning and coordination of plans between regional

districts and municipal government. The Union of B.C. Municipalities,

as we all know, had a convention recently with delegates of all

political persuasions from all over the province, and while they want

to like the minister, and maybe do on a personal basis because he's a

very jolly fellow, they feel he has a lot to learn. A chap who claims

he is, or was, a Socred supporter said that if the Minister of

Municipal Affairs was going to a municipal school of the K to grade 12

level, he probably should start at the K level. We know he's not

necessarily not bright, and I know that he's capable of learning

quickly. Given six months, which is what we're asking for in this

hoist, he could learn a lot.

Because he has a mind-set of not wanting to agree with the

opposition, he probably wouldn't want to pay attention to what we're

saying on this side of the House. I'm simply asking that he talk to

people out there who have a mandate and are elected at the local level

— maybe some people in the Fraser Valley, maybe even the mayor of

Abbotsford. Who knows? Whether they came from large semi-rural or rural

municipalities, medium-sized urban areas or traditional townships such

as Oak Bay, almost unanimously the people who have a mandate from the

taxpayers at the local level said they want the minister to withdraw

the bill. In this motion we're simply asking the minister to reconsider

Bill 9 six months from now. The municipal councillors went much

further, demanding that he withdraw Bill 9.

The term "planning" has somewhat of a tarnished image, and I think

that is unfortunate. For some reason it has come to imply that planners

will sit in regional district and municipal government offices and play

God with property interests, people, neighbourhoods, land and water

resources. That is an unfortunate connotation because it is simply not

true. The odd planner may be on something of an ego trip. That does

happen occasionally. Politicians fall into that trap, and even

clergymen occasionally. But most planners are professionals who follow

policies set down by the people who hired them — the people with a

mandate, the people elected by the property owners and taxpayers. If

the planner doesn't follow the policies laid down by the elected

people, they're in the same position as a deputy minister: they're

insubordinate and could see their employment terminated. If the elected

mandated people at the local level don't like any or all aspects of

what a planner might recommend, or the various options put out, they

have the option to change it. Of course, if the people don't like what

the elected people do, every two years they have the option to change

them.

Let's talk about what we might loosely define as the dictionary

definition of planning. Planning is not designed to prevent, or to

order people into doing specific things. In other words: "You must do

this. You cannot do that." That's not the role of planning. Planning is

an attempt to identify all of the bad development scenarios and options

which their masters, or they themselves, might recommend as being

costly or undesirable, or not in keeping with the societal needs of the

community involved. Having identified those, it is also the job of a

planner to identify all the good ways that development may take place

in a given neighbourhood or set of hectares in a democratic

municipality. Lots of good things could happen. and the planner wants

to identify those things as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano rises on a point of order.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 8: "Every

member is bound to attend the service...." I notice, as far as the

opposition is concerned, that we only have two members present in the

House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for his comment. It’s

not really a point of order. Standing order 8 has been canvassed to

some significant degree in the past three or four days. I think we

could really dispense with any more concern about it. A quorum is in

attendance, and I think that's the real business of the House at this

point.

MR. D'ARCY: We're unlikely to have a quorum called for. I

understand the government members are so exhausted that most of them

are seeing double. But I want to thank the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano for constantly giving me credit and complimenting

me. He's constantly giving us credit for one or two individuals being

able to take on that entire rag-tag bunch of authoritarian centralists.

[ Page 1806 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Forests on a point of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could

clarify something for me regarding the matter of a quorum. I understand

it requires a minimum of ten in the House. Is there nothing in the

House rules that says that there should be some members from the

opposition as well as from the government side to make up that quorum?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Standing orders are silent on that, hon. member.

[3:30]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate your

understanding and the fact that you're protecting me. I only have a

certain number of points that I want to make on this hoist motion on

Bill 9. I only have a limited number of things I want to say. I'm quite

sure that without these frivolous interruptions by the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) and the member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr.

Waterland), I would have finished my remarks 10 or 15 minutes ago, and

the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) could have taken his

place in the debate, because he has demanded to be heard. I don't want

my colleague from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) hogging the floor here as soon

as I'm finished. I think it's about time that we had a government

member — perhaps an articulate person like the member for Yale-Lillooet

— get up here and kill us with charisma, backing his colleague from

Abbotsford.

If we could somehow remember back to before I was so rudely and frivolously interrupted....

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: One member apologizes, anyway.

I want to point out that planning by regional and municipal

government was not started by some sort of socialist, communist

conspiracy — duly elected or not. Planning through the GVRD or any

other regional district was demanded, in fact, by a Social Credit

government that understood and cared. That's why planning was put into

place. They had that in mind, especially the greater Vancouver area,

when they virtually ordered the local level of government to get on

with the job; to stop competing for development, whether it be

residential or industrial; to stop duplicating services; to stop

competing with each other over who could have the biggest, best and

most expensive sewer and water system; and to stop placing demands on

the provincial government to build new tunnels and bridges when there

could have been coordinated development.

Did that light just come on?

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Does that mean I have 30 seconds?

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Three minutes. I'm still learning the rules, Mr.

Speaker, but I know you're going to make sure I don't forget the ones I

do learn.

Mr. Speaker, before I sit down I want to say that we know that the

mandated people at the local level know what they're doing. That's why

they have a triple-A bond rating when they go to borrow money. Compare

that with this provincial government, which has had its bond rating

downgraded. That's one of the reasons that the government has to go to

extreme austerity. It's because of their mismanagement of the economy

and the provincial finances. When they have proved that they are good

managers — all around the province; and they have a mandate — why would

we want to take authority from them and centralize it here, under a

minister who admits that he has never had any experience in local

government? With that thought, that the government and the minister in

particular take six months, I would now move that the House do now

adjourn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 34, that motion cannot be made.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I have observed other members of the

House make a motion, before the red light goes on, that the House do

now adjourn. Mr. Speaker, sometimes in consultation with a Clerk and

sometimes on his own, has accepted that motion, and on the basis of

that precedent, with all deference and respect, I would ask you why

that precedent is not being respected in this case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When the motion was made in respect to the

red light.... This may be a point, but it was not the point I was

making. The point I was making is that pursuant to standing order

34.... It says: "...but no second motion to the same effect

shall be made until after some intermediate proceedings shall have been

had." That is why I would take not that motion, but perhaps another

type of adjournment motion could be accepted.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I was under the understanding — and

perhaps you are correcting me — that a speech on a hoist motion for

Bill 9 is intervening activity.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We had a similar motion not more than 40 minutes ago, and we have had no other intermediate proceedings.

MR. D'ARCY: Even though I find you a fine fellow, I feel persuaded that I must challenge your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you don't agree with the standing orders, you simply ask leave to have your motion accepted.

MR. SKELLY: Are you refusing adjournment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I am saying that there is another process.

MR. REE: The member did indicate that he was slow in

learning, but there was no intervening House business since the last

motion. In addition, he says he has challenged your ruling. But there

is no ruling to challenge, because the House rules are set out in our

standing orders. I presume we can carry on with the hoist of Bill 9.

[ Page 1807 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order relative to something

the member for Rossland-Trail said, he called me "the articulate member

from Yale-Lillooet." I don't know what articulate are but I hope it

don't mean nothin' nasty, and he's gonna hafta withdraw.

MR. D'ARCY: I withdraw the offending remarks,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member withdraws. Could we have the next speaker on the amendment to Bill 3.

MR. D'ARCY: I understand that you are not accepting my

challenge. Therefore I would move adjournment of this debate until the

next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There we are!

The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that

member has no access to the floor. His period of time for debate was

over, and unless he had made the motion prior to his time expiring, he

is in no position to gain the floor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is absolutely correct, and the Chair cannot accept that.

I will ask the members to proceed on the amendment to Bill 9. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Alberni.

MR. SKELLY: I appreciate the opportunity to address the

members of the Legislature on the hoist. I am sorry to see the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) in a confused and agitated

state, wondering whether he should leave the House or stay in and

listen to these pearls of wisdom, because I think the reasons for this

hoist motion are very sound. I think the minister is a little put out

about my comments on the battle of Dunkirk during the late hours last

night, and that is why he is leaving the House. Well, that is

unfortunate, because I think the reasons for this hoist motion are very

sound, and the minister should at least be present in the House to hear

these reasons.

I understand that Hansard is up there doing a Trojan job

through every hour of the day and night, recording all of the

worthwhile debate that has taken place — on this side of the House, at

least — and they are having difficulty getting the Blues out on time,

Mr. Speaker, which is your direct responsibility. I am not faulting Hansard

for that, because they are doing a tremendous job with the resources

they have. So it is difficult. Before this bill reaches the stage where

we can vote on it, the minister will not have had an opportunity to

review my remarks in the Blues, so I think it is important that he be

in the House while the debate goes on. It is unfortunate that the

minister, in his confused and agitated state, found it necessary to

leave the House.

MR. D'ARCY: That's why he needs a six-month rest.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, we are only too willing to give that minister a six-month rest.

The minister generated a lot of confusion among some other people

over his remarks in the last few weeks concerning regional zoning and

the planning functions of municipalities and regional districts. Mr.

Speaker will recall that in the discussion around Bill 9.... I'll

quote a few lines here from the Vancouver Province of September 4, in which the minister is reported to have said:

"...Bill Ritchie wants to abolish planning

departments in B.C.'s cities and towns, the Province has learned. 'I

fully believe that once an official municipal plan is in place, there

is no further need for planning personnel.... Official municipal

plans should be reviewed once every ten years and that job can be

contracted out to the private sector,' he said.... 'You don't need

planners to tell you where to put a park or a sewer line....'"

Can this minister have been serious? Some people have to tell you,

as the engineer from North Vancouver can tell you, that you shouldn't

really build a sewer line that runs uphill. Sometimes you need experts

to tell you what's uphill and what's downhill, especially in that

government, which seems to be going downhill all the way.

MR. D'ARCY: And what smells!

MR. SKELLY: And what smells when you do it the wrong way. So,

Mr. Speaker, this amazing minister generated a tremendous amount of

confusion, as you will know, in municipalities and regional districts

when he made these wild statements. "The head of Vancouver city

council's planning and development committee, Alderman Marguerite Ford,

called Ritchie's scheme 'outrageous.' 'What do you say to someone who

is that dumb?'" I wouldn't have called the minister dumb, Mr.

Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We've got a little problem here, because you

cannot use that device to bring unparliamentary language to the House.

I'll ask you to withdraw that remark.

MR. SKELLY: I'll withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Also, hon. members, this point has

been discussed many times, but even though we might be citing from a

document or a newspaper — something that has been produced outside of

this House — we should avoid, when in this House, not relating our

remarks to the parliamentary courtesy of avoiding using a member's name

and instead using the riding he represents or his portfolio.

MR. SKELLY: I'll endeavour to remember that in the future.

Where was I? "The head of Vancouver city council's planning and

development committee" — the lady alderman; I can mention her name —

"Alderman Marguerite Ford, called the member for Fraser Valley's scheme

'outrageous.' 'What do you say to someone who is that dumb?'" she asked

— I suppose referring to the member for Central Fraser Valley. "'How

do we plan B.C. Place?'"

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's still the unparliamentary reference.

The member has withdrawn it, and we'll accept it at that, but if we

could just avoid that type of comment.

MR. SKELLY: "'How do we plan B.C. Place?'"

MR. R. FRASER: We haven't been.

[ Page 1808 ]

MR. SKELLY: That's one of the problems with B.C. Place. It's

been virtually unplanned. The provincial government seized the planning

authority from the municipality, rammed B.C. Place down in the centre

of Vancouver, and didn't pay any attention to the planning constraints

in the area. It has taken a great deal of time and confrontation and

negotiation finally to resolve those issues with the municipality

around B.C. Place,

whereas if they had embarked on a process of

negotiations, respecting the planning requirements of the city of

Vancouver, going through the various requirements of public meetings

and applications for rezoning, then these problems would have been

resolved amicably. There would have been no problems. B.C. Place would

have been one of the least controversial developments in the last few

years.

"'How do we deal with petitions,'" said respected

Alderman Marguerite Ford — "'from residents who don't like their

neighbour's garage?'" The member for Central Fraser Valley, she said, "'will turn Vancouver into another Detroit.'"

Or the comments of Vancouver's planning department:

"...said he was 'saddened' by the minister's

plan. 'The ignorance of the provincial government is such that it doesn't

realize we're already cutting. In the last few years we've cut budgets

and manpower in the name of restraint.'"

"Mayor George Thom of Kitimat, president of the Union

of B.C. Municipalities, said" — and here he quotes the name of the

member for Central Fraser Valley — "'... is eating too much of his

own haggis.'" Well now, that's a racist comment.

"'Ever since he got this job he's had people running

in circles.'" However, Mr. Speaker, one out of four isn't bad:

"National president of the Housing and Urban Development Association of

Canada, Bob Flitton, applauded" — the member for Central Fraser

Valley's — "idea."

In another

article in the Vancouver Sun of September 6, 1983:

"Municipal officials reacted with disbelief Monday to a statement by

Municipal Affairs Minister Bill" — the member for Central Fraser Valley

— "that community development plan revisions could be made by the

private sector every five years." He must have changed his mind within

two days, because it was ten years on September 4. "'Land use and

planning are what we're all about,' said Vancouver's Mike Harcourt.

'Honest to God'" — the member for heaven — "'did he really say that?

This is like a grade 1 student trying to teach a grade 12. I

think...'" — the member for Central Fraser Valley — "'should go

back to school.'"

[3:45]

Mr. Speaker, this member has caused a tremendous amount of confusion

among municipal elected officials and municipal officers by the

statements he has recently made concerning planning, statements that

indicate that the minister does not have a sound basis in local

government or the reasons for municipal and regional planning.

Here are some comments from the editorial pages of the Vancouver Province , September 8, 1983:

"With his ideas about doing away with local government planning

departments, Municipal Affairs Minister...." — and here his name is

mentioned, Mr. Speaker, but we'll call him the member for Central Fraser

Valley — "has elevated to high political theory the notion that cities

and towns should be allowed to grow like Topsy. Even in fairy tales nothing

should grow like that.

"With a logic that reduces simplicity to the

ridiculous, Mr. Ritchie" — sorry, Mr. Speaker; the member for Central

Fraser Valley — "apparently believes that once an official plan for,

say, ten years is in place, you don't need municipal planners to

supervise development. Development can safely be left to the private

sector.

"Much of the urban blight afflicting American cities,

which Canadian cities have for the most part avoided, has resulted from

a lack of planning."

And we all know the examples of that — for example, Dallas–Fort Worth, Mr. Speaker.

"There's nothing wrong with the profit motive so long

as it operates within a framework that suits the community. A framework

is all that planning seeks to ensure."

There has been a tremendous amount of concern in the province about

the statements by the Minister for Municipal Affairs, and about his

apparent lack of knowledge and information on the rationale behind

regional planning and the need for regional and municipal planning.

This is one of the reasons we're concerned about this bill, and why we

feel that the minister should have some time to get a basic educational

grounding in the rationale for municipal and regional planning. That's

why we've put forward this hoist motion, Mr. Speaker. It will give the

minister an opportunity to meet with experts in regional and municipal

planning, an opportunity to check a few books out of the library on

municipal planning and regional planning, an opportunity to talk to

some of the planning personnel in his own ministry — if he hasn't fired

them yet — or in the municipalities to find out what advantages have

accrued to the province and to the citizens of this province from the

fact that our cities and regions are well planned and well structured.

He could talk to the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). That would

be an excellent idea. Talk to the planning people within the Ministry

of Highways who are concerned that if you build a highway at the cost

of several million dollars through a municipal or regional area, and

then have development in an unplanned way around that highway, it

totally devalues the taxpayers' investment in that highway and turns it

into a country street, so that through traffic is choked on that

highway. The public whom we're here to serve are not well served by

allowing development to take place in an unplanned way.

We think this six-month hoist will allow the minister to get in

touch with the reality of municipal and regional planning. I'm sure the

government, just reading through the newspapers of September 4, 6 and

8, when the minister made his wild statements about planning, have

probably seen that there is good reason to support this hoist motion.

And I'm sure that when the time comes to vote on this motion, perhaps

3, 4, 5 o'clock this morning, the government will have been convinced

by the weight of our arguments that we should really give the minister

a six-month try to see what he can learn about the municipal planning

function.

Why would the minister be opposed to municipal and regional

planning, and what has he got against planning staffs in municipalities

and regional districts? Why would he want the government to assume all

the rights in planning for regional districts? I think it's a question

of money, Mr. Speaker, and we're talking about easy money. Some people

in this province, and in this country, work for salaries. They invest

their time in training for a career, either training on the job or

going to university or trade school. They invest their

[ Page 1809 ]

time and energy in becoming productive workers, and they're

generally paid on a salaried or hourly basis. We know from tax

statistics that those salaries are taxed at a higher rate than any

other form of income. Now we see that investing in a career, going to

work and earning a salary is probably the riskiest investment you can

make in this province, because although you don't need that pool of

capital to invest, you're investing your life, your muscles, your brain

in a job that the government may snap away from you in the space of a

few days, weeks or months, and with no reason at all.

The same is true in the private sector. During the worst of the

Depression, the major employer in my community told 2,000 people....

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under

standing order 43 relevance is the key, and I do not see the relevance

of the member's remarks with respect to the topic under discussion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A very good point, hon. member. We are

dealing with an amendment to Bill 9, the Municipal Amendment Act, and

I'm sure the member can relate his remarks to the amendment to that

bill.

MR. SKELLY: I appreciate the member's concern, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps he was sleeping during the first part of my argument, where I

asked why the minister would be opposed to regional planning. I said it

was a question of money, easy money. I talked about some forms of

income, and I want to deal with a number of those and show how

differently these forms of incomes are taxed.

Salaries, as I pointed out — and I wouldn't have had to repeat this,

Mr. Speaker, if the member hadn't interfered on the point of order

under standing order 43 — are taxed at a higher rate than any other

form of income, as you well know, being a salaried official. Also, it's

a very risky investment when you decide, for example, to go into a

political career. In some ridings you put your job on the line every

four years,

Some people obtain their income through dividends and interest, and

that does require a pool of investment capital. Many inherit that pool

of investment capital. Some work for it, assembling their savings and

investing them — they do a fine job in getting a return on their

savings, and the best of luck to them. But their income is taxed at a

lower rate than the income of people who have salaried incomes. If you

don't trust my word for that — and I'm sure you would, Mr. Speaker,

because you would trust the word of an hon. member of this House, as we

all do....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't send him a note.

MR. SKELLY: Don't send me a note that says "Trust me."

From the point of view of vulnerability to taxation, another more

attractive form of income is capital gains, as the accountant of the

Penticton Credit Union well knows, provided he has somebody to check

his figures. The most attractive form of income, from the point of view

of vulnerability to taxes and tax avoidance, is capital gains. I'm sure

all members would agree with that. I'm not questioning that. I'm not

saying it's a tax dodge, because that would be illegal. That would be

worse than rolling back the odometers on a car, and I wouldn't suggest

that any member in this House would do that, or cheat on income tax.

But what I'm saying is that capital gains is one of the most attractive

forms of income because it's less vulnerable to taxation under federal

tax laws, and that makes it the most subsidized form of investment.

MR. KEMPF: I'm rising on a point of order under standing

order 43, Mr. Speaker. Although the story being told by the member for

Alberni is all very interesting, although probably very false or not

quite true....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I withdraw that. But it doesn't show any relevance

whatsoever to the hoist on Bill 9 now before us, and I would ask that

you bring that member to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Standing order 43 with respect to the

member's debate has been raised a couple of times now, and I really

will caution the member that he should relate his remarks at least to

municipal affairs, and more appropriately the hoist amendment on this

municipal affairs legislation. I am sure the member can do that.

MR. SKELLY: I thank that snoozing member for waking up

half-way through my argument, Mr. Speaker, and having difficulty

relating it, since he was sleeping through the first part. I am not

going to go back over the first part; he can wait two or three days and

read the Blues.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: You have to be careful in putting these arguments forward, so that the government can understand them.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: As I mentioned, capital gains are tax-exempt on

50 percent of the product after the cost of the transaction has been

deducted. This is one of the least productive investments as far as the

country is concerned, and as far as the people of British Columbia are

concerned. For example, an investor could buy Krugerrands, the price of

those South African gold coins could increase, he could sell

them....

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I distinctly heard you warn the

member now on his feet about relevance in this House. Clearly the

present debate, because it holds no relevance whatsoever to the hoist

motion before us, is an abuse of this House. It is an abuse of every

member of this House, and I would ask that you either bring the member

to order or ask him to take his seat.

[4:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is once again well taken.

I will remind the member for Alberni that in spite of some levity that

appears to be existing, standing order 43 is quite direct and

self-explanatory. I have to advise the member that unless he continues

his debate in order he will be told to discontinue his speech.

MR. SKELLY: I am sorry that the member saw fit to interfere at the time he did, because if he had heard the next

[ Page 1810 ]

line he would have been thunderstruck. They say that lightning

doesn't strike twice in the same place, but he would have been

thunderstruck by its relevance. I used the example of Krugerrands to

show that that kind of investment producing a capital gain has no

productive benefit whatsoever to the people of this country. It is a

straight profit-taking effort.

One way of earning capital gains with minimal investment is through

the up-zoning of land. Now you see the relevance of my remarks to this

particular bill, and if that member, slouching back in his chair,

looking at the statuary, had listened to the full import of my remarks

he would have seen clearly the direction in which I was proceeding and

wouldn't have interfered under standing order 43, although it is every

member's right to do so.

We see that one of the ways of getting capital gains, a form of

income that is less vulnerable to taxes.... In fact, it is only

taxed at 50 percent of other forms of income, and therefore is a

subsidized form of income. All of us taxpayers in the province

subsidize that form of income. One way to obtain capital gains income

is through upgrading the value of land through changing the zoning from

a lower class of use — that is, a more restricted use — zoning, to a

higher class of use: that is, less restrictions or more valuable use of

the property through higher-density residential and industrial use.

Does that take the investment of capital? You could get into property

just by optioning the property, a very small percentage of the value;

you don't have to put up very much money at all. You could use your

persuasive talents on regional and provincial authorities who were

responsible for land use planning and zoning. How you use those

persuasive talents is up to you, but there are ways.

We know that the up-zoning of land can produce tremendous profits

for the people who are able to secure that up-zoning. For example, if

you own farmland and a developer comes to you and suggests that he can

pay you twice the value of your land through upgrading the zoning and

make a profit himself, and you're struggling along as a poor

fruit-farmer in Boundary-Similkameen, being forced to tear up your

fruit trees because you're not getting the kind of income out of that

type of occupation, then you're going to be enticed by that developer's

arguments of making possibly double or triple the value of your land.

If you can't make any money in farming, even though it's probably in

the best interests of the citizens of British Columbia, you're going to

succumb to that developer's arguments to up-zone your land for, say,

residential or industrial purposes, or for some other purpose that

attracts a higher land price in the marketplace.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, the former Premier of British Columbia, called

this difference in land priced at its current use and land priced at

its potential use the unearned increment, because it wasn't earned by

the sweat of anybody's brow. It wasn't earned by the intelligence

applied to the development of the land. It was simply earned by having

the land categorized to a different use under the regional or municipal

plan. He called it the unearned increment, and said it should be taxed

at the full rate. Why did he say that, Mr. Speaker? Because the

opportunity to earn money from up-zoning land causes distortions in the

development process, causes cities in British Columbia to develop in

the same way as Dallas–Forth Worth, causes cities and regional areas in

British Columbia to develop in the same way as Detroit, causes problems

with highways, problems with public transportation, problems with the

development and location of public schools, problems that require a

tremendous amount of taxpayers' input to try to resolve those problems

after the fact, when planning tries to deal with those problems before

the fact.

If we have adequate planning in place, it makes sure that the

taxpayers aren't forced to pay for the problems caused by unplanned

development. And that's why we have municipal planning. That's why we

have regional planning: so that the taxpayers don't incur an

unnecessarily increased tax burden as a result of up-zoning of land

which suits only the private developers and private property owners,

and which also produces a subsidized income for people who don't really

earn it and don't really work at it.

So this is one of the reasons why the government wants to abolish

the regional planning process, why the government has this hostility

towards regional and municipal planners, why the minister in

particular.... I suppose at one time or another he or possibly one

of his friends has attempted to make a profit from up-zoning land, and

he's been thwarted by the interests of the public, as expressed through

the regional or municipal plans. I can understand that minister's

antagonism towards the whole process, because there he was, dreaming of

making a tremendous profit that would only have been taxed at 50

percent, and he was thwarted by the planning agencies of that

municipality or regional district — he or possibly one of his friends.

The basic problem with municipal planning is not really the planning

process itself; it's the fact that that form of income, as a capital

gain, is subsidized by the taxpayers of Canada. When the development

takes place, whether planned or unplanned, it's the taxpayers who have

to come in afterwards at tremendous expense to clean up the mess.

I think that none of the members on the government side would object

to the planning process if they would understand some of its most

successful aspects. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), I

guess, after all his comments in the House, has left the House and has

gone face down somewhere. But the Minister of Forests is one member who

would clearly understand the value of the planning process, because one

of the oldest planning statutes in the province of British Columbia is

the Forest Act, passed in 1912. The Forest Act was one of the first

planning statutes designed to protect the land base by assigning to

that land base a certain use, and by denying developers the option of

changing that use, in order to preserve the forest land base which

would be available as productive forest land to us, to our children,

and to citizens of this province forever. There was good reason. Those

men, in this very same chamber, in 1912 — 71 years ago.... It's

hard to imagine that they had the foresight that was required to

protect that forest land base through a planning statute which exists

to this day.

That type of planning is required at all levels in order to reflect

the interests of all people of the province in the development of land.

When we were in government, of course, we passed the Land Commission

Act, which established that there was a provincial interest in the

protection and preservation of farmland. In order to guarantee a supply

of food to ourselves and to our children and to our descendants

forever, we had to establish this provincial interest in farmland. That

was a good statute. Eighty percent of the people in this province, even

those living in the agricultural land reserve, have accepted that that

statute was necessary. Both of

[ Page 1811 ]

those are planning statutes. It's very difficult — or used to be

very difficult — for somebody to take land that had been assigned to

forestry use and to use it for some other higher economic use without

going through a very difficult planning and analysis process. In the

same way it should be very difficult to remove farmland from the

agricultural reserve without going through a series of hearings and a

difficult planning and analysis process, because the interests of the

public must be protected.

We have municipal and regional planning so that the interests of the

community can be protected at the local level. This is a principle

that's been accepted in this country for well over 100 years, because

the municipal governments of this country are extremely important. They

are the governments most closely in touch with the citizens of this

province. They are the ones that are most directly affected by changes

in land use, and their taxpayers are most directly impacted by any

undesirable change in land use which causes problems which might

require additional schools, sewering, water lines, streets and roads,

and garbage service, all of those services financed by the taxpayers

through public bodies. This is the reason why we have municipal

planning.

We didn't always have municipal planning. We didn't always have

municipalities. Do you know, Mr. Speaker — I'll give you three chances

to answer this question — when it was first recommended that we have

municipal governments in Canada?

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: You're wrong the first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The nineteenth century?

MR. SKELLY: Close. You're within a hundred years.

Let me read one paragraph from the report of the Earl of Durham, Her

Majesty's High Commissioner and Governor General of British North

America, this edition published in London in 1902 — but as you all

know, Lord Durham was instructed to carry his commission out in North

America after the rebellion in the colonies in 1837.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, this was a little after Alcibiades and a

little before Dunkirk. I suspect that the Minister of Municipal Affairs

will not have lost family in this engagement. However, Mr. Speaker, my

family came to this country in 1819. My great-great grandfather, James

Skelly, was a private in the Grenville Loyal Sedentary Volunteers at

Grenville, Quebec, and drilled in the defence of this country against

the rebels of 1837.

MR. KEMPF: He'd roll over in his grave if he heard your debate.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, is the green light on? I haven't even got to the end of my speech; that's a shame.

Well, I'll table the Durham report for the members, because I think a lot of them would enjoy reading it.

I move that the House do now adjourn.

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I didn't have a chance to finish my speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will decline, under standing order 34, to call the question.

MR. HOWARD: I challenge that decision, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair hasn't made a decision, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the words that you used were that

you are not going to put the question to adjourn the House, pursuant to

standing order 34. That's a decision of the Chair, and I challenge that

decision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm just standing on one of our standing orders, hon. member. I didn't make the ruling; I'm just standing on the order.

MR. HOWARD: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. You didn't write the rules;

you are just saying to the House that this is what the rule means to

you. I challenge that decision of yours as to what that rule means.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give the guy a break.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right, hon. members, the Chair has been challenged.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

McGeer

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 13

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Blencoe

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this is the third occasion, to

my knowledge, within 24 hours, to which the same challenge has been

made to the Chair on the same standing order with the same ruling of

the Chair having been sustained by the House. I submit to you, Mr.

Speaker, that this is a demonstration of disorderly conduct under

standing order 20 and is an abuse of the House. I would like your

[ Page 1812 ]

ruling on whether or not this constitutes an abuse of the House

under standing order 20 or whether we would need to put a substantive

motion on the order paper to clarify what constitutes disorderly

conduct in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, the Chair would like to consider your suggestion in some detail, so I'll take it under advisement.

MR. HOWARD: On that same point of order, Your Honour, if I

could. I think the minister has probably misread standing order 20 or

not read it at all, which wouldn't be the first time. I think he is

saying for you to operate under standing order 20 that the conduct of

members, without naming who they are, is grossly disorderly. That's

what he is saying. I submit that that's what you can operate under that

standing order.

Secondly, a challenge of the Speaker's ruling on one occasion may be

supported by the House, but on another occasion there is always the

possibility that it might not. We live in hope that perhaps we will be

right sometimes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair will take your comments under advisement as the same time as those of the minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Under the same point of order, Mr. Speaker,

I take it that the Chair will at the soonest possible time give advice

to the House with respect to repeated challenges to the Chair on the

same point of order, when the House has repeatedly sustained the Chair

in its

interpretation of the standing orders of the House. Surely at

some stage this must be acknowledged to be an abuse of the House. As we

all know, Mr. Speaker, the enormous cost to the taxpayers of operating

a House with frivolous delays has to be taken into account in terms of

discharging the public trust.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister.

The Chair will recognize the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre

for a brief remark; subsequent to this remark, the matter will be

considered as closed.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, standing order 20 refers to the kind

of conduct that is disruptive of the House in the face of the Chair. It

has nothing to do with repeated motions or tedious and repetitious

debate or any other kind of conduct which is dealt with under other

standing orders.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, I'm not wrong. I'm absolutely not wrong. I'll

tell you one thing. Let me give a solemn warning that if that standing

order is misused in this House, that will be worse than closure or any

other kind of thug-like tactics that the government can employ.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That will be enough, hon. members. Order, please.

The Chair will recognize the member for Rossland-Trail, very briefly.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm wondering whether Your Honour, in considering

the various points of order that have been raised here, especially the

one referred to by the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr.

McGeer), will take into account that tedious, repetitive, frivolous and

superficial points of order being constantly raised by members of this

House could in themselves not be an abuse of the House under that same

rule 20.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

[4:30]

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join with me

this afternoon in welcoming Jennifer Veale from Saanich and Joan Rojek

from Cranbrook. I would like all hon. members to give them a warm

welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we will now get back to the hoist on Bill 9.

The question is called on the hoist motion on Bill 9.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Blencoe

NAYS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now we will proceed to the debate on second reading of Bill 9.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Thank you,

too, for the advice of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who

doesn't know how many people are getting laid off in other departments.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down and I'll tell you.

[ Page

1813 ]

MR. BARRETT: No, you wouldn't tell us in question period.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I've had the opportunity to

debate a public bill for a private purpose. Yes, this is the Spetifore

bill. It's a public bill for a private purpose. This is the first time

we've had the opportunity of having a government bring in a bill

specifically aimed at protecting the development interests of a couple

of promoters. Let us not confuse the citizens of British Columbia. This

is a great advantage bill. Even the member who owns shares in Dawn

Development heads for the door with a fake yawn — nothing like a little

guilt to get you going.

MR. REYNOLDS: Sell your shares.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, let's have it right out in

the open on a sunny afternoon. This government of promoters has brought

in a public bill for a private purpose. If this bill passes, somebody

is going to make a lot of money. Allegations and speculations are going

to ring through the corridors all over British Columbia: if you want to

get a deal on changing the zoning of land, get yourself elected to the

Legislature, support this bill, and the deal is made. Some people

serving in this chamber used to be on municipal councils. They know

what zoning means.

This is not a new debate in this chamber. When I was a young man —

many, many years ago — there was a Minister of Highways in this

province who had a unique power that was unparalleled anywhere in the

Commonwealth. Do you know what that was? It was amazing. It was the

only highway divining rod anywhere in the world. You know what a

divining rod is, Mr. Speaker. A divining rod is when somebody holds a

dried branch out, walks along and discovers water. Just as the water is

below this rod, power pulls down the rod and they discover a well. We

had a Minister of Highways who had a divining rod in his hand and, lo

and behold, persons close to him would hold this divining rod and they

would discover where intersections were going to be in highways. It was

amazing.

MS. SANFORD: Did that happen in B.C.?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, that happened in B.C. Because of this

magical power of being able to walk along and discover where

intersections were going to be, they bought property there. In our free

enterprise system, having discovered where the highway was going to be

built and where the intersection was going to be, they bought property

there a few years ahead. Then the highway was built and then they sold

the property to a gas station. Then they'd make a lot of money. That's

known as free enterprise and bonkership, as the member from Surrey

develops it. What did that mean, Mr. Speaker? It was better than buying

lottery tickets. Why take a risk? If you just get out there and get

your divining rod and know where the highway's going to go and buy up

the land ahead of time, and bide your time, and if you were lucky, nine

times out of ten the highway went right by and you sold the property

and made a lot of money. You know, Mr. Speaker, some people even got

rich doing that!

MS. SANFORD: Were they Socreds?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, they were Social Credit too. That's coincidental.

But it's an interesting coincidence.

Now, Mr. Speaker, how much productive hard work went into the

investment of money on land where a highway was going to go? Well, you

have to get up early in the morning, get dressed, brush your teeth,

pick up your divining rod and head for the bushes. There you discovered

where a highway was going to go. Then you went down to the bank and

bought an option on that property, maybe put up $10, and then turned

the option into a fortune overnight. I don't want to give this chamber

a lesson in how to make a quick buck, but I was here and I saw it

happen.

Now we've got a bill in front of us that is a new form of

land-divining rod. This is how it works. Up until now, zoning — that

is, the regulation of the use of land — was in the hands of

municipalities. So when they had this ability to plan, the local

burghers would gather once or twice a week, and sit down and

conscientiously plan where the gas station was going to be, where the

housing development was going to be and whose property was going to be

zoned, and there was consistency. Now this caused problems if you had a

lot of land, and you didn't have any logical argument with the

municipal council, and you wanted to sell your land, but your land was

only zoned as farmland, and you knew that if you could change the

zoning to gas station land, or housing land you could make a lot of

money. So what you would do is go to the municipal council and say:

"Friends, I would like my land zoning to be changed from farming to gas

station land or housing development land." In many instances the

municipal politicians would say: "No, you can't build a gas station

there, and you can't build houses there, and that's the end of it."

Let's suppose you are a wealthy, prominent Social Credit supporter,

and you go to the municipal council and the municipal council says no.

You might get mad and go to Victoria, and in your anger approach the

provincial government and say: "Mr. Speaker, you know that I've

approached the lower mainland municipalities and the regional district,

and they won't let me develop my land." Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you

that if you really got angry and you were in the chair, you might go

into the corridor and call all those municipal politicians a bunch of

communists because they won't let you develop your land. Have you ever

heard of a Speaker of the Legislature calling those elected people who

won't let those who want to zone their land get their way a bunch of

communists? That's what happened. Out of that, because of the approach

to the government, we got this bill. Now what is going on here today is

that this is a bill to protect the friends of the government. If you

can't get your land zoned at the municipal level so that you can make a

huge profit, come over to Victoria, talk to a friendly government, and

they'll bring in a little law. This is a public law to help private

people.

[4:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now that we understand the game, let us read what the law says. You

don't need a lawyer for this one, Mr. Speaker. If it passes, all you'll

need is a fat bank account. It'll get fatter in a hurry. What this bill

is going to do — and I read from it.... Even those ordinary

citizens out there who are not wise in the ways of intricate

legislative language will understand what it is. It has one page, and

section (5) says: "The following

section is added...." It is

known in my terms as the Spetifore amendment. I quote: "Elimination of

regional plans and official regional plans. All regional plans and

official regional plans prepared or designated before

[ Page 1814 ]

sections 807 and 808 were repealed are cancelled and have no

effect." The fix is in, gang. If this passes, it means that you never

have to mess around with any zoning at the local level anymore. Just

come over and talk to your happy friends here in Victoria, and you can

have your land rezoned. It's better than the old minister's divining

rod. You don't even take the risk of where a highway's going; the fix

is in before that. In the old days, when you had to take a divining rod

to make money out of highway property.... They've even taken the

risk out of that. They're saying: "Come on over to Victoria. We're

going to pass a law. Sit down and tell us what you need, and we'll do

the rezoning."

Since there are young people in this province who are not yet wise

to the ways of rampant free enterprise, they may go out and use some of

their hard-earned welfare cheque money, put a down payment on a piece

of property, come up to a government member and say they'd like to be

an entrepreneur and produce something — buy a piece of land and

fertilize it in any manner that is customary with those who are close

to the earth. Having spent a few months doing that, they then proceed

to apply for rezoning of the land. That is a lesson in free enterprise

capitalism. The lesson is: get there firstest with the mostest; it is

not what you know, but who you know. And if this bill passes, it means

that if you're friendly with the government you're going to get the

rezoning.

Now that is going to make for some strange friendships. Some people

are actually going to be seen in public endorsing Social Credit. That's

a rare thing. That is a stigma that few people are willing to risk.

However, money does do away with stigmas. And the legislation may be

stigmatized in terms of the approach. So let us understand — in clear

layman's language — that you don't need a lawyer, you don't need a

municipal council; all you need is a friend in government, and the fix

is in. How do I know that, Mr. Speaker — as the minister laughs and

cavorts? He is chuckling with one of the ministers who knows all about

this process. In the case of the Gloucester property — which was a

subject of debate which would be appropriate to this bill, Mr. Speaker

— that Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) showed up at the

hearings. Perhaps unbeknownst to him, his remarks were being taped

verbatim, and he made an appeal for constituents to have their land

rezoned.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Ha, ha! Do you take up the case of everybody who wants his land rezoned?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I take up cases for my constituents.

MR. BARRETT: You see, my friends? The member appears

himself. Oh, it is interesting, Mr. Speaker. Although the minister is

anxious to interrupt, I'll bet you a cup of coffee at midnight — if we

could wager, which we can't — that he's not going to speak on this

bill. Oh, he's going to interrupt. He's going to hurl insults, and you

know how sensitive I am about those kinds of insults. I don't show it

on the outside, but I really cry on the inside when they call me names.

I'll bear those scars, and I'll press on. But you know what, Mr.

Speaker? I'll bet you a cup of coffee that minister doesn't get up and

say a single word about this bill.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, not the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) either. No, sirree, Bob, this is the fix bill.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I'm in fantastic shape. I'll never use legislation like this to make a fast buck, I'll tell you, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's parliament, huh? That's free enterprise?

Mr. Speaker, it's a public bill for a private purpose. Now having

made the case....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, does the member wish to participate in this debate?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, that's good. I was worried that you might

bear some semblance to a commitment to speak in the chamber, other than

heckle. I want to say this: the bill is very simple; it is the fix

bill. No longer will municipal politicians have the right to determine

zoning where gas stations go, where hotels go, where houses go. All you

have to be is a developer and come over here to Victoria, and they'll

impose the decision on the local ratepayers. For those of you who are

developers, those of you who are promoters, those of you who believe in

a fast buck of non-productive work in raising the value of land simply

by rezoning, this is going to be a hallowed day. If this bill passes —

and I think it will — it is going to make a lot of people a lot of

money in a short time.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I may be absent, but I've never been absent-minded.

Mr. Speaker, having drawn the attention of that articulate

rapier-like debater, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), and having

your rapt attention in the chair, I now go on to make the further point

that this bill will allow a lot of people to make a lot of money in a

hurry by having zoning be changed with political influence. I know

that'll come as a shock to a whole generation under the age of 30. But

you know, Mr. Speaker, it has happened once or twice in the world that

politicians do favours for friends.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, they use their influence to use the laws of

the land to prevail on a decision that can make someone a lot of money.

Do you know what that means? If you know what company to invest in

ahead of time, before this bill passes, you're going to make a lot of

money. There has been some speculation that members of this august

chamber, who by their disclosure papers have been participants and

investors in a company known as Dawn Development.... Oh! What does

that mean, Mr. Speaker? What interest does Dawn Development have in

this bill?

[ Page 1815 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: How will this affect it? It means that the poor

ratepayer throughout the province, the poor homeowner throughout the

province, has to pay the speculators' profits. They've got an in with

this government. And when this bill passes, that land is going to be

rezoned. As I stand here and breathe, instant millionaires are going to

be made. You don't have to buy a lottery ticket; just wait for this

bill to pass. If you've got some connections you're going to get rich.

Do you own Dawn shares yet? Not yet. Better run out there and buy them,

because this thing's going to pass,

So that's how it goes. And then when these stories come out in the

newspapers and are fed to the children of this nation, some of them

become cynical about politicians. They say: "Ach! All politicians are

crooked." Well, they're able to make that generalization out of this

specific bill. Some of them are going to hit the gravy train when this

bill passes. All of a sudden some lucky people who bought a piece of

land at a price, when it was zoned as farmland.... When this bill

passes, they're going to sell it at ten times the value because it'll

be rezoned for housing.

Is there anybody in the gallery who has a share in this? If you're

up there, don't smile, don't wave your hand, just hope the bill passes,

and your banker will be smiling for you.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: There is no gallery in debate? Is there anybody

in the chamber who will benefit from this bill passing, Mr. Speaker? I

see a lot of strangers and very few friends, especially when I talk

this way. Isn't it interesting that they've got their heads down on the

tables and are quiet? No heckling, no interruptions. Just get this guy

to shut up and get him out of here. We'll pass this bill and

everything'll be okay, and a lot of people are going to make a lot of

money. If he'd only shut up and get out of here, we'd all be better

off, because it costs a lot of money to the taxpayer to have this

chamber....

For those history buffs, and for the others who were born at the

time who are present in this chamber, in 1837 a British lord came to

this country at the request of Upper and Lower Canada to settle the

problem of local control of the development of property. His name was

Lord Durham. He wasn't Irish, and the problems of Ireland were not yet

known. Lord Durham's progeny are still alive in Britain. As a matter of

fact, I had the honour of running into one of his great-grandsons some

years ago. He asked me if I was from the colonies, where his

grandfather had been. And I said yes, I was from one of the colonial

outposts where political influence still has a hand in how land is

zoned. In his 1841 report Lord Durham wrote a paragraph warning the

citizens of the new, yet-to-be-developed country of Canada about losing

control of land, and the alienation that that would cause to younger

people as the country grew because access to land ownership would be

restricted if it was held in the hands of the few and allowed to come

on the market in a controlled basis to provide vast profits. This is

what he wrote some 140 years ago. He suggested that in the development

of Canada a commission be established to lay out a method whereby the

developing nation could solve its problems. He says:

"The same commission should form a plan of local

government by elective bodies, subordinate to the general Legislature

and exercising a complete control over such local affairs as do not

come within the province of general legislation. The plan so framed

should be

an act of the Imperial Parliament so as to prevent the

general Legislature from encroaching on the power of the local bodies."

[5:00]

One hundred and forty years ago Lord Durham warned that as much as

regional parts of Canada should develop provincial governments, the

provincial government should never be allowed to have the power from

the imperial government to take away from the local administrations the

powers of local bodies that should indeed deal essentially with land.

That was the basic foundation of the disharmony in Canada when he

arrived. Now, because of that, we have built up in this province a

system of municipal involvement in planning by friends and neighbours

and communities in the type of community they want to live in. It was

never questioned before, until we got a brand-new Minister of Municipal

Affairs, who said: "From now on I'm going to bring in this bill and I'm

going to have all that power to myself."

It's open season for the fast-buck boys. It's open season for

speculative land development that adds absolutely nothing productive to

the community, that does not involve any hard work, that does not

involve any rolling up of one's sleeves or pulling up one's bootstraps

and making their way through the system in the free enterprise manner

of slugging. This is a bill to protect those who have friends in

government, to guarantee them that they're going to make a lot of money.

Most British Columbians who have been observers of the Spetifore

land case understand exactly what this bill will do. As a focus of

dispute we have a very large parcel of land, the original owner of

which has sold out his share for some $100 million to a group of

promoters. That group of promoters, becoming the owners of this large

body of land, has for the past period of time been attempting to

influence elected officials at the municipal level to change the zoning

of their land. They have been unsuccessful. I think there are 32

separate governments in the greater regional district board, all of

whom have been accused of being communist by a Speaker. It's the

largest elected body...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: ...of communists outside of the Soviet Union, according to the Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. No reference can be made to the Speaker of the Assembly. I'll ask the hon. member to withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please proceed.

Interjections

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. The member for Delta....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That doesn't apply, either, hon. member. There can

be no reference made to the Speaker of this House or the member for Delta.

[ Page 1816 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Did you read in it...?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You're objecting. Okay.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That has been clearly established.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my own House Leader objects to my identifying the member for Delta, so I will not identify him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw any reference.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw any reference.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you to the House Leader.

An unknown MLA, who was quoted by name in the newspapers, who shall

remain unidentified by me in this chamber, immediately attacked the

whole regional group of elected politicians as being communist because

they wouldn't rezone this land. May Brown was called a commie. The

mayor of West Vancouver was called a commie.

MR. REID: I know them both and neither one of them are commies.

MR. BARRETT: Can you imagine what the good burghers and

citizens of West Vancouver would do if they woke up and found out that

their mayor was a commie? The whole hill would go upside down.

MR. REID: They know better.

MR. BARRETT: Who was it?

MR. REID: He made a mistake.

MR. BARRETT: He made a mistake — whoever "he" was and whose name I shall not refer to because it's against the rules.

MR. REID: He's wrong.

MR. BARRETT: Did he resign?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he just called him a comic; he was wrong but he didn't resign. Anyway, somebody called them commies.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You might as well tar the whole works with the

brush, if you want something. Then that same unnamed member went on to

say, "By golly, by gosh, the Legislature will deal with that problem,

and his prediction was unerringly correct. Lo and behold, we have this

bill. This is not the anti-commie bill, folks; this is the

line-the-pockets bill.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You couldn't play me back to myself. My friend,

you play me back anytime; I live with a conscience. You'll be voting

for promoters who are going to skin the people of this province for

tens of millions of dollars when this bill goes through. It is sleazy,

but it's crass. You've got to give them credit for having crass. You've

got to give them credit for having gall. They didn't fudge it and they

didn't beat around the bush. When they're out to get in the trough,

they make it plain, boy: here's the trough; go to it; put your snout

right in and make all the money you want.

This is farmland. When this bill passes, it'll become housing land.

Every planning democratically arrived at at the municipal level will be

thrown aside. Unfortunately....

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as much as the government is upset,

you will notice that I am not wrong. Had I been wrong I would have been

called to order.

This is the developers' bill. Now the question is going to arise:

have those promoters ever given any money to the Social Credit Party?

Yes. I'm not going to raise that question. Not me. But somebody writing

for a newspaper might. Some citizen touched with a level of cynicism

beyond my awareness might say, "Golly gee, if I'm going to make tens of

millions of dollars out of them passing this bill in this House, maybe

I should help their campaign funds." Don't you all think that would be

accidental, coincidental and nothing to do with payola? Somebody out

there is going to ask that question, but hopefully it'll be a letter to

the editor, and forgotten.

How much time, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ten minutes, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Ten minutes

left in a career that has been distinguished by egg-timers and,

perhaps, mistakes by voters. Nonetheless, one thing about it....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, no, it's not hard for me to understand this

bill. This is just a straight, crass grab for money. This is a payoff.

It is. And the Spetifore investors are going to get rich when this bill

passes the House. That's a statement of fact. Anybody who's got shares

in that company is going to make a lot of money when this bill passes,

and some of the members of this assembly have shares in that company

and they're going to make a lot of money. There is actually a

section

in our standing orders that says that people who have a pecuniary

interest in legislation should not vote. It will be interesting to see

if those members, who on their disclosure papers show that they own

shares in Dawn Development, will absent themselves from this House when

this vote is taken. Because they will make money as soon as this thing

passes. Those lucky members who bought shares in Dawn Development will

make a lot of money as soon as this bill passes.

Interjection.

[ Page

1817 ]

MR. BARRETT: If I were wrong, I'd be thrown out of here for making

such a charge.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member. I'