1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1219 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement

Visit of Korean industrialist. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1220

Oral Questions

Committee on operations of ICBC. Mr. Macdonald –– 1220

McKim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 1220

Tariffs on imported fruit. Ms. Sanford –– 1221

Farm income insurance for orchardists. Ms. Sanford –– 1221

Mr. Stupich

B.C. Systems Corporation. Mr. Nicolson –– 1222

Orders of the Day

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

Ms. Sanford –– 1222

Mr. Stupich –– 1226

Mr. Mitchell –– 1231

Mrs. Wallace –– 1234

Mr. Howard –– 1238

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as members of this House will

know, our neighbour, Washington state, lost one of its greatest sons

last week. I refer, of course, to the late Senator Henry "Scoop"

Jackson, who passed away last Thursday night at his home in Everett,

Washington, at the age of 71.

Senator Jackson served his state and his country well during his 45

years of public service, the last 31 of which were in the United States

Senate, where he became its third-ranking senator. He was a dominant

member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and chairman of its

Energy Committee. In this latter capacity he handled much of the major

American energy and environmental legislation of the past two decades,

and he counted a number of environmental protection laws among his

greatest achievements. Perhaps British Columbia, as well as his home

state, helped influence his concerns for the environment.

Senator Jackson was a familiar figure in our province. He came here

from time to time to fish and hunt and to enjoy our natural beauty. The

senator was a great friend of Canada over the years. Indeed, besides

having an interest in Canada, he understood us and was a good neighbour.

Senator Jackson backed the recently concluded draft agreement on the

Skagit Valley between British Columbia and Seattle City Light Co. He

also put his support behind the recent draft salmon interception

agreement between the United States and Canada, which is of great

importance to this province.

British Columbia and Canada have lost a good friend and neighbour,

and I would ask my fellow members of this House to join with me in

offering British Columbia's deepest sympathies and condolences to the

American people, to our neighbours in Washington state, and most of all

to Mrs. Helen Jackson and her family on the loss of Senator "Scoop"

Jackson.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few words to those expressed by the Premier.

It was my fortune to have known Senator Jackson both politically and

also as a participant in an international panel on terrorism in Tel

Aviv some three years ago.

Senator Jackson came out of the roots of the working force of the

Pacific Northwest. He was part and parcel of the early Democratic Party

reform movement during the latter years of the Roosevelt

administration's influence. During and after the war Senator Jackson

was always a close friend of British Columbia and Canada. He shared the

same sense of regionalism that all of us in this part of the continent

have. In his disputes with his own central government he always took a

broader view of the region, and in that sense his interests in

Washington coincided with British Columbia spokespersons in Ottawa.

W.A.C. Bennett and Senator Jackson found themselves on the same side

on many points of view affecting the region that became regional

interests rather than having an international border be a hindrance to

those regional interests.

Senator Jackson was alive, alert and concerned about the changes in society,

and gave of himself throughout all those years to those changes. He served through

difficult years. His loss was swift and tragic and it is felt, as the Premier

has said, as much here on this side of the border as in his home state. It is

true we have lost a friend of Canada. It is true we have lost a good fighter

for this region. But it is more true that we have lost a neighbour, because

that indeed has always been our relationship with the Pacific Northwest and

the American representatives of that area. We too wish to extend our condolences

to his family and to the citizens of Washington state. May his successor, whoever

that person is, remember the spirit and commitment that Senator Jackson had

to this region, albeit sometimes in disagreement but never without his eye on

a common goal for this area.

MR. SPEAKER: If it is the wish of the House, we will undertake to send the appropriate message.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We have four United States neighbours

visiting us from the great state of Florida: Mr. Ralph Clayton, a

former state senator from Florida, and his wife Clara; also "Red" and

Virginia Bell, who are on their way to Alaska. I would like all members

to pay them a very cordial welcome.

MR. HANSON: There are four representatives of the building

trades unions of the Victoria area here today: Mr. Rick Ferrill from

the carpenters' union; Mr. Madeley with the labourers' union; Mr. Roy

of the sheet metal workers; and Chris Jones with the B.C. and Yukon

building trades. Would you join me in making them welcome.

MR. MOWAT: In our gallery today we have a very personal

friend of mine, Mr. Tom Anderson. He is from that great constituency of

enlightened Surrey.

[2:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On behalf of my colleague in

Vancouver–Little Mountain I would like to ask the House to welcome one

of the hardest-working executive members of our constituency, who is

also the vice-president of the British Columbia Social Credit Party,

Mrs. Hope Wotherspoon.

Mr. Speaker, I also ask the House to welcome Mr. Hector Politeski

and a group of people whom he is hosting as visitors to the House today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today is the mayor of the

recently designated town of Osoyoos, who graduated, you might say, from

village to town: Mayor Bob Frost. I would ask the House to welcome him.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This is a very special day in the history

of British Columbia. because it was ten years ago today that our

Premier was first elected to represent the people of Okanagan South.

During that ten years he has given outstanding leadership to the people

of British Columbia, I'm sure that all members of the House on both

sides would like to wish him well in his next ten years.

[ Page 1220 ]

VISIT OF KOREAN INDUSTRIALIST

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.

I wish to advise the House that I will be meeting today with the

president of Pohang Iron and Steel Co. of Korea, General Park. The

reason for General Park's visit to British Columbia is to honour the

opening tomorrow of the Greenhills coal-mine near Elkford in the

Kootenay district, a joint venture between Westar and Pohang Iron and

Steel. I'm pleased to say that both the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will be attending the

official opening tomorrow.

Korea is British Columbia's second most important coal customer,

after Japan, and Pohang is the major steel company in Korea. Of its

coke and coal requirements, 35 percent is provided by British Columbia

coal producers, namely Fording and Westar. I first met General Park in

Seoul, Korea, in October 1979, and I'm pleased to see that efforts to

attract the Korean market have come to fruition in the opening of the

joint venture between Westar and Pohang.

During my meeting with General Park this evening, I know all members

of this House will want me to take the opportunity to extend to the

people of Korea the profound outrage of the government and the people

of British Columbia at the tragic events and loss of life surrounding

the shooting of a Korean commercial airliner last week by a U.S.S.R.

military pilot.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition offers the

Premier and his two colleagues our best wishes in talking with the

South Koreans, potential coal customers for British Columbia.

Obviously, we all want better markets for both our raw and our finished

resources, and we wish the government luck.

Also, the official opposition would ask that the Premier include us

in his remarks in terms of the shooting down of the Korean aircraft.

Oral Questions

COMMITTEE ON OPERATIONS OF ICBC

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs — more corporate than consumer; the

minister in charge of ICBC. Has the minister a task force or committee,

one including his own deputy and the deputy of another department, and

Mr. Holmes and the ministers looking in, that has as one of the

subjects of its agenda the privatization of ICBC, and ways and means to

carry that out? Is any such committee or task force holding meetings?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, there is a committee reviewing all

operations of the corporation that I'm responsible for. That has been

public knowledge for some time. Since the May 5 election we have

advised that we would be reviewing Crown corporations and their

operations. My responsibility is ICBC, and we're evaluating the

services it provides to the public, and where efficiencies can be

achieved.

MR. MACDONALD: Would the minister then give us the personnel of the committee and who is chairing it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, my deputy minister is chairing

that committee. At this time I'm afraid that I can't give you in detail

all the members who sit on that committee.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary question. My information is

that the committee has a proposal before it to turn the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia over to the private sector — to take us

back to 1971 and the 105 private companies and the insurance dollar

never seeing the light of day in the province of British Columbia in

terms of investment. I'm asking the minister: has there been a decision

to allow that committee to consider the privatization, the carving up

of ICBC like a turkey and giving it away to the private sector? Are

they allowed to consider that point?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that

it is a Crown corporation and that any decision made with regard to

future policy will be made by government and not by a committee.

MR. MACDONALD: Has the minister given that committee

instructions that ICBC is to remain a public corporation, owned and

controlled by the people of British Columbia selling insurance at cost?

Have you instructed them that that is your policy?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned previously, the

role of the committee is to review the operations of the corporation.

Any change to that corporation will be made by government.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask the minister specifically: is this

committee not considering ways and means of privatizing ICBC generally

and the rest of the insurance as well? Is it or not?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, this committee is reviewing the

operations and policies, et cetera, of the Insurance Corporation. When

a change in the status quo of the corporation is made, it will be made

by government and an announcement will be made to the opposition.

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: If the Premier had a string, it would have been even more interesting to watch.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of

Tourism. The Tourism Industry Association of B.C. has been complaining

for 18 months about the failure of the provincial government to market

B.C. tourism. Can the minister confirm that McKim Advertising continues

to handle the Tourism ministry's advertising account?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is yes.

MR. COCKE: Why has the minister failed or neglected to

respond to resolutions passed at the Tourism Industry Association of

B.C. annual general meeting, requesting new policy initiatives?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm pleased to report that, contrary to

comments made by the vice-president of the organization mentioned by

that member, this ministry is very

[ Page

1221 ]

cognizant of the value of tourism to this province, and because of that we

have initiated several programs that will enhance tourism in the fall season

in British Columbia. I would like to enunciate some of those programs for that

member.

One of the programs that will be spearheaded by the ministry, but

made up largely of those in the private sector — and we'll be

travelling to our neighbouring tourism markets of Washington state,

Alberta and Saskatchewan — will offer British Columbia to those people

at a time when the crowds are less, the prices are better and the

occupancy not quite so high. In addition to that, we are encouraging

British Columbians to travel within British Columbia by extending

through the province our vacation road program on the radio with the

assistance of the B.C. Association of Broadcasters. That will commence

this week and continue into October.

For the first time, we're initiating television to promote the fall

and winter in the Toronto area, and as well will be promoting the fall

season of British Columbia in the states of Oregon and Washington —

something that has never been done before. I hope that this summarizes

some of the additional activity being undertaken by this ministry and

refutes the statements that the member is referring to.

MR. COCKE: It looks to me as if they had a very quick meeting

this morning to decide on what they're going to do, not what they are

doing or have done.

Anyway, the minister has told the media that he has asked the

cabinet to increase the budget of his ministry. Will the minister

confirm…? When the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is ready to

settle down, will the minister confirm that these additional funds are

also slated to pass through McKim Advertising?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no,

TARIFFS ON IMPORTED FRUIT

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations. In view of the devastating effect of

imported fruit on B.C. farmers, has the minister contacted the federal

government to request, on an emergency basis, a seasonal tariff on

market products?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No.

MS. SANFORD: That's unfortunate, because the farmers up there

are sawing down the fruit trees at this point. I'm wondering if the

minister has initiated discussions with the federal government and the

U.S. government to develop flexible seasonal tariffs that will

encourage domestic production while still allowing reasonable foreign

competition and enable B.C. farmers to earn a reasonable return on

their investment.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The question is best directed to my colleague the Minister

of Agriculture.

FARM INCOME INSURANCE FOR ORCHARDISTS

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of

Agriculture on this issue as well. As the minister well knows, the

farmers are now cutting down their fruit trees rather than take the

severe losses they are currently undergoing. Part of the problem is the

fact that the government has not yet paid the farm income assurance

payment for last year's crop. Some advances have been made to the

farmers, but the payments are still not made. Will the minister assure

the House that those payments will be made immediately, to ensure that

more farmers are not driven into bankruptcy?

[2:30]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: This government has a strong commitment

to the support of agriculture. Indeed, I believe it was one of the

first times in the history of agriculture in British Columbia that

advance payments were made to tree-fruit producers, and it happened

this year. The reason final payments are not yet made is because of the

nature of the fruit industry itself: we must wait until the fruit is

sold so we can determine the market returns before final payments can

be made. As soon as that can be determined, the final payment will be

made.

MS. SANFORD: The delays are causing great hardship to the

farmers in the Okanagan area. In view of the fact that the farmers are

suffering so severely this year, will the minister…?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Question.

MS. SANFORD: Would you mind bringing him to order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is difficult to do, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: I agree with that.

Will the minister assure the House that the premiums that the

farmers will be paying will be reduced for this year in order to avoid

further bankruptcies?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The farm income insurance program, which

this government has a strong commitment to, is a program in which the

premium structure is designed by agreement through the B.C. Fedexation

of Agriculture and the tree-fruit people themselves. It is a program

whereby the premium is shared 50-50. with the producer paying 50

percent and the government paying 50 percent. That premium enters a

fund which provides the sinking fund from which all draws are made.

Over the years the provincial government has made additional

contributions to that fund to the tune of some $10 million and will

continue to support that program again this year.

MS. SANFORD: The minister has mentioned a contribution by the

government of $10 million. Does that mean that they are underwriting

the deficit that exists in that fund?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: That means that the draw from the fund has exceeded the total deposit by some $10 million.

[ Page 1222 ]

MR. STUPICH: I have a supplementary to the Minister of

Agriculture. When the minister said that the final payment can't be

calculated until the crop is sold, is the minister telling us that the

1982 crop is not yet sold? If so, how much is left?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: What I did pass on to you was the fact

that the returns for the sale of the 1982 crop are not yet in, and

therefore the final payment has not yet been made. I understand it will

be made within a short time. But anticipating the kind of difficulty

which these delays cause, advance was paid this year.

B.C. SYSTEMS CORPORATION

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question to the Minister of Finance.

The minister has announced the government's decision to sell B.C.

Systems Corporation. I would like to know what assurance he can give

that this decision will not result in confidential income tax, medical

and other confidential personal information going into the wrong hands.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to the proposal to privatize

British Columbia Systems Corporation and the specific point which he

has raised, the answer is that every assurance can be offered. Should

that not be the case, then, of course, a particular proposal would not

be accepted.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, presumably the government hopes to

make or save money on the sale of the B.C. Systems Corporation. In view

of the fact that the B.C. Systems Corporation has a long-term debt and

minimum lease obligations totalling some $80 million, has the minister

set a minimum price for the sale of the B.C. Systems Corporation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I have not set a minimum price with

respect to capital assets or contractual arrangements undertaken by the

Systems Corporation. The member will know that I have followed a route

which has been used very successfully once before in British Columbia,

in the latter part of the seventies, and that is to employ a sales

advisory committee. This committee is to be chaired by Mallory Smith,

the chairman of the Systems Corporation, with other expertise to be

assigned very quickly. Not only will the sales advisory committee make

recommendations after proposals are received, but indeed, Mr. Speaker,

I would also expect and quite clearly anticipate that proposals

regarding so-called minimum price and other aspects of the fairly

complicated process of sale would be discussed with me, and then I

could discuss them with government at that time.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. SANFORD: I see we've had a change of Speakers very quickly — before we get underway this afternoon.

Bill 9 is now under debate. As a matter of fact, we are debating a

hoist motion on this particular bill. We are asking that the government

come to its senses, that it rethink Bill 9 because it eliminates

planning in the regional areas of the province. It is an example of

centralization of authority so that the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

sitting in his office in Victoria, can direct the planning and

development of the province.

Of course, in the process it is also the Spetifore amendment,

because this particular bill enables the Spetifore development to go

ahead. The regional district of greater Vancouver has opposed the

development of the particular Spetifore lands for housing purposes

because they think the transportation corridors will be adversely

affected by a massive development to accommodate some 15,000 people on

that particular land. They also do not want that kind of development to

take place at this time because there is already ample space, according

to all of the studies that have been done, for the development of

housing, commercial and industrial properties within that Greater

Vancouver Regional District area.

It is not necessary to have the Spetifore development go ahead at

this time. This is why we say the minister, the government, should

hoist the bill for a period of six months: so they can go back and look

at what they're doing to some of the best farmland in the area. They

are allowing their friends to develop. We know that the developers in

this particular case are their friends. We know all of that. The term

that has been applied to this particular piece of legislation — and

rightly so — is the Spetifore amendment, because it eliminates planning

on a regional basis. There is no community of that size anywhere in

Canada, no area in Canada with that kind of population, that does not

provide for regional planning. This bill eliminates that kind of

regional planning.

If we are going to have any orderly development in terms of

commercial, industrial, residential or farm properties, then

experienced people who are concerned about orderly development must

give advice to elected bodies such as the GVRD. People who serve on

municipal councils and regional boards are very often busy, busy

people. They run their own businesses or teach in the schools, or act

as doctors or lawyers. They are busy people who serve in some capacity

within their communities in order to earn a living. They also have a

family, for which they must allot some time, so they cannot be expected

on their own to make the kinds of decisions that are going to affect an

area as large as the GVRD — as a matter of fact, an area anywhere in

this province. I know that within the constituency of Comox the people

who serve on the regional board, and on the five councils within that

constituency, are busy people. They cannot possibly, when they are

faced with the volume of material that they must digest before every

meeting, the volume of material that comes in from people who are

writing and phoning them, from reports that are filed to keep up with

the work of the UBCM, and, in addition to that, spend the kind of time

necessary to determine the best way in which their area can develop.

They need expertise, planners, advisers and people

[ Page 1223 ]

who have done the necessary work at colleges or

universities to have an understanding about development and how

communities should develop.

One of the best things that happened to ensure that development was

done in an orderly way was the development of the Islands Trust. Those

Gulf Islanders are very happy with the fact that they are able, with

the assistance of planners and people who have expertise about the Gulf

Islands — and the need to preserve their unique nature…. They have that

expertise to advise them as to how best to proceed as an Islands Trust

to protect those valuable Gulf Islands. This government, of course,

tried to eliminate the Islands Trust. They were not successful, because

people realize the value of orderly development, of planning and of

ensuring that areas are not destroyed by the kind of helter-skelter

development that unfortunately we allowed all those years ago.

[2:45]

We cannot at this stage afford to allow the kind of development that

has taken place in the past to be repeated. We need to have people who

understand, who are planners and who are trained in order to ensure

that we have a community that serves us best, not one that develops

helter-skelter. Without the kind of planning that is provided by the

planners within the regional districts of this province, we are not

going to have that orderly development; we are not going to have a

province of which we can be proud.

Fortunately, years ago there were a few people who had enough

foresight and perhaps some planning training to enable them to set

aside areas like Stanley Park in Vancouver. If we didn't have that park

in Vancouver now, the people in that whole GVRD area would not have the

opportunities they have. If we did not have that kind of concern for

orderly development, for development which takes care not only of

industrial, commercial and residential needs but also of some of the

other more aesthetic needs, then the people of Vancouver and that GVRD

would indeed be much poorer because of an omission of that type.

If we have the development of the Spetifore land, for instance,

which this amendment will allow, then we will lose forever that

agricultural land which is in the community of Delta. That Spetifore

land — mistakenly, in my view, Mr. Speaker — was taken out of the

agricultural land reserve by cabinet a couple of years ago. It's been a

very controversial piece of land. We know there are friends of

government who want that land developed. We know that there are

government members sitting right here in this Legislature who want that

land developed for housing purposes, because their vision is narrow.

They are looking only at today and next year; they are not looking down

the road. They are not looking at the reports coming in from the

federal government; we have just had another report come in from the

federal government about the tragic loss of farmland in this country of

Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's in Ontario.

MS. SANFORD: It certainly is in Ontario. Ontario, I thought, was part of Canada; maybe I'm wrong.

Obviously, if we do not have a government that has the concern for

the farmland…. It was quite a laugh when the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Schroeder) got up today and spoke about the commitment of

this government to farmers, farmland, farm income assurance and the

whole agricultural community, When they take a piece of land like the

Spetifore property out of the agricultural land reserve, they do not

have the commitment to agriculture that a government in this day and

age should have. They took that land out against the recommendations of

the entire Land Commission. They overruled them. They said, "We have

friends who need to develop that property so they can make their

millions," and they removed that land. In spite of the fact that the

cabinet has removed that agricultural land from the agricultural land

reserve. the GVRD voted within the last couple of months or so not to

proceed with the housing development on that land at this time, partly

because it is good agricultural land. Now that they have made that

decision, the government brings in this piece of legislation, Bill 9,

in order to ensure that that development can go ahead and that their

friends can be taken care of.

That's why we're saying, take this bill and hoist it for six months.

Reconsider and come back with the commitment that the Minister of

Agriculture today said you have to agriculture. If they had a

commitment to agriculture, Mr. Speaker, they would hoist this bill

immediately and take it back to ensure that that land is not developed

for housing purposes at this stage.

MR. REID: What's the municipal council of the area say?

MS. SANFORD: By a vote of five to four the municipal council voted to go ahead with the….

MR. REID: You don't know what a majority is — that's your problem. You don't know what democracy is.

MS. SANFORD: I do know what farmland is and I do know what is going to happen to agriculture in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you — and this is for the

benefit of all of the MLAs — a letter that has come from the Lower

Mainland Planning Review Panel in relation to Bill 9, which is a

Municipal Amendment Act. This is addressed to the members of the lower

mainland regional district boards, the Capital Regional District board,

mayors and councils in the lower mainland and MLAs. "Dear Colleagues:

re the Municipal Amendment Act, Bill 9. Regional board chairmen in the

lower mainland and capital region have been working closely with the

UBCM" — meaning the Union of B.C. Municipalities — "to develop

alternative proposals to Bill 9, since the latter would remove regional

planning authority from regional districts."

It's a disgrace in itself that they would remove regional planning

authority from regional districts. Do they think down here, sitting in

the ivory towers, that they can plan for the constituency of Comox

better than the regional planners who are hired by the elected

officials up in that area? Does the minister think that somehow he has

some major insight, that he can sit here and draw little squares and

circles on a map that says how this province should develop, without

any consideration at all for the people who live in the various parts

of the province? Does the minister think that somehow he has some

brilliant insight into the way the province should develop? Of course,

he wants to protect his friends; the government wants to protect their

friends. They want to make sure those developments take place and that

there isn't anything that might hamper their friends developing real

estate in various parts of this province. They don't want any of this

planning to go on. Let's just have helter-skelter development — the

faster the better!

[ Page 1224 ]

Back to the letter. It states very clearly that Bill 9 would remove

regional planning authority from regional districts. Of course. this is

what they want over there. They don't want any planning; just

helter-skelter development and no planning whatsoever — and no regional

districts, I suppose.

MRS. JOHNSTON: That might be a good idea, too.

MS. SANFORD: Remove regional districts. I wonder if the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) knows about that.

MRS. JOHNSTON: We'll tell him.

MS. SANFORD: The first member for Surrey, Mr. Speaker, would

like to remove regional districts. I understand that another thing she

would also like to get rid of is marketing boards. I don't know if the

Minister of Agriculture approves of that.

MR. REID: Talk about the Bill 9 hoist.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I'm just wondering whether that might be

part of her opinion as well. They have such outrageous opinions. I'm

keeping a list, Mr. Speaker, of what their opinions are.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the hon. members not to interject, and then perhaps we can allow the hon. member for Comox to return to the bill.

MS. SANFORD: To get back to the letter, the government….

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I was asking a question; I wasn't putting words in your mouth.

MR. REID: Question period is over. You're supposed to be speaking.

MS. SANFORD: But she must like marketing boards because she's not denying that.

"The government has not proposed any alternatives, and

as a result two meetings have now been held with the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. The first was on July 28, and it resulted in an

agreement that alternative proposals to Bill 9 should be prepared for

consideration. The second meeting was held on August 18 for the purpose

of checking with the minister to see if the alternatives being prepared

were headed in the right direction and should be finalized for further

discussion."

Well, we're still discussing the fact that this bill should be

hoisted. Right in that first paragraph there's reason enough to hoist

this bill for a period of six months, but the government won't listen;

they don't care. They're trampling over everybody's rights in this

province, taking care of their friends and ensuring that their

particular extreme philosophy is implemented. That's what they're up

to, and we can see that by the fact that we're debating this bill this

afternoon. We're trying to convince the government that they should

hoist it. I've given them enough reason right there to hoist the bill,

but the minister hasn't indicated yet that he's prepared to entertain

our motion to hoist the bill for a period of six months to give them a

chance to reconsider.

To continue quoting, Mr. Speaker:

"The thrust of the ideas — a copy of the complete

presentation is attached — presented to the minister suggests there is

a role for regional boards in development coordination, development

strategy, preparation and development services, and that if this role

is not exercised the following will result:

" 1. Many more local land use issues will end up on the minister's desk."

Maybe he doesn't have anything to do and needs that kind of work and feeling of authority and security in that job.

"2. Costly public investment mistakes will be made, because

there will be no shared understanding of the amount and location of new development

to be expected."

So investors won't be able to go into a region and go to the planners of

a regional district to determine what is being planned in terms of a given industrial

development. They then will go ahead and invest while somebody else that they

don't know about is investing in another community, as a result of the fact

that Bill 9 is going to pass through this House — at least I assume it will.

As a result of their not knowing, we're going to have costly investment

mistakes. That alone should alarm this government enough to have them hoist

the bill for six months.

"3. In municipalities without official community plans,

private risk will be increased because the rules governing development can be

changed." If there's no official community plan, the private risk will be increased,

because rules can be changed back and forth without notice, and there's

no overall plan. That's another reason why they should hoist this bill for

a period of six months.

"4. Inefficient urban development patterns will proliferate,

leading to additional public costs and taxes for provision of water, sewer,

road and transit services." This government has been talking about saving the taxpayers money. We've

been trying to figure out how much money they're going to save with this

package of bills and this budget and all that sort of thing, and we've been

asking questions day after day to try to find out how much we're going to

save. But this bill, according to the letter which we have all received, signed

by the mainland planning review panel, says that there will be inefficient urban

development as a result of this bill and that it's going to cost people

more.

[3:00]

Almost every bill and program that the government has introduced is

going to end up costing the taxpayer more. Here we have not the

official opposition, but the planning review panel, addressing a letter

to the GVRD, the Capital Regional District and MLAs, saying that this

bill is going to result in additional costs to the taxpayers.

"Inefficient urban development patterns will proliferate." We've had

them before, and they will proliferate.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The minister says that won't happen again. "It

happened before but it will never happen again." Is that because he

thinks that he, sitting in his office, is such a

[ Page 1225 ]

sharp planner that he's going to plan for the

entire province so there won't be any proliferation of these

inefficient urban development patterns, and that it's going to reduce

the cost to the taxpayer? That's nonsense.

There are going to be "additional public costs and taxes for

provision of water, sewer, road and transit services." That's in

addition to the fact that they've already changed the formula for

financing of sewer and water projects in this province, so that the

taxpayer is going to have to pay more. Then when you have inefficient

development as a result of this bill it's going to cost them more

again. This is a very costly government. Their debt has gone from $4

billion to about $13 billion in the last eight years, and this is going

to cost the taxpayer more money yet.

"5. The liveability of communities will be lower because

public services are not provided in a coordinated way by the complex array of

provincial, regional and municipal agencies and public utilities responsible." Liveability: that's a very good term. That's the term I was looking

for earlier when I was talking about Stanley Park in Vancouver. It adds to the

liveability of a community. People who are involved in planning the future of

communities are very concerned about the liveability of that particular community.

That's going to be lowered because the minister, sitting in his office,

can't possibly think of the liveability of every square inch of this province

when he does his planning.

"The optimum solution described to the minister would be

to improve on the present arrangements through a three-way partnership between

the ministry, the municipalities and the regional districts. Possible improvements

include replacing the official regional plan with a development strategy prepared

by regional districts that would form the basis for regional board review of

local plans as recommended by the minister. Also, provision could be made for

an automatic ORP amendment within 180 days of an ALR exclusion, as agreed to

previously by Mr. Heinrich. A third improvement would be promulgating a provincial

policy statement on the lower mainland development strategy and enacting the

legislative changes to streamline plan amendment procedures as requested by

the four mainland regional boards in the fall of 1980."

One of the excuses that this government is using in order to make

the kind of changes that they're making in Bill 9 is to streamline the

process. The GVRD and the other regional districts have been asking for

streamlining since 1980, according to this letter, and probably before

that. There are lots of ways of streamlining without taking away the

planning authority of the regional boards in the process, allowing

development helter-skelter and ensuring that the liveability of these

communities will be lowered and the cost to the taxpayer raised.

The letter goes on to say:

"A fruitful discussion took place following

presentation of our ideas. The minister indicated there is ample time

for discussions to result in a satisfactory solution to everyone,

although the precise timing for passage of Bill 9 is unknown at

present."

We're suggesting that they hoist the bill right now, and then

they've got ample time to go through all the problems, recommendations

and suggestions that are being made in this letter and come in with a

new piece of legislation that would ensure that taxes don't go up, that

the communities have a livable plan, and that the interests and needs

of people are taken into account, as well as the need for commercial

and industrial development by the friends of government, Why don't they

hoist it? They make all these sensible recommendations in this letter.

We have been arguing on this side of the House for days that this bill

should not proceed at this time.

The letter goes on:

"The minister stated he has an interest in seeing that

a regional development strategy is maintained in the lower mainland and

capital region that reflects the benefits of regional planning

undertaken to date. Mr. Ritchie is particularly interested in

transportation corridor planning being done at a regional level, and he

complimented Mayor Ross of Surrey on that municipality's draft plan in

this regard. He went on to stress his support for the regional district

concept and provision of regional services."

Does the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) know that you

support the regional district concept, Mr. Minister? I wonder if, when

you're winding up debate on this, you could make reference to that,

because there seems to be….

MR. REID: The second member for Surrey does.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, he supports it. The first and the second

members for Surrey can't seem to agree on regional district concepts.

No wonder the people in Surrey are confused.

The letter goes on to say:

"Mr. Ritchie emphasized his support for official community

plans and official settlement plans and suggested they should fit in with an

overall regional development strategy. This could be achieved by forwarding

official community plans to regional boards for review. Mr. Ritchie also said

municipalities and regional districts should not be involved in ALR appeals

and that the provincial Agricultural Land Commission should not be involved

in zoning."

That's an interesting statement. I don't know whether they are quoting

the minister correctly here, but he is suggesting that the Land Commission

should not be involved in zoning. If a piece of land is in the agricultural

land reserve, its zoning is automatic. It means that land must be utilized for

the production of food; it must be used in an agricultural way. It cannot be

used to build a pulp mill on: it can't be used for any other commercial

development; it can't be used to build a big housing development. The zoning

is automatic when land is in the agricultural land reserve. The Land Commission's

job is to ensure that that zoning remain in place, and that no other changes

to that land be permitted. According to this letter, he's suggesting that

the Agricultural Land Commission should not be involved in zoning. Does the

minister want to determine what land is agricultural and what isn't? Do

they feel that the Land Commission should be abolished? If the zoning as agricultural

is determined by the capability of that land, and if the Land Commission is

not involved in zoning, then it doesn't have the authority to ensure that

the agricultural land remain zoned as agricultural.

This letter then goes on to make further points. I think I should

read the whole thing into the record, because the planners here are

making some important points and are in

[ Page 1226 ]

fact reinforcing our arguments to hoist this bill for six months.

"The minister explained that it is his desire to

eliminate unnecessary government and expense, and expressed his

opposition to regulatory land use designations at a regional level."

If he wants to eliminate unnecessary government and

expense, then we've got to have planning to ensure orderly development,

to ensure that land is developed in such a way as to provide the

cheapest possible services in terms of water, sewers and other services

required by the population. That's not going to happen now, and the

planners point that out in this letter.

"The meeting of August 18 ended with the following

conclusions for followup action:

(1) The Minister of Municipal Affairs

agreed that the proposals prepared by local government for the meeting

are headed in the right direction."

Unfortunately, this bill is not, and that's why it needs to be hoisted.

"He appears to support a development coordination, development

strategy, development services role for regional boards in the capital region

and lower mainland.

"

(2) A position paper should be finalized by local

government for discussion at a meeting between the minister, private

sector representatives and local government on September 9, 1983. From

this meeting legislative proposals could be prepared."

Here we are on September 7, again debating this bill, and the

meeting hasn't even taken place. They're slating a meeting for

September 9 in order to figure out the best thing to do with this piece

of legislation. Here we are again, two days before the meeting is to

take place, discussing this bill and trying to convince the minister to

hoist the bill. Have all these discussions and determine the direction,

make sure everyone agrees, and bring back the bill. Number (2) also

mentions that from this meeting legislative proposals could be

prepared. That's the meeting that's going to be held two days from now.

They're not going to wait for any meeting. They're not concerned about

what people think, or they wouldn't have brought this bill forward

today for debate. Why don't they have their meetings? Why don't they

get their legislative proposals in place before they bring the bill

before us again? By bringing the bill forward today, is the minister

telling us that it doesn't matter how many meetings they have, it

doesn't matter who attends those meetings and what the concerns are?

"Here is the bill, and any legislative proposals you make aren't worth

considering." If they were worth considering, we would not be debating

this bill today. We would have waited, the minister would have waited

and the government would have waited to find out what legislative

proposals might come out of these meetings.

The minister goes and talks very nicely to the people at the GVRD

and the planners and everybody else. He speaks very nicely to them, but

he says by his actions: "I don't really care what you say, because we

have before us a piece of legislation that's going to go through this

House. It doesn't matter what you people say, what proposals you might

bring forward. We don't care." That's very obvious or we would not be

debating this bill today. They're going to meet three days from now.

[3:15]

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, the minister says if we let the bill

through today, then he can meet three days from now and tell them all:

"Well, too late, the bill's gone through. Any legislative proposals

that you might determine now are too late. The bill's already passed."

Mr. Speaker, if the government was serious about accepting legislative proposals

from a group of people who are concerned about the development of this province,

then he would not bring this bill forward today. He would accept our motion,

and he would say to his colleagues: "You know, they're right. Let's

hoist this bill for a period of six months. Let's go out and have these

meetings. Let's see what kinds of proposals might come forward that will

make the system better and will take into account the pocket books of the taxpayers

and the liveability of a region and regional corridors and regional development."

The minister has no choice. It's very clear. Accept our motion today, hoist

the bill for six months, have all of these meetings, come back with the legislative

proposals that they're talking about in this particular letter, and then

we'll debate the bill. What's the point, Mr. Speaker, of debating here

when he's going to meet three days from now in order to get legislative

proposals when the legislative proposals are already before us? Our arguments

make perfect sense. Hoist the bill. Have your meetings. Bring back new proposals.

Listen to what the people are saying out there.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Why are you debating a bill, then, if you're

going to listen to them? Why are you debating a bill? Why are you

bringing it forward in this Legislature if you're just playing games?

Mr. Speaker, they're playing games by bringing forward a bill that they

say they don't intend to pass anyway because they're waiting for

legislative proposals as a result of a meeting to be held three days

from now. They're playing games with us. It's time that they accepted

our motion, hoisted the bill, and brought it back six months hence.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the opposition has proposed an

amendment to this second reading of Bill 9 that would provide for the

hoist for a six-month period. We believe it to be a very reasonable and

very responsible position to take with respect to the legislation

before us now.

I was a member in the Legislature when the then Minister of

Municipal Affairs, Hon. Dan Campbell, introduced legislation

establishing regional districts in the province. At that time there was

one function that was common to all regional districts in the regions

where they were set up, and that was to provide for planning. With the

legislation before us we are disturbing — to a very great degree — the

most important function of regional districts, the one for which they

were originally established. Certainly regional districts have grown a

lot since then, and have taken unto themselves many more functions —

not taken unto themselves because they've had to have support from the

government before they could do any of that — but nevertheless, the

importance of regional districts in our scheme of government has grown

immeasurably since they were first brought into being by Hon. Dan

Campbell.

That same minister, in 1972, made an attempt to interfere with the

process of planning that was provided for in the legislation that he

brought in himself. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the member who just

took her seat in this debate, the

[ Page 1227 ]

current member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), defeated

Mr. Campbell in that election because he tried to interfere with the

planning process being implemented by the Nanaimo Regional District in

a proposition to carve up a great chunk of Gabriola Island. I suspect

that it contributed to his defeat and the election of the current

member for Comox, and also to the defeat of the then cabinet member who

represented Nanaimo and to my election. The Hon. Earle Westwood was the

minister who was defeated in 1963. There was support at the local level

for local input into planning at that time, and I believe there still

is.

In asking the House to consider this motion before us now that we

postpone consideration of this for six months — we are simply saying,

let's give those who feel there is a good argument to be made, that

there are sound reasons for postponing a decision on this…. The

minister is saying to different organizations that he would meet with

them, that he would discuss the importance of Bill 9, discuss the

provisions, discuss the very existence of regional districts with

different organizations before proceeding with this legislation. Let's

give him the time to actually have those meetings, to listen to people

and to come back to the House either with the same legislation in six

months' time or some substantially amended legislation that might

effect some improvements, that might make it possible to proceed with

some of the work that often is delayed, sometimes unduly delayed

because of the present legislation.

All we are asking is that the government consider a sixmonth hoist

so that there will be time for discussions, time for representations,

an opportunity for the government to take these representations into

account and be able to come into the House with legislation that will

better serve the needs of the people of the province and that will be

more acceptable to those people in our community who have been raising

objections to the taking away from regional districts of the authority

to plan development within regional districts, particularly where it

applies to regional districts that have a number of municipalities

within their borders.

There has been discussion for some time about the need to make some

changes. Some of this has been raised in the House already, perhaps

most of it. Up to this point in time it would seem as though the

government has not beard the arguments, at least hasn't taken them into

account and is not prepared to change its position with respect to Bill

9 as it is before us now.

I have a paper in my hands dated April 29, 1982: "A Proposed

Legislative Framework for Intermunicipal Planning in Metropolitan

Economic Areas." This legislation before us, Bill 9, has been called

the Spetifore amendment, and some of the government members by their

interjections this afternoon admit that indeed the legislation is aimed

primarily at that one particular problem. I noticed the second member

for Surrey (Mr. Reid), for example, interjecting when the hon. member

for Comox (Ms. Sanford) was speaking, and he said: "You haven't even

seen the land in question." By that admission alone, I took from his

remark the fact that the caucus has discussed the legislation and how

it would affect the Spetifore land situation.

MR. REID: Don't forget I spent five years on the council there, so I should know what it's all about.

MR. STUPICH: Some people can spend five years somewhere and

learn very little, it would appear, and it would appear that the second

member from Surrey is one of those. Perhaps he should go back to that

council and spend another 15 years there and maybe he would learn

something. There's some hope. Perhaps it is possible that in the four

years he can look forward to being the second member for Surrey he may

even learn something here. It's possible but not likely, I grant, you

Mr. Speaker. From the interjections he has been making since this

session has started, it seems unlikely that he will ever learn anything

with his closed mind, his open mouth, his closed ears….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think this has gone quite far

enough. I will ask the hon. second member for Surrey not to interject

and the hon. member for Nanaimo to avoid making personal reflections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, sometimes there are some members

who seem to invite that kind of unparliamentary response from members

who are speaking. I do appreciate your caution.

I would like to read further from this "A Proposed Legislative

Framework for Intermunicipal Planning in Metropolitan Economic Areas."

It is a

summary of the recommendations.

"Recommendation 1. An intermunicipal planning function should

be provided in legislation for metropolitan economic areas such as the lower

mainland and greater Victoria which have large and growing populations and numerous

local government jurisdictions." It is that particular recommendation that concerns us most in the legislation

before us now. The legislation before us now is running completely contradictory

to that recommendation. We believe there is a real need for that recommendation

to be enforced in legislation. It works; it has worked. Certainly there have

been problems; we appreciate that. That's why we say that if the minister

were prepared to take the six-month period that we're proposing in this

amendment the House is now considering to go out and listen to people, he might

learn something that would prompt him to bring in legislation that would find

acceptance in the House.

With respect to the particular land in question, the Spetifore land,

there's a long history to that, and certainly I have some concern for

it. I have some concern because of the role that I played in bringing

the Land Commission Act into being in the first place. One of the areas

about which I was most concerned at the time I was working on that

legislation was the Fraser River Valley, including the Delta area, the

area wherein the Spetifore land is situated.

MR. REID: What about Tilbury?

MR. STUPICH: The Tilbury land is not included in Bill 9. I'm

quite prepared to discuss the Tilbury land at another opportunity. If

legislation comes in putting that back in, I'd certainly be quite

prepared to discuss that with the second member for Surrey. But if he

feels that the decision made by the government of that day to take the

Tilbury land out of the land reserve was a bad decision, then we're not

improving that decision by taking further land out of the land reserve

as the government is attempting to do with Bill 9. Certainly Bill 9….

Interjection.

[ Page 1228 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member interjects that the

Tilbury land was better land. I don't know the comparative qualities of

those two parcels of land, but I say again that if that land was better

and should have stayed in the agricultural land reserve, that of itself

is no reason for agreeing to legislation today that will take further

good agricultural land out of the agricultural land reserve. If the….

MR. REID: It just proves you are a hypocrite.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the hon. member to withdraw that remark. That is unparliamentary.

MR. REID: I withdraw the remark.

MR. STUPICH: I certainly wasn't going to react; I just consider the source and let it go at that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's also unparliamentary. Could we please return to the bill and avoid personal references. That includes all members here.

[3:30]

MR. STUPICH: But, Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate his

interjections. As I say, if the Tilbury land was good land, then it

should not have come out of the agricultural land reserve, all things

being equal. There were reasons advanced at the time for taking it out.

I'm not saying I supported those reasons or opposed them, but I'm

saying we lost a good parcel of agricultural land.

I'm saying now that the government is proposing that we shall once

again lose a good parcel of agricultural land, and the way they are

accomplishing this is to remove from the regional districts the right

to plan development within these large regional districts that contain

several municipalities. I say that the cure is worse than the disease.

To take that power away from these regional districts is worse than

allowing that particular parcel of land to stay within the agricultural

land reserve, even though Delta municipality and two other

municipalities, I believe, within the Greater Vancouver Regional

District agreed that it should come out. Certainly the Greater

Vancouver Regional District did determine in a vote that the land

should stay in the agricultural land reserve. Certainly the Land

Commission did everything within its power, and tried to do further

things that it found were outside of its power, to make sure that that

land stayed within the agricultural land reserve. That was not an

Agricultural Land Commission established by the NDP government; it was

a Land Commission established by the present administration. They heard

the arguments. They had every opportunity to see the land and every

opportunity to read the reports on that land from their own staff in

order to consider all of the problems and to consider not just the

importance of keeping that particular parcel of agricultural land in

the land reserve but also to consider all of the other needs of the

total community. There might be needs for housing and for commercial

and industrial development. They had an opportunity to look at all of

those problems, and they still recommended unanimously that the land

stay within the agricultural land reserve. It took an order-in-council

to defeat the intention of the Land Commission and to take that land

out. It took action by the Greater Vancouver Regional District to stop

that land from being used for purposes other than agricultural.

Now the government is stepping in and taking away certain powers

from all regional districts so that it can get its way. In a fit of

pique, the government is saying: "We'll show you who's running the

show. You don't really have that kind of control. It is the government

that gave regional districts the legal right to plan, and it is the

government that can take away from regional districts that same right."

There is other legislation before us now by which the government is

proposing to take away rights from individuals and from various

organizations to centralize the power here in Victoria, here in the

cabinet room and, in some legislation, in smaller groups than that.

We're very much opposed to this attempt by the government in the

legislation before us now, and in many other pieces of legislation, to

centralize power within the rooms of the cabinet meetings. This is

another grab for power.

The authority to plan is now in the hands of regional districts. The

regional district representatives are elected by people at the local

level, and those at the local level have the right to hire people and

put them on a planning staff. With respect to the kind of planning

we're talking about now, they have the right to come up with and to

approve, subject to ministerial approval, plans that provide for what

they hope will be orderly development within those regional districts.

They will make mistakes; there's no question about that. Every

government will make mistakes, whether it be the provincial, municipal

or regional district government. Mistakes will be made; but that's what

democracy is all about. If we can decentralize, it would seem to me we

are achieving a greater level of democracy than by following the

present administration's predilection to centralize power more and

more, with bill after bill before us. Bill 9 is just one example, and

one more reason why we urge the House to postpone discussion of this

legislation for six months.

The Land Commission has cooperated with regional districts.

Agricultural land reserves were first established in complete

cooperation and consultation with the regional districts. It was the

regional districts that were given the opportunity in the first place

to come up with the plans for the agricultural land reserves; it was

the regional districts that had the opportunity, and indeed the

obligation, to hold public hearings; and it was the regional districts

that held those public hearings, and that reacted to them in regional

district after regional district by amending the proposed plans, and

then by sending those plans to the Land Commission. The Land Commission

then took it upon itself to meet with regional districts — I believe

there were 27 at the time — all over the province, and to discuss with

those regional districts one by one, and to meet publicly on occasions

when there seemed to be a demand for that; to look at the plans

proposed by the regional districts with respect to the preservation of

farmland, and to come up with plans that they could then submit to the

Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet; and, after a further

process of examination, to submit them finally to the cabinet itself,

where an order-in-Council was ultimately produced which established the

agricultural land reserve.

There was always the possibility of changing it. There was provision

for change, but it was not the kind of possibility that we now have.

Now it I relatively easy, as was proven in the case of the Spetifore

land. One simply had to get the ear of cabinet and one could get

cabinet to overrule what the Land Commission had decided by a unanimous

vote. Again I have to emphasize that it wasn't a partisan Land

[ Page 1229 ]

Commission, from the point of view of being

NDP-appointed. As a matter of fact, we did not appoint NDP members to

the Land Commission when we were in office. Out of six members, one

person was a member of the NDP, and he was there not because of his

membership in the party, but because of his expertise in a completely

different area. It was a good commission and they made good

recommendations. We didn't always adopt all of its recommendations, and

I admit that; but neither did we go against unanimous recommendations

of the Land Commission. In this instance the government is determined

to go against a unanimous recommendation of the Land Commission.

The 1982 Land Commission report talks about commission planning

activities: "The commission, through the assistance of its planning

staff, reviews official plans as well as zoning bylaws prepared by

local government." So whenever local, municipal or regional district

governments do come up with these plans, they don't do so in a vacuum.

It's something that is discussed and done locally by local planners. At

least, that has been the case up to now. It appears, though, that the

government has some plans in mind with respect to planners totally. But

in this instance the planners produce plans that are considered and

discussed in public meetings by the regional district representatives.

They then have an opportunity to have these plans reviewed by the Land

Commission with respect to input from the point of view of agricultural

land. So nothing is done in a vacuum. There isn't any opportunity for

the public to take

part in what we discuss in the House today. They may

listen or read Hansard if they like, but they have no input, no

opportunity to ask questions or to speak to regional district

representatives, and to put forth a point of view that the regional

district representative might voice at those meetings.

"As most communities within the province have historically

developed in valley bottoms or on river deltas, they are often on or immediately

adjacent to some of the most valued agricultural lands." That's not talking just about the delta or the Fraser River Valley, or

even about B.C.; it's talking about the whole world. That's the way

settlements have started. In every instance, it is the most valuable agricultural

land that is settled first. When we brought in the Land Commission Act in the

spring of 1973, the figures I had available then were to the effect that B.C.

was losing its best agricultural land — particularly in three areas: the Saanich

Peninsula, the Fraser River Valley, and the Okanagan Valley — at the rate of

20,000 acres a year. We have precious little of that kind of land. The government

has boasted, on different occasions, that we have more agricultural land in

B.C. now than we had when the land reserves were first established in 1973 and

1974. Mr. Speaker, that's a physical impossibility. I'm trying to remember

the name of the American humourist who said the reason agricultural land is

so important is that "they ain't makin' any more of it." Mr.

Speaker, the government has not created more agricultural land; it has changed

the definition. It has said land that was previously not considered as agricultural

land, with respect to the definition of the boundaries of agricultural land

reserves, from here on shall be considered agricultural land and shall be within

those reserves; but they didn't create any more agricultural land. Yet year

by year — month by month, in some instances — by actions such as the bill before

us now, the government is taking out of the agricultural land reserve some of

the very precious top quality agricultural land, a minimum of which we have

in the province of British Columbia.

That's the way settlement has occurred. One need only look at any of

the civilizations, whether current or as far back as recorded history

goes, and the settlements have always been, as the commission says

here, "historically developed in valley bottoms or on river deltas.

They are often on or immediately adjacent to some of the most valued

agricultural lands." Going on from the report: "During its review of

these planning documents, the commission ensures that the intent of the

agricultural land commission act is supported and that plans for local

community growth minimize the loss of agricultural lands, " Because the

communities have historically developed on valley bottoms and in areas

where we have the best agricultural lands, there has been conflict.

From the time development first started there has been erosion of the

agricultural land base. It's unfortunate, but it has happened. The role

of the Land Commission has been to make sure, to the best of its

ability, that plans for local community growth would minimize the loss

of agricultural lands.

When we first established the agricultural land reserves, it was the

intent of the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet not to

interfere with plans for growth of existing communities, any more than

was absolutely necessary, with a view to saving agricultural lands. At

that time, in discussion with these various communities, not directly

with the Environment and Land Use Committee, but through the staffs of

the ELUC and the Land Commission, and through the staff and

representatives on the regional district boards, discussions went on to

ensure that there would be orderly growth and to ensure that there

would be enough land to provide for that orderly growth over a period

of five years. It was hoped that within that five-year period the

direction of growth could be changed so that there would no longer be a

need to encroach upon what the commission called the best agricultural

land. That's one of the planning functions that Bill 9 is taking away

from regional districts. Regional districts have been very cognizant of

this. They have had it in mind from the time they were first

established and from the time that planning was their first function.

The legislation before us now would take away from them a significant

part of their authority with respect to planning.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker. we are opposed to it, naturally. We set up the Land

Commission. We do believe, philosophically, in the idea of preserving

agricultural land. We'd like to believe that there are some members

even on the government side of the House who believe philosophically in

the idea of preserving agricultural land. Some of them have said so on

different occasions; others have attacked the Land Commission from its

very inception. But there are some who will give at least lip-service

to the idea of preserving agricultural land for future generations. It

is important. We support it philosophically. We want to do everything

we can to save it, and we want to give regional districts the

opportunity to amend their plans as necessary, but always subject to

review by the Land Commission. The Land Commission stands ever ready —

even the commission appointed by the Social Credit administration — to

sit down and discuss with these regional districts, as it has done, as

it is doing, and currently to continue with the process of fine-tuning.

There's a lot of work to be done. Some of that work is ongoing.

[ Page 1230 ]

"Through its history of participation in the planning process,

not only has the commission witnessed the entrenchment of provincial agricultural

land protection policy at the local level, but it has also seen the establishment

of a cooperative process of positive communication with local government." Mr. Speaker, progress has been made. When we brought in the Land Commission

legislation in the spring of 1973 there was a lot of misunderstanding, a lot

of suspicion, a lot of concern. There was very little support by local governments

and very little support by the community generally. But as they came to understand

the need for it, as they came to see what the effects could be, the importance

of saving agricultural land and how this could be done with a maximum of local

input, as they saw that the local input was directed through the Land Commission,

who were prepared to sit down and meet with them publicly at public hearings,

the boundaries were finally established by agreement. When the plans went on

to the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet, the agricultural land

reserves indeed were generally cut down in size. I can recall just a few examples

of the reserves actually being made larger, always because of representations

from some particular agricultural group who felt that a larger area of land

should be included, and there was no objection. So the Environment and Land

Use Committee of cabinet did indeed add to a few of the reserves, mainly rangeland.

But with respect to the good agricultural land, it was their main responsibility

to try to save that….

[3:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the minister indicates that he has to step out. I can certainly understand that. He may read my remarks in Hansard

if he chooses. I do hope that even if he doesn't read the remarks he

will pay some attention to the argument that he should support this

amendment that's before us: that is, that he take another six months

not just to consider it himself but to listen to the community to see

what they have to say.

A cooperative process of positive communication between local

government and the Land Commission has developed, and it has been

accepted by all concerned. Why upset it now by bringing in the kind of

legislation that we're doing?

"The official planning process also provides a vehicle

for the development of a strong information base for each regional district

planning area, thereby providing the commission with clear insight into local

issues and priorities, insight which is particularly helpful when considering

individual applications."

Mr. Speaker, perhaps not in…. I was thinking of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon

(Mr. Veitch) being in the chair, and I was going to say that perhaps he doesn't

have much difficulty in his riding with people making application to get land

out of the agricultural land reserve. But I would think that in the constituency

of Prince George South there are many applications from people wanting to get

relatively small parcels out of the agricultural land reserve. I think it happens

to most of us who have any rural areas within our ridings. It's been my

practice to take no

part in those particular discussions. I feel that as an

MLA I should not be interfering in the process that has been well established

by legislation. Certainly I will take up a case by referring a person to the

chairman of the Land Commission, who happens to reside in my constituency, or

to someone on the Land Commission staff, thereby opening the door for him so

that that person wanting to get land out of the reserve knows how to proceed

with his application, and suggesting to him that he try to get the support of

the regional district first, but not trying to influence anyone at the regional

district level, or at the Land Commission level, and certainly not above that,

in any way at all. I believe these decisions should be made, firstly, by the

regional district planning staff; secondly, by the regional district representatives;

thirdly, by the Land Commission; and ultimately, if the land is indeed to come

out, then it has to come out by order-in-council.

Most of us have applications to get relatively small parcels out of

the reserve, and that process is going to continue as long as the

fine-tuning is going on. I had hoped, when the legislation came in in

1973, that the fine-tuning would have proceeded to the point that there

would be very few applications after five years were up, that by then

the boundaries would have been clearly established and clearly accepted.

People look at a piece of agricultural land in a community and

think: "Isn't that a great place on which we can build or develop

something or convert it to some higher use?" If there is a building of

any kind sitting on it, particularly if it's a large building, even if

it's a blacktopped parking lot in a shopping centre, they look upon it

as already being developed and they know that it isn't available. But

if there's a farm next door they say: "That's available. Let's build

something on it."

I can recall one application, from south Okanagan, I think, where

the only place in the whole area in which they could build this church

was a parcel of prime agricultural land right in the community. It was

fruit-growing land, and there was a good orchard on that land. Yet

because it had nothing on it except agricultural products, it was

available. There was a lot of other land around there, but that land

had houses, stores or business enterprises on it. It was no longer

available for development.

The kind of planning that should be done by regional districts would

not only look at agricultural land as a land bank that could be used

for purposes other than agriculture but would look at the total land

inventory. In cases like that where there is a need for some

development of any kind, whatever that development is, they could look

at other areas and look at the possibility of saving agricultural land.

That's the kind of discussion that has been going on between the

regional district representatives and the Land Commission, and it has

been working. There has been an opportunity for regional district

representatives to make the case for local issues and priorities. They

have been listened to.

In the instance before us now, the Spetifore amendment, they had

that opportunity. The owners of the land had the opportunity to appear

before the regional district. They did get the support of the

municipality; they did not get the support of the regional district or

the Land Commission.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm persuaded that at one point

they did, and that it was appealed. Yes, and that's proper too. There

should be processes….

MR. REID: Tell the truth.

MR. STUPICH: I'm being urged to tell the truth. I hope that I

am telling the truth. If I should err…. I recall some years ago a

cabinet minister on the Social Credit side of the House saying: "Even

when I'm not telling the truth, it's still

[ Page 1231 ]

the truth, because I think it's the truth, and I'm

not lying." It's hard to follow that bit of circumlocution. But he was

a minister, and not just a cabinet minister, he was another kind of

minister as well. So we had to believe him when he said that.

I'll go on with the Land Commission report. "During the last year

the commission jointly published, along with the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, a document entitled 'A Guide to the Relationship Between

Agricultural Land Reserves and Local Government Plans and Bylaws.'" It

is an evolving process. Only one other government in Canada has

followed the lead established in the province of British Columbia by

setting up the Land Commission, the legislation to provide for the Land

Commission, and the agricultural land reserves, and that is the

government of Quebec. It took them some years to do it.

The other provinces have yet to do it, some of them to their sorrow.

Certainly the government of Ontario wishes, I believe, that it had had

the intestinal fortitude to have adopted similar legislation when we

did, or even much earlier, because their land…. A very small proportion

of that province is good farmland, and it is still being lost at a

tremendous rate.

The government of Quebec did move. It took them some years, and my

understanding at the time was that it wasn't a case of whether or not

they wanted to do it — and that was the Liberal government led by

Premier Bourassa. The concern in cabinet was which minister would have

the privilege of bringing in this Land Commission legislation. The

Minister of Agriculture wanted to do it because the Minister of

Agriculture in B.C. had done it. They felt that had set the pattern.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs had a little higher pecking order in

cabinet, and he thought it was such good stuff that he wanted to bring

it in. They were still arguing about it when they lost the election.

The Parti Québécois were successful, and within two years brought in

legislation that protects their agricultural land — of course, not the

whole province.

If we made one mistake, maybe it was in trying to do a total job all

over the province, going into some regional districts where it wasn't

as vital as it was in the ones that I mentioned — the three areas of

the province where it's most important. In Quebec they concentrated on

the areas where it was most important and brought in legislation that

is very effective in preserving the agricultural land they have in

those areas. In B.C. it has been an evolving process.

There have been increasing cooperation and increasing opportunity

for discussion, and this guide that was prepared by the commission

during the last year — this was the 1982 report, so it was prepared

during 1982 — is a good guide. It's something that the Minister of

Municipal Affairs should refer to, something he should read, and

something that he should consider in listening to the arguments raised

in the House as to just why we should defer consideration of this for

six months. Let him listen to some of the groups that are urging the

minister to get out and let people come to him, and to attend some of

the meetings that he promised to attend before proceeding with this

legislation. He did promise to meet with people. He didn't meet with

people. He promised to meet with people before he brought in this

legislation.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I meet with people all the time.

MR. STUPICH: The minister says he meets with people all the time. I'm

not talking about meeting with his Social Credit executive in his own riding.

I'm talking about him listening to the people who are making representations

about Bill 9. He has not listened to the people making representations. If he

has listened, he certainly hasn't heard.

What we're asking him now is: what difference will it make? It may

slow up only the exclusion of the Spetifore land from the land reserve.

It will only slow that up. If the minister will only take six months to

let people make all the representations — to perhaps bring in

legislation that will achieve most of what he wants without upsetting

the regional districts in the way that he is doing — then government

will be doing a better service,

I recall again…. I can't repeat them from memory, but paraphrasing

the words of the Lieutenant-Governor in the opening speech, we have to

be concerned about the needs of the people of the province. If the

government would take the time and spend six months listening to

arguments being made by people who are working in the field against the

legislation in its present form, then the government will be better

serving the needs of the province of British Columbia. I do urge the

Minister of Municipal Affairs to listen to these arguments, to listen

to these people and to take the time to consider this, because nothing

will be lost and much could be gained if we do take that six-month

period.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated in getting up because

I felt that there might be some government members who would like to

get in on the debate. I was wondering what kind of laxity in debate you

are going to allow. I believe we in the opposition have nicknamed this

particular bill the "Spetifore amendment," and some of the debate did

cover the agricultural land freeze. Looking at my notes, I was

wondering whether that should come up in the Agriculture estimates when

we get around to estimates. I would like to follow my colleague and go

into some of the reasons that I feel the fine tuning of that particular

piece of legislation should have continued after the original land

freeze. I say this openly: in my own area a lot of land that was not

really agricultural was brought in under the initial land freeze. You

should compare some of the gravel pits in my area to the Spetifore

property with its potential. I feel maybe there is a lot of land, had

we looked at the need for housing…. This particular so-called Spetifore

property is being developed for housing. I say this advisedly: there

are pieces of property that are less needed for agriculture than that

particular piece of property.

Getting back to the bill and my support for it to be hoisted, I have

to relate this particular bill to how it's going to affect my

constituency. I know it was brought in in haste to take the Spetifore

property out of the land freeze — to allow it to go ahead because, as

the members of the government said, five out of nine members of the

council in Delta have supported its being allowed to be developed for

housing.

MR. REID: That's called democracy.

[4:00]

MR. MITCHELL: That is definitely part of democracy. When you

look at democracy, let's face it, it swings from one side of the

spectrum to the other, and it's still democracy. Ideas that are

promoted today will be laughed at 20 years from now. If we look back at

some of the legislation that has come through this House in the last 50

years, a lot of us would have a hard time standing up and supporting

it. I look at what

[ Page 1232 ]

effect this amendment is going to have on my area.

I look at it very selfishly, because I have to relate to my

constituents and answer to them. I feel that to destroy the concept of

regional planning is dangerous, and I don't think we can afford it.

We're going to be living here; our families are going to be living

here. The decisions that we make as a community — provincial, regional

or municipal — are going to stay with us.

One particular shopping centre that was going to be built in my

riding depended on the type of shopping centre being built in Saanich.

Because we had the need for regional planning, the Tillicum Mall

Saanich shopping centre in Saanich, in its original application, was to

be a large urban development. Not knowing all the terminology of the

various sizes of shopping malls, there are community malls, some are

classed as regional and the larger ones are basically a city-type

development. The financial viability of the Langford shopping mall in

my riding depended on the size of the Tillicum Mall in Saanich. Many

presentations were made by citizens of my riding. The owner of the

property that was going to build the mall in Langford, the Canwest

development, said he could build a viable shopping mall in Langford

that would bring to the residents of that particular area a lot of the

amenities of a larger shopping mall, but it would not be financially

viable if a super-large one were built in Saanich.

That debate raged through the Capital Regional District meeting

after meeting and committee meeting after committee meeting. The

Saanich delegates to the CRD were split on it. Some wanted to have a

regional size; some wanted a larger one. Elected municipal officials

from the particular municipality where I live within my constituency

were supporting a larger one because it was closer to their

constituency and their voters. I would say saner heads prevailed

because there was input from elected officials from all municipalities

in the greater Victoria district. There was input from the North

Saanich areas and some from Oak Bay.

If we want to develop the greater Victoria area that we know, it has

to be developed with some foresight. We have to look at it as a whole

community. We can't look at it solely from our simple little regional

constituency. The population shifts depend on the way the area

develops. If we are going to preserve certain farmlands in the Saanich

area, then as the population grows it is going to shift to other areas.

In my particular area the predicted population shift was to the Westem

Community — the View Royal, Colwood, Metchosin, Sooke and Langford

areas.

If that predicted shift is going to be there, then the need for a

shopping centre is very important, and that planning had to go ahead

before it all took place. If it was going to be viable, we had to have

the shopping centre in place approximately the same time as the

population arrived. This is the important part. When developers or

business people make their plans, they have to be able to plan knowing

there is going to be some long-term security in what they are proposing.

Bill 9 opened the door to destroying some of the longterm planning

that has been going on for seven years. I know I can't hold this up,

but one of the local weekly papers talked about a particular shopping

centre in the Langford area: the Canwest shopping mall. It has been in

the planning process for seven years. They have assembled the land,

secured the type of people who are going to rent space in the mall, and

gone through all the regional and APC hearings and public meetings.

They are hurdles; you can call them red tape; but they are part of the

way our society evolves under the legislation that has been put in

place by 30 years of Social Credit. It is all in there — 30 years of

hurdles. Actually they are not all hurdles; they are the necessary part

of developing a community. They have started the development in

Langford, they have started the foundation, they are going ahead and

they are building that particular shopping centre.

Because Bill 9 is before this Legislature, and we are going to wipe

out regional plans, the Tillicum shopping mall then made another

application to the Capital Regional District board to amend the

regional plan they had brought in within the last two years after three

or four years of fighting at the regional level. Because, when they did

eventually establish the size for the Tillicum Mall, they had

established that particular shopping centre as a mid-sized shopping

mall, it made the one in Langford a viable development.

After this particular bill appeared in the House here, the company

that owns the Tillicum Mall then made an application under the guise

that the only reason they were making this application was that it

would be a better method of financing the debentures or bonds on that

particular development. Everyone knows that this was a smokescreen. If

this bill goes through — and with the majority of 35 that sit on the

government side, they will jam it through — they will endanger the

economic viability of a particular shopping centre in Langford. I say

very candidly that the owner of that shopping centre is not one of my

supporters; he is one of the gold-plated Social Credit card holders of

that area. That is his political belief. He is a very strong right-wing

Social Credit supporter. It is quite ironical that his development is

going to be in danger because Bill 9 is being jammed right through the

province of British Columbia for one reason, and one reason only: that

is, to satisfy certain political promises made to develop the Spetifore

land.

As I said in my earlier debate on this bill, before the motion to

hoist this bill, if the government is determined to pay off the

so-called political promises for that particular piece of property,

they could bring in legislation similar to the legislation they brought

in when they pushed through the Ganges sewer project — they could bring

it in and they could take that one piece of property out of the zoning

and could allow housing to go on it. They could do that if this is what

the government is determined to do. But in doing it, let's not tear

down…. This is really what we're doing: tearing down the development

that has taken place within any community…. I wouldn't say so much the

development, but the steps that a community must take to development in

a logical, straightforward and viable manner.

MR. REID: It's called red tape.

MR. MITCHELL: Red tape is only something that we have tied to

planning. When I built my home I had to conform to a lot of red tape.

But the person developing next door to me has to build something

compatible with the investment that I have made in my home. That is

exactly the same outlook that we have to use in our community. If we

are going to invest millions of dollars in a particular shopping

centre, we are going to be making those investments knowing that the

investment is not going to be endangered because of the whim of some

particular politician to change the ground rules that everyone else has

to conform to.

[ Page 1233 ]

[4:15]

In any society we have ground rules, laws, traditions. Any time any

one of us feels that we can run roughshod over something that has

developed over many years, that has been accepted in certain times….

Every one of us may find that we are not happy with the restrictions

that we have on us. Sometimes when we are travelling along the highway

we're quite convinced that the speed limit — though it's a good speed

limit for everyone else — is really not necessary for us at that

particular time. And within our own selves we rationalize that it's all

right for us to fudge a little bit. But we don't stand up and say that

we should eliminate the speed limits, that we should eliminate good

driving practices, or that we should eliminate the attitudes of

drivers. This is what this government is doing in Bill 9. They are

jamming something through this House without going out to the community.

Those who are most concerned with this bill are the municipally

elected councils in the cities throughout British Columbia. These are

the people who are going to have to develop their areas under the

pressure of developers and local people who will use the Spetifore

precedent as something that they should be allowed to do. They will say

that in Delta, because a bare majority of that particular council —

five for and four against, a majority of one; and we all know that a

majority of one in one particular council can be a majority of five or

six in the next council, or it can be a complete reversal of the

opinions of the community….

In my own experience with municipal governments and aldermen I have

watched the swing go from pro-development of anything to get a higher

density on a piece of property…. We had nothing but a series of

crackerbox-style apartments, which, the developers said, were going to

solve the rental problems of the community.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: The first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston)

asked if there was low-cost housing. No, there was no low-cost housing

based on the ability to pay. They built cheap and they charged whatever

the traffic would bear. There was no development of senior citizens'

housing. A whole area was developed without any community-based, senior

citizens' housing. There was no development of co-op housing with a

mixed community, in which each person has his rent based on his ability

to pay, on 25 percent of his income. There was no socially needed

housing. It wasn't developed, because we had a series of elected

aldermen who believed that if someone had a piece of property, it

didn't matter how he bought it; if he bought it as a residential

property he should be allowed to spot-zone that property and put up a

long narrow objectionable apartment building because he had the right

and he owned that property. The effect which that building would have

on the rest of the block was not taken into consideration.

I remember when they wanted to build a large apartment on one block

which wasn't historically a part of the apartment-building blocks, but

was property that was bought because it was zoned residential. So what

did they do? And I know this from very hard experience as a police

officer. At that time in the late sixties we had a lot of transients,

commonly called hippies, and they'd move them into a particular area.

What with motorcycle gangs running up and down the road and the

hippies, you would have a transient population coming and going. The

people living between these two houses would sell out to the developer,

not because they were unhappy with their home or with their neighbours,

but because they were forced by the manipulation of developers and real

estate people to spot-zone a community.

This is the type of development that I, as one who lives in the

community, am personally opposed to. If we are going to have any

long-range community development, we must have some long-range

planning. We do need that long-range local planning, and it must also

be tied into the regional development. If we are going to shift the

centre of population, or if the predicted population growth is going to

be in one area, then we must look at proper higher-density development.

We can't live in a world of all single-family housing, but we can't

afford to have the spot-zoning that goes on in the quickflipping market

of the real estate developers and certain unscrupulous builders. They

want to go out and buy property at the cheapest single-family dwelling

rate — residential zoning — and they want to then force through their

particular upzoning.

This is exactly what the Spetifore program is. The Spetifore bill,

as we call it — Bill 9 — is allowing a type of spot-zoning in an

agricultural area that is not necessary.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Have you read Bill 9?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, I have read Bill 9, and I have read all

the other legislation that goes with it. If you've only read Bill 9 and

you haven't read it in the context of the other legislation on the

statute books, Bill 9 doesn't mean a damn. You can't only read Bill 9,

Mr. Speaker. You must read Bill 9 as to how it affects all other

statutes it is amending, how it affects the development of a community,

how it affects the development of a regional district. This is the

important part, that this type of legislation jammed in here — and they

have two pages of amendments to this and amendments to that…. They

don't mean anything. It's not a bill; it's an amendment to a number of

bills. You have to take that particular bill, Bill 9, and fit it into

how it's going to affect the cities, the municipalities, the

unincorporated regions of my area. And you can't always look at it from

your own selfish position; you have to realize that Bill 9 is going to

affect all of British Columbia.

What is Bill 9 going to do? We all in this House, and the few people

up in the gallery and the press who come to the House, know that Bill 9

is to allow the Spetifore land to be developed for housing. But in

doing that, they are destroying the community development of many areas

in B.C. They are allowing businesses….

I use as an example one particular shopping centre in my area. It

had conformed with every one of the pieces of legislation the 30 years

of Social Credit had brought in. They had gone through all the hoops

and red tape, appeared at all the hearings, taken all the flak from

those who opposed it and gone out into the business community and made

deals or leases with large companies who wanted to build in that

particular shopping centre. They had done all the paperwork that was

needed, based on a set of rules and a type of development that the

regional plans in the past had put into place. And then out of nowhere

this new minister….

I think the new minister is learning his way through the cabinet,

and has his hangups that we all know. It's a change to have a bill and

have him talk on the bill and not on the other stuff he used to ramble

on about. But now he's out there

[ Page 1234 ]

working within that 35 or 20…. He is working in

that particular area now that he has to bring in legislation. But I

don't think, in all fairness to this new minister, that he has looked

at it in the light and with the openness that I believe and hope he

has. He hasn't met with municipal officials throughout British

Columbia. We do have a tradition in our British parliamentary system,

and part of that tradition is to set up legislative committees. Members

from all sides of this House can go out…. I should say members from all

parties in this House. There was a time when this side of the House was

opposition and that side was government, but these government people

are sneaking over here, and they keep on….

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Maybe for a short period they'll be there.

We should have this legislative committee, and some major changes

should be brought to the Municipal Act. Although the Municipal Act has

grown over these many years that B.C. has been incorporated, there are

changes that I think the municipal constituency out there, the elected

people, would like to see. I know that at their conventions they bring

in, like any other organization, a lot of resolutions. These

resolutions are typed up, debated, sent in. They appear in the

resolution book of the convention, and maybe about one-tenth of them

are ever debated. But if you did have a legislative committee with our

new minister of municipalities, I think he would have an opportunity to

go throughout British Columbia and to meet and speak with the municipal

officials, to meet and speak with the business communities and the

developers, to meet and speak with such organizations as HUDAC, who

must make long-range plans: the type of land that is available so they

can keep their businesses in operation, knowing there are building lots

available. We make some long-range developments and programs — should

we go into certain types of multiple dwellings, apartments, in

different areas? For that long-range development, those long-range

programs, we must look at such things as sewer development, water

supply, schools. Should we have higher densities in the core

communities where we already have schools in operation, where we

already have library services and recreation facilities? There are many

ideas, and I believe that in the province, in the community, people are

just waiting for the opportunity to express them.

[4:30]

Within that context, Mr. Speaker, is why I support the motion to

hoist for six months. It's not so much that it's going to help my

particular constituency solely on the protection of one shopping

centre, or that it may be endangered because Bill 9 opens the doors and

allows the Tillicum shopping centre to make an application. The permit

they had was to build a certain size shopping centre, and now, because

of Bill 9, they're making application to change it. I'm not looking at

it just from the point of view of those few selfish, self-centred

constituency problems. We in this House can't afford the pleasure of

jamming something through to carry out a political promise to take the

Spetifore property not only out of the land freeze, but to allow

housing development in that area when the majority of the community is

opposed to it.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Maybe after the next regional elections the

majority of the regional people will be voting for the Spetifore

amendment, and maybe after the next particular municipal elections the

majority of the Delta council will be opposed to it. But this is

democracy. I've watched governments at all levels change during the 57

years that I have been alive and the 30-some odd years that I've been

involved in different levels of political development. I've watched

these changes, and I know they are going to change. I know that when we

all go, other amendments, other bills, other crises will arise and the

councils and the Legislature will be faced with them and they will be

branded as political promises the same as we are branding Bill 9,

commonly called the Spetifore amendment.

We can't use this Legislature solely for band-aid small-time

corrections. We must do some long-range planning. We need the regional

boards and the regional plans. We need the input from the province for

changes to the Municipal Act. I think that jamming this one small bill

that destroys the regional planning is wrong. To help save this

government from their own destruction I am supporting that we hoist it,

that we give it a second thought, that we look at it, that we bring in

something that is going to preserve planning in my area and the rest of

British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke on the amendment.

MR. MICHAEL: I rise on a point of order. We have had today

three speakers from the opposition. All have taken the maximum allotted

time according to the rules: a full 40 minutes. We have had 18 speakers

prior to today on this bill, each of them taking the maximum 40 minutes

allocated to each speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a tremendous

amount of repetition here today. We all know that the job of the

opposition is to oppose, but I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, it's

not to obstruct. I would ask you, according to the rules, to ask the

speakers to stay on the subject, that being an amendment to the bill in

question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Points of order relating to standing order 43

are always well taken. I will ask all members to relate their remarks

to the amendment before us, the amendment to hoist.

MRS. WALLACE: I am pleased to take my place in debate and to

support the motion to hoist, for a great many very good reasons which I

will try to outline clearly enough that even the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke will be able to understand them.

MR. REID: That would be a first.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, that would be a first.

Mr. Speaker, why are we suggesting that this bill be hoisted?

Certainly not just because the opposition thinks it should be hoisted.

I would suggest that you can pick up any paper or almost any brief that

has come from almost any organization concerned about municipal

politics and you will see nothing but requests to back off, to

withdraw, to delay, not to pass this in the form it is in.

When I spoke previously, I read into the record a letter from the

city of Duncan, in my constituency, urging the government to back off

on this bill. "I would urge you to

[ Page 1235 ]

review this legislation, " says the mayor of

Duncan, "The effect in this community could be to completely destroy

the economy of the city of Duncan and those forward-looking businessmen

who have invested their time and money in the city." The city of Duncan

was certainly concerned.

I have a letter dated August 3 from the Cowichan Valley Regional

Board to the Premier and Members of the Legislative Assembly. All of us

received a copy of this, from the administrator, Mr. Ralph Keir, asking

that the government reconsider several bills that are listed, and Bill

9 is certainly one of them. That is in line with the idea to hoist.

One group after the other, even HUDAC, a group noted for its

interest in getting rid of red tape and streamlining, has said: "We

have looked at this and have had second thoughts about it, and we

recognize that regional planning must be maintained."

AN. HON. MEMBER: Who said it?

MRS. WALLACE: Who said it? It is included in a brief that was

presented by HUDAC to the…. This is the introduction: "The

responsibility for land use decisions rests with the municipal level of

government, but there must also be a coordination of municipal land use

decisions with those other levels of government responsible for the

development of infrastructures." Later on in the brief, they come up

with the idea that they are now convinced that there will be some major

disadvantages associated with the loss of regional plans within the

lower mainland and CRD regions.

So certainly HUDAC is looking at some changes and looking at the

need to have some overall provision for general planning. I want to

speak to these members of the government in a language that they seem

to understand better than any other, and that is the language of

economics. Is it an economically viable thing to get rid of regional

planning? I suggest that it isn't. Certainly this bill proposes many

false economies. The lack of intermunicipal coordination and planning

will cause long-term problems that will be very expensive. Without that

general coordination and regional concept, we're going to find that our

dollars are not well invested. The costs down the road are going to be

much greater than any saving that may be accomplished in the immediate

future.

It should be realized that a great proportion of the investment that

goes into capital investment in municipalities is public sector

investment, in the way of roads, sewage, water facilities, parks — the

whole gamut. It's been estimated that between 25 and 50 percent of the

cost is public investment. Without some regional comprehensive

planning, that investment is not going to be wisely carried out. We're

going to have duplication. We're going to have omissions. We're going

to have many problems down the road.

Municipalities simply cannot assume those responsibilities on an

individual basis. So how is it going to be handled if regional boards

do not do it? We've heard some rather scary statements from the

minister just recently that he is going to privatize it. That certainly

is frightening to me. I think that certainly he has to take a longer

look. If this is the sort of thing that he has in mind, then he better

have a lot of heart-to-heart talks with the people that will be

affected by this: the municipal and regional people, and the citizens

themselves. I don't think that he will find that that is a popular

concept. Neither is it an economic concept, because dollar for dollar

we have had a very good return in the planning functions that have been

carried out by regional boards. I'll get to some specifics later.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

They have done a good job from an economic point of view. To do away

with regional planning and just leave an empty void is something that

has no precedent in Canada or North America, particularly in Canada.

That is what's happening with this bill, because there is nothing to

fill the gap that is left by the regional plans.

[4:45]

I mentioned groups that have supported the concept of regional

planning. The Planning Institute of British Columbia submitted a brief

last July to the Minister of Municipal Affairs regarding Bill 9, and

what do they say? They said they would like him to consider what he's

doing. They say:

"We're glad there's a desire to make improvements, but

we caution that the simple elimination of all coordination at the

regional level will probably cause more problems than it will solve."

I think that we have another group that is indicating that they can see problems with this approach. They go on:

"How will neighbouring communities in metropolitan

areas resolve differences on land use issues that affect areas beyond

the boundaries of individual municipalities? Who will be responsible

for anticipating and alleviating the impacts that actions in one part

of a region will have on other parts of the region? Questions like

these should he answered before all existing regional planning programs

are eliminated, not after."

Mr. Speaker, I think the motion to hoist is a very proper one. It's

one that should be considered in all seriousness. Take it back to the

drawing board and review exactly what kind of difficult and unworkable

result we will have if this plan goes ahead.

We must remember that in the past, regional planning has dealt with

land use, servicing, transportation — issues that cross municipal

boundaries. Nowhere is that truer than in the lower mainland, or in the

Capital Regional District, for that matter. It’s even true in the

Cowichan Valley. We must remember that we do not live an isolated

existence; we don't stay within the boundaries of our own

municipalities anymore. There is a need to travel outside of those

boundaries, which means that development within a given area has a very

real impact on transportation. Has that been reviewed? Have we thought

about that? I doubt it, Mr. Speaker. It's another good reason to hoist

this bill.

If you build a shopping centre in one area, you can well devastate

another area. That's what the city of Duncan was talking about. They

spoke about merchants putting money into the downtown revitalization

program in order to build up a commercial zone in the heart of downtown

Duncan. Now that's completely overshadowed by allowing the municipality

of North Cowichan to proceed with shopping centres in other areas,

contrary to the regional plan which did not include that. Of course,

it's a natural thing to happen, because each municipality is looking at

increasing its tax base. This is going to be their prime consideration,

without thinking about all the implications it may have on another area

or jurisdiction. That's another problem that I don't think has really

been considered. It takes an overall plan and only a regional body can

produce such a plan, one that will take into account the

[ Page 1236 ]

best interests of all the area and of the people living in that area.

Regional plans have a very definite value insofar as provincial

programs are also affected. I've spoken of the downtown revitalization

program and how it applied so specifically to my own area. Provincial

taxpayers' dollars were poured into that plan and now, by a stroke of

the provincial pen, that whole community may well find itself

devastated and at the mercy of a larger, newer shopping centre out

along the main thoroughfare. Certainly it doesn't bode well for the use

of taxpayers' dollars if we allow these kinds of things to happen, and

in the best economic sense it's not the way we should be proceeding.

When we put an investment into something then we must ensure that that

investment is protected, not just throw it away with the stroke of a

pen.

As I said before, if this act passes there is really no provision

for all those things that relate to the greater community. As a result

we find that the public planning institute of British Columbia — for

some of the reasons that I have outlined — is recommending that Bill 9

be withdrawn. Certainly that's in line with what we're talking about.

We're suggesting that it be hoisted for six months — time to

reconsider. They go on to say that the Minister of Municipal Affairs

should consult with many of the groups affected to discuss in a

positive way something that would not just eliminate the regional plan.

I don't think anybody thinks that everything is perfect the way it is,

but certainly you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Those of

us who can recall the situation back in the 1960s, before we had

regional plans, will know what some of those problems were. I have

always lived in a rural area, and I well remember the difficulties we

had. There was absolutely no protection or input to local government.

We lived in what was known as unorganized territories or areas, and

everything was dealt with from the provincial level. So as far as

planning goes, this is going to put us right back in that same category.

Howard Sturrock, the chairman of the Capital Regional Board, has

said it very well in an

article that he has written. At the risk of

being repetitive, if I read this I'm going to talk about Spetifore,

because certainly that's what Howard Sturrock talked about. I don't

think there's any question that that's had a lot to do with this motion

coming in. Howard Sturtock says:

"This has been called the Spetifore amendment because

of wide speculation that it arises from the refusal of the Greater

Vancouver Regional District to approve an amendment to the regional

plan which would have permitted a housing development on the former

Spetifore property in South Delta. Those who follow such controversies

will know that the Spetifore farm was refused exclusion from the

agriculture land reserve by the Socred appointed Land Commission but

was later removed from the ALR by cabinet order."

This really begins to deal with the need for a much

broader perspective when you're looking at any local zoning, and is the

reason why we on this side of the House believe that this bill should

be hoisted. It goes on:

"Anyone who lives south of the George Massey–Deas

Island Tunnel in Delta, and faces the long wait for passage through it,

both in the morning rush hour going north and in the evening rush hour

travelling south, must recognize that there is more than a local

interest and a local responsibility in the urban development which

takes place south of that bottleneck. There is a regional stake in

limiting the amount of urban development in that area. The overriding

reason is that the province cannot afford to build another $100 million

tunnel or bridge under or across the Fraser River just to meet the

demands of commuter traffic. Surely this is one of the items that

regional planning is all about: to use our resources in a way in which

we get maximum advantage; to spend our limited tax dollars in ways

which provide the maximum benefit for the largest number of people; to

discourage private decisions which have adverse effects on taxpayers at

large; to encourage proposals which more fully use the public assets we

have already acquired." Certainly that is what regional planning is all

about. I couldn't agree with Mr. Sturrock more, because he certainly

has pointed out very clearly and concisely the economic difficulties

you face if you allow urbanization and the urban sprawl, development

uncontrolled, to just land wherever some small individual local body

decides it wants it.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Elected body? True, but so are regional boards

elected and so is the provincial government elected. Municipal councils

act under a Municipal Act which is a provincial piece of legislation.

Does anybody say that that's not democratic? Nobody says that's not

democratic. Surely we have to look beyond the borders of our own back

forty, Mr. Speaker, to be able to comprehend today's twentieth century

needs.

MR. REID: In cooperation with the local elected officials.

MRS. WALLACE: That's exactly what was going on.

MR. REID: There's no cooperation. The regional board isn't listening.

MRS. WALLACE: The little member from Surrey — the number two

member (Mr. Reid) somehow seems to think that regional boards are not

elected. I've got news for him: regional boards are elected. They form

part of the greater whole of the province, just as municipalities form

part of the greater whole of the regional districts. Certainly it's all

part and parcel of the democratic process. Just because his

municipality happens to be short-sighted, and in this instance I

personally believe them to be wrong…. A lot of people believe they're

wrong, obviously, or we wouldn't have all this furor, and we wouldn't

have this special amendment trying to circumvent general public opinion.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: You're circumventing the elected officials on a

much broader base by passing this legislation. I wanted to give some of

the figures that have been quoted by Mr. Sturrock. He says: "In many of

the 28 regional districts across the province, regional planning does

not have a high profile." I don't know where those areas are. Regional

planning certainly has a high profile in any of the districts that I

know anything about, but I imagine that in some of the more

[ Page 1237 ]

outlying areas, where there hasn't been the need or

the amount of people facing the problems that we face in the more

highly populated areas, that may be the case. He goes on to say: "It is

in fact one of the reasons why regional districts were formed in the

mid-1960s. The regional planning staff of seven is small"