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 )

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1983

Evening Sitting

[ Page

2391 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 9). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie).

section 4 –– 2391

Mrs. Dailly

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Lea

On the amendment to

section 4 –– 2393

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lea

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. R. Fraser

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Kempf

Division

section 4 –– 2404

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Division

section 5 –– 2404

Mr. Lea

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Rose

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Lea

Mr. Reynolds

Division

section 6 –– 2419

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Skelly

On amendment 6.1 –– 2420

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Gabelmann

On the title –– 2421

Mr. Hanson

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 15). Second reading.

Mr. Hanson –– 2422

Mr. Skelly –– 2426

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2428

Mr. Passarell –– 2429

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2430

Appendix –– 2431

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1983

The House met at 8:05 p.m.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 4.

MRS. DAILLY: We find that

section 4 is really the heart of

the bill, as most of us know, because it will allow the repeal of

sections 807, 808, 812, 813 and 815. Without repeating what's been said

before, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that we primarily object to

this amendment because the whole area of regional planning can be lost

completely and forever from the planning processes of British Columbia.

I don't know how many times we've appealed to that minister to please

not put this through. We feel this amendment is based entirely on a

philosophical, dogmatic approach to deregulation which is going to set

a very bad planning situation in the province of British Columbia for

the future. Would the minister please tell the House why he is doing it?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The answer to the member is in order to deregulate, to streamline and to further strengthen the autonomy of the municipalities.

MRS. DAILLY: It isn't going to do it.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to deal specifically with

section 807,

which

section 4 proposes to repeal. What we are trying to do away with

here is of course the regional plan: "The regional board shall prepare

regional plans applicable to the regional district...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that

section was canvassed at some

great length last night; the records will show that. We must be

specifically relevant in committee of the whole on the

section of the

bill....

MRS. WALLACE: Am I allowed, Mr. Chairman, to ask a question relevant to

section 807?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly, but the records will show that lots of questions have been. Please proceed with your question to the minister.

MRS. WALLACE: The question I want to ask about

section 807 is relative

to the basic idea behind regional plans, which have certainly been accepted

very well in my area by the regional board. The whole area is very pleased to

have a regional plan in place. I'm wondering whether the minister has given

any consideration to the possibility of allowing some form of choice for a regional

district to decide whether or not they want to opt out of planning, or whether

this holusbolus removal of planning, as you are proposing to do here by wiping

out

section 807.... Has the minister given any consideration to providing an

option for a regional board that might decide by democratic vote to retain their

regional plan? Has any consideration been given to this kind of an option for

a regional board that wishes to retain that ability to plan? Has that been considered

at all? Has there been any consultation along that line, or any request that

this be done? Is it the regional boards that want this power removed? What's

the basis for wiping out this political section? As far as I'm concerned,

it has been looked upon in my area with a great deal of favourable review and

consent from the people around there. They really like the idea of knowing what

is being established and having those plans there so they know what they are

getting into.

I don't understand why this is suddenly being wiped out, and I'm

wondering if there has been any consultation. Has there been any

thought of allowing that option for regional boards to make a decision

to retain this right to plan?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, many questions were posed

there, most of them repetitious. Certainly I don't think there's any

question that the regional board liked the idea of a regional plan. I

would like the member to explain to me who it is she wishes would have

the choice as to whether there is a regional plan or not. Are you

asking that the regional board be asked to decide that?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. Would it

not be advisable to give it to an area that has, from its own free

choice, set up a regional board, elected its people democratically,

lived in line with the Municipal Act as far as voting powers are

concerned, established itself as an entity and set up a community plan

at a lot of expense and effort based on the wishes and desires of all

the people in that area? Now I'm saying okay, we've gone this far.

We've spent a lot of effort getting this plan. Are we going to be given

an option, or have you considered it? Obviously under this bill you are

not giving us an option, but have you considered the possibility of

giving us an option to retain that regional plan? If you're talking

about a regional plan, certainly it has to be the regional board that

would have that choice.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I gather that what the member

is talking about is really intermunicipal planning. I'm just wondering

if the member isn't contradicting her own philosophy: that is,

overruling the wishes of the people, say, at the municipal level.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, through you, I would ask the member the

question: would she be in favour, for instance, if we asked the

municipalities whether or not they wished to be part of a regional plan?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, it's a bit unusual that the minister

keeps asking me questions, but I'm quite happy to reply. The

part is

never greater than the whole and the municipality is part of a regional

district. As such, if you believe in democracy, that municipality must

abide by the majority decision in that greater whole. That's democracy,

Mr. Chairman. It's certainly our concept of democracy: that the

part is

never greater than the whole, and that the whole must make the ultimate

decision. The

part is represented. It has its

[ Page 2392 ]

opportunity to vote and to voice its opinion. It

certainly works in our area. That's the concept I'm talking about, the

concept that I believe the minister should be using before he takes

this holus-bolus stroke and wipes out regional plans completely.

He keeps asking me questions, Mr. Chairman, but I haven't heard him

answer my question as to whether or not he is prepared to allow that

option of choice to those regional boards that wish, by a majority

vote, to retain the right to plan on a regional basis.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have a question to the minister

with respect to consultation and the whole consultative process. It's

my understanding that Dan Campbell, who first introduced regional

districts and regional planning — and that's the

section under debate

right now....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are now extensively canvassing

material that was done during second reading. We are on a specific

section which is a repeal

section and we should be brief.

MS. SANFORD: We had questions today, Mr. Chairman, which I think relate specifically to this particular question.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, it's really irrelevant. I

think we're getting far from the

section that's being debated, and I

would ask that the member stay to the

section being debated.

[8:15]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the

section that is under debate,

as the minister well knows, relates to planning. My predecessor in the

constituency of Comox was one Dan Campbell, who introduced planning. He

introduced this section. He introduced planning....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on

section 4. Those

questions might be in order during second reading statements; they

might be in order during the estimates of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. Certainly they are out of order now. They are repetitious and

irrelevant. This is a repeal act and we simply must deal with the

principle of repeal. That is the question.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the person who introduced consultation and planning, and this is the section....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is...

MS. SANFORD: Now just a minute....

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...not in the act.

MS. SANFORD: Well, it is. It's planning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference to a former minister is not in the act.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, is it not permissible... The

section

we're talking about,

section 4, is to repeal sections of an already

existing act. Is it out of order for the member for Comox to tell you

and the House why she is against the repeal, to give her reasons and a

bit of the history? Is that wrong?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be, hon. members, because that has

been discussed in second reading, and second reading has been passed,

which agrees to repeal this section.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This

section repeals sections 807, 808, 812, 813 and 815 of the Municipal

Act. None of these sections refers to any consultative process. Under

standing order 43, I think we should draw the attention of the members

to the repetitious nature of their questioning. There is nothing that

requires the member to answer a question satisfactorily in the eyes of

the opposition. He has responded to their questions; it is not

necessary that he satisfy them. Yet they persist with the same line of

questioning hour after hour. I suggest that perhaps it's time to invoke

section 43 regarding repetitious debate in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Comox will please be relevant to the repeal nature of this section.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to explain to you as carefully as I can what I am referring to.

The minister indicated to us during second reading that this bill

had come about as a result of a very wide consultative process. First,

I am asking specifically, under this specific section, whether or not

the minister has consulted with Dan Campbell, who was the minister

responsible for introducing the sections in the first place. Secondly,

since it is our understanding — although the minister has not clarified

that for the House — that Dan Campbell is going to have a very specific

position....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not within the context. I

will have to ask the member to discontinue that line of debate, because

it is not in any way relevant to the

section before us.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, maybe it would

speed the business of the House if you gave us an example of a line of

questioning that would, be in order. We've tried everything possible

and Mr. Chairman has ruled everything out of order. Nothing is in

order. So, Mr. Chairman, maybe you could give us a small example of'a

line of questioning to the minister that would be in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is not up to the Chairman of a

committee to advise members how they should carry out their debate.

This

section is very narrow, in that it deals with repeal. The

principle of this bill has been passed in second reading, and this does

make debate very narrow on this section. Those are the rules of strict

relevancy in committee.

MR. LEA: That is true, but no matter what we say, no matter

what question we ask, you say it isn't relevant. I think we are getting

to the point where you had better start bringing forward some

background to tell us why it is not relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not bring forth advice as to how members may speak or construct their debate.

[ Page 2393 ]

That is entirely up to them. The Chair only has an

obligation to enforce the rules of the House. When the Chair hears a

debate being offered that is more properly addressed in the ministerial

estimates or in second readings, such as reference to a previous

minister, who is not mentioned here, then the Chair must intervene in

the duty of maintaining House and committee order.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, when you do rule, is it

not proper for us to ask you on what basis you are making the ruling?

Not just that you make the ruling, but that you bring something forward

to say: "Here is the proof that it is not relevant"? That is what I'm

asking at this point, Mr. Chairman, because no matter what we say, you

rule it as irrelevant, with no reason given. We would like to know what

your authority is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think I have just given you that reason, but

I will advance it again. Debate in committee on a bill must be strictly

relevant to the clause under consideration. The member for Comox has

advanced second reading or ministerial estimates debate in that

previous ministers were mentioned, and much of the debate that the

member has advanced is not contained in this section. This

section is

strictly relevant to repeal, and repeal only.

MR. LEA: If it's a repeal, we can't discuss it. Is that it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The repeal can be discussed.

MR. LEA: But not the reason.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think where

the confusion arises is that clause 4 calls for the deletion of

sections 807, 808, 812, 813 and

Section 807, as I read it from the

1979 Municipal Act, deals with the preparation, by a board, of

"regional plans applicable to the regional district and revise them as

necessary, and for this purpose a regional plan means a general scheme

without detail for the projected uses of land within the regional

district, including the location of major highways."It goes on to say in other sections....

I'm not reading this for the goodness of my health, or to drag it

out or to stall; I am trying to find out what narrow parameters exist.

Presumably, Mr. Chairman, if someone gets up and says, "This deals with

the repeal of 807," and talks about regional boards, plans, maps,

general schemes, major highways, and goes along further in other

places, that would be in order because it deals with a matter to be

deleted. I don't see why we should be precluded from discussing these

matters in the fullest possible detail, or from cross-examining the

minister on these subjects, because precisely the issue we face here

is: why are we deleting something that has been of great value to many

people and for which we have no reasons given us — reasonable reasons —

for its deletion or abolition?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will repeat: there has been a great deal of

latitude allowed in second reading on this debate in the House. The

records will clearly show that. There was a great amount of latitude

offered late last night and early this morning during committee stage,

and the Chair is now hearing arguments that are becoming quite tedious

and repetitious. Furthermore, since we have in principle, in second

reading, approved the nature of repeal as it applies to this section,

the scope of debate is extremely narrow. The House has approved.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to narrow it down much

more than it is in this

section that we are debating. I move that

section 807 be deleted from this

section 4. I will read 807. I want to

familiarize the committee with what 807 means.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: You are just a jackboot fascist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to withdraw that statement. It is offensive. Please withdraw.

MS. BROWN: I will withdraw it. I mean it, though.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An unqualified withdrawal, please.

MS. BROWN: It is unqualified.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An unqualified withdrawal will be sufficient. Will the member please withdraw, with no further statement.

MS. BROWN: So done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order, hon. member.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the

section we've

dubbed "the Spetifore section, " but it could just as easily be called

"Gloucester." It would just as easily be called the....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, the thing up in Comox.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your amendment relates

specifically to

section 807 of the Municipal Act. It is quite specific

and the debate must be strictly relevant to that section.

MR. COCKE: In order to enable my colleagues to debate that

specific area.... I want them to listen carefully to the wording of

section 807(1).

Interjections.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, I would ask the

member for Skeena to withdraw the phrase that he used twice this

evening: "I wonder if he is a jackboot fascist."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Skeena will withdraw that comment.

[ Page 2394 ]

MR. HOWARD: I need to know first to whom it was applied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it was said, it offends the House. Will the member please withdraw it?

MR. HOWARD: It was applied to Mussolini, who is dead and buried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It still has been found offensive. Will the member be so kind as to withdraw the statement?

MR. HOWARD: Just withdraw the phrase?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine. The member for New Westminster will continue on the amendment to

section 4.

MR. COCKE: What we are confronted with here is a

section that

deletes 807. I want to familiarize the committee with exactly what 807

is. After the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) settles down

and gets his wits about him, I will do that.

[8:30]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we please have orderly debate? We are on

a proposed amendment to

section 4. An awful lot of intemperate remarks

are being made right now by the Minister of Agriculture and the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds, and by other members. I ask all members to please

come to order, and ask the member for New Westminster to relate his

remarks strictly to the amendment,

MR. COCKE: Strictly to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, what I

ask in my amendment is that we delete

section 807 from

section 4 of

this particular bill. I want to read

section 807 of the original act.

Now anybody who cannot understand this

section and its meaning that it

is providing strength to the Municipal Act — I would like them to tell

me they're going to vote against it. Listen carefully: this is the

section that this proposed act deletes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Have you moved your amendment?

MR. COCKE: Yes, I have moved it, and I am now about to read

the

section that I'm dealing with. That

Section in the Municipal Act

goes as follows....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The House Leader says he can read it. The problem is that I feel there is some dyslexia over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might remind the member for New Westminster

that although we are on the amendment to

section 4,

section 807,

referred to in

section 4 of the act before us, was discussed at some

length last night and early this morning. The records will show that.

So I think much further discussion would be deemed tedious and

repetitious. The member will be brief in his comments.

MR. COCKE: Certainly I'll be as brief as I can. I will refer

you, Mr. Chairman, to that library behind us, the library on that side

and everywhere else. Since we've been on these marathon sessions we

have not had one copy of the Blues. There is no possible way that any

member of this Legislature or this committee knows precisely what's

been going on. Therefore I suggest that I should read this

section so

that the people are enabled....

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I

understand that in committee you're supposed to stick to the point,

make your point, and not go on about the Blues or the reds, or anything

else.

MR. COCKE: Oh, he walked in the door, Mr. Chairman, totally untutored, as is his wont....

MS. BROWN: No respect for the House...

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, hon. members.

MS. BROWN: ...making all of your fascist remarks in here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That word is becoming quite upsetting. I

asked the member to withdraw it once. If it occurs again, I will find

it grossly disorderly. Please avoid that type of terminology.

With respect to

section 807, it was discussed at some length late

last night and early this morning. The Chair and this committee are

extremely well aware of the length to which

section 807, referred to in

section 4, was discussed. The Chair will not permit further repetition

of any discussion on 807.

Does the member for New Westminster have new material to advance on his amendment? If so, please proceed.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I sat here every second last

night during the debate on 807. The Leader of the Opposition got up and

asked question after question on 807 and got no answers. What I am

doing now is asking that that

section be deleted — totally different.

There were no answers to the questions that the Leader of the

Opposition brought forward last night — not one! — as you know, Mr.

Chairman, because you sat in the chair for most of that marathon

discovery session.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is well aware that a minister is not obliged to answer questions, but I'm glad the....

MR. COCKE: Perfectly right. Therefore, as a member of the

opposition I am obliged to move that that

section be deleted. I also

have the obligation to let everyone know what that

section is and what

it means.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The

member for New Westminster, on his own admission, has stated that the

question was put time after time last night and again today. There is

no obligation on the part of the minister to satisfy the members

opposite by answering any questions. The member has himself said time

and time again here tonight that they have continued to put the same

question. Mr. Chairman, I implore you to invoke standing rule 43 and

put an end to this ridiculous, repetitive, stupid debate that is taking

place in this House at this time.

[ Page 2395 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken and....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! One moment, please. Unless the member has new information to advance, I will ask the member to discontinue his speech.

MR. COCKE: I have new information on the same point of order.

Mr. Chairman, you have before you an absolutely brand-new amendment,

one that you accepted to be in order. You, Mr. Chairman, with respect,

and that group over there, are denying me the opportunity to debate my

amendment to this bill. That has nothing to do with what happened last

night, or tomorrow. This is today, this moment. Mr. Chairman, my point

of order is that I want to outline my reason for wanting this

section

deleted from the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to continue on the amendment?

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Let me discuss with the committee for a moment or two the very thing

that the minister would not discuss last night. He wouldn't answer the

questions, so I will bring forward the meat of this issue. Deleting

section 807 from this

section would mean we keep it in the act. It

reads: "The regional boards shall prepare regional plans applicable...."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. During

the debate on

section 4 of the amendment act, all of the sections to be

deleted were read a number of times. I see no reason to have it read

again. It's a continuation of the same repetitive type of debate. Again

I implore you, Mr. Chairman, to invoke

section 43 of the standing

orders of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. If the member could explain — not read it,

because it has been dealt with at some length, but perhaps some new

argument supporting your amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, how can I possibly raise arguments

when that minister gets up in the middle of a sentence...? I'm trying

to talk about a

section that is to be deleted by this government, and

one that I'm suggesting should be left in the act. I can only read the

section in order to fortify my argument.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would become repetitious.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Oh, here comes the heavy! Here comes the big gun.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, may I or may I not, for heaven's sake, have the rules of this House applied to this situation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you certainly may, except that standing

order 43, a rule that governs all speeches in this committee, states

that we must not be repetitive. As I've advised the member for New

Westminster, we have dealt at some length with reading

section 807. If

the member wishes to advance new arguments in support of his amendment,

then that would be in order.

I now recognize the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications on a point of order.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Chairman....

MR. COCKE: Oh, blazes! Are you on a point of order or not?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman. the member is not waiting for

the Blues; he's waiting for the pinks. I was here last night trying to

get a little sleep in the chamber, and I heard again and again this

particular line of debate. It was very difficult to get some rest in

the chamber when the member.... At that particular time the Leader of

the Opposition was precisely on this point. At 1 a.m., after much

repetitive debate, in frustration the House finally adjourned. I can

say that because many members drew attention to the fact that the

press, while they appeared to be awake, were actually asleep.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine, hon. member.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, please hear me out. The

difficulty the member for New Westminster faces is that he was not

present while all of this was canvassed during debate last evening.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I was. Every minute of it!

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: He was not present. And what he is doing —

as many members of the opposition do, not being present for debate — is

to revisit it at a different time. That's the dilemma the House faces.

All of the members wish their right to speak in debate, but seldom

exercise their responsibility to vote when the crunch comes, and that's

the problem we face. They demand their rights but fail to accept their

responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has made a good point about standing order 43.

MR. COCKE: He may have made a good point about standing order

43 — and I don't think so — but the fact of the matter is, Mr.

Chairman, while that member slept I sat in my chair. I was here for

every moment of the debate last night; I heard every word that was

said. The House Leader knows that. Had he been awake he would know that

too.

Mr. Chairman, may I continue?

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. When the Minister

for Universities, Science and Communications took his place, you asked

him if it was a point of order. He said no. He then went on. If it was

not a point of order he must have been speaking to the amendment. Yet

he rambled on and on and on about not being able to sleep, that this

member wasn't here, and he went on about the opposition. Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 2396 ]

you let him go quite a while and nobody said anything about

section 43. Are there two sets of rules?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the minister did in fact indicate that he...

MR. LEA: No, he did not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing order 43 was referred to, and the minister's comments also made reference to that.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: I don't want to deal with the member's insomnia, but....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Do you have a point of order?

MR. ROSE: Well, he discussed the matter of sleeping. I imagine sleeping is relevant.

Could I draw Your Honour's attention to citation 299 in Beauchesne's

fifth edition, page 98. It has something to offer us both on repetition

and relevancy, so I draw it to the members' attention. "Relevancy is

not easy to define," it says here. "In borderline cases the member

should be given the benefit of the doubt." So I will recommend that to

the House.

But here is a citation much more central to the point. It is dead on

what we are discussing tonight. "The rule against repetition is

difficult to enforce" — get this, Mr. Chairman — "as the various stages

of a bill's progress give ample opportunity and even encouragement for

repetition."

I would think that in order to underline a particular point,

repetition is one of the earliest, most profound, most used, most

customary forms of emphasis. It says: "...even encouragement for

repetition." It's encouraged by the rules. "In practice, wide

discretion is used by the Speaker, and the rule is not rigidly

enforced."

MR. CHAIRMAN: We must admit that considerable time has been given to members of this committee to discuss

section 4.

MR. COCKE: With respect, we could have completed the debate

on my amendment, had we had an opportunity to do so. Here we are at

exactly square one. My amendment says that we should bring

section 807

back and leave it in the act. That's what it really says. This bill

deletes

section 807 from the act, and I want it brought back in. The

reason I want it brought back in is because I believe that the regional

board should prepare regional plans applicable to the region. That's

all this amendment is about. That's exactly what I wanted to read in

the first place until I got this guillotine, or attempted guillotine,

from all these people. That is what it is all about.

This aspect is very important. While the Leader of the Opposition

talked about its applicability to Spetifore, Gloucester, and this, that

and the other thing, I don't really think it has the kind of

applicability that would worry me. There are later sections that do,

but what worries me about this particular

section is that it takes the

responsibility away from the regional districts.

I want to recount an experience. When Dan Campbell came up with this

whole concept of regional districts and their responsibilities 18 years

ago....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Strictly relevant.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman....at that time I thought it was

metropolitanization, or maybe total integration. But aside from that,

what we have seen is that this whole area of planning, as has been done

by the regional districts, has proven positive and has provided a good

basis for planning in our province. All of a sudden, because the

minister has had somebody suggest to him that it should be done away

with, obviously on a whim, he is doing away with it. It is crazy. I

urge this committee to support my amendment. Leave it in. This is

planning. Isn't it about time we had a government that is prepared to

plan? Even the old-time Socreds were prepared to plan, but these

nouveau Socreds, with their "friends," are not prepared to do the

planning that's provided for in

section 807. It is important. Leave

section 807 in the Municipal Act.

[8:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd say the noes have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Coquitlam-Moody on the amendment.

MR. ROSE: I would like to speak on the amendment, and I don't

really think that by body language, Mr. Chairman, you should indicate

that our debate is not acceptable to you as Chairman. I think that you

should encourage us to give our best kind of production in terms of

trying to bring some wisdom to our deliberations. That may be difficult

for some of us — more difficult for some than others; nevertheless, I

think it's worth doing.

I was an alderman when regional plans came into being. I was a

member of the council of Coquitlam under the celebrated and long-time

mayor, Jimmy Christmas. We had regional planning before we had regional

districts. Regional districts didn't come about as a product of the

provincial government, They were requested....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, when we are debating

a particular

section of a bill in Committee of the Whole House, the

area of debate is very narrow. But when you are debating an amendment

to one particular part of a

section of a bill, the debate must indeed

be necessarily narrow. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that anything that

could possibly be covered under the amendment has already been

canvassed, and that the member is now casting his debate far too wide

for the very narrow limits that must be imposed upon an amendment to a

narrow

section of a bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. As

interesting as are the member's comments, they would be more

appropriate in second reading. We are now in committee, where debate in

this Legislative Assembly must be strictly relevant.

[ Page 2397 ]

MR. ROSE: I believe I am being relevant. I am talking about

an amendment to retain

section 807. I am saying that the

section came

about at the request of particular municipalities. The Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) cited nothing in his point of order to

support his view that somehow, like a reversed pyramid or a carrot in

the ground, the parameters of debate had become narrower and narrower.

I would love to hear some support for that particular piece of what I

regard as debating nonsense. It is not true that we cannot debate in

this particular amendment various things that we....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Look, I know what standing order 43 says. I am not repeating anything.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Have you ever heard me say, Mr. Chairman...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There appears to be a lot of cross debate,

which is totally irrelevant. Perhaps the member can now speak to the

amendment before us, bearing in mind that in the Committee of the Whole

House we do not discuss past history or interesting items, but we

discuss, with strictest relevancy, that section.

MR. ROSE: I'm going to have a lot of difficulty, because I happen to believe that everything in

section 807 is relevant.

The governments of municipalities do not give up power lightly.

Governments of municipalities have resented the giving up of any of

their powers, including those powers of planning and other things that

might be granted regional districts. They did not give these powers up.

They asked for them. There was a lower mainland regional district and

lower mainland regional planning and regional parks even before there

were regional districts. This was requested by the municipalities. When

we come back after we finish this, I'm going to ask the minister how

many municipalities have requested the deletion of 807. The nuts and

the guts of the whole business about regional planning is contained in

807, and that's why it's crucial. It's not something that we somehow

frittered away as irrelevant or far too narrow for the discussion. The

whole of Bill 15 is wrapped up in

section 807, and we don't intend to

let it go without a big squabble.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And that's second reading debate.

MR. ROSE: No, it's not, Mr. Chairman. Regional maps, plans or

any other means are an expression of regional planning — here is

another citation out of

section 807.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Someone is saying: "It's been read before." Lots of

things have been read before, including the Bible. "A regional plan may

apply to all...areas of the regional district." The minister said a

little while ago: "Maybe certain areas might want to opt into it." They

can't unless they are contiguous.

What I'm saying is that this thing started in 1967 at the request of

municipalities, not at the request of the provincial government. We had

a lower mainland regional plan established. It lasted until 1968, when

it was chopped up into four pieces.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not in this section. I'll

repeat one more time. The House has passed this

section to this

committee; it has approved second reading of Bill 9. The committee is

bound by the decision of the House, given on second reading in favour

of the principle of the bill "...and should not, therefore, amend the

bill in a manner destructive to this principle." The amendment has been

found in order because it only touches part of this section, but debate

has to be strictly relevant to the

section and not to the principle or

the history of regional districts or other items. To

section 807,

please.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, in debating 807, which, among other

things, says a lot of things.... I know that if I start to read it

somebody is going to get up and get very, very angry. The House, in its

wisdom, has approved a particular piece of what I regard as legislative

nonsense in principle, but that does not mean that we support all of

its parts. We do not support the

part in 807 which is to be deleted. We

want it to be retained for good and sufficient reasons. We want the

regional boards to be able to become part, should they wish to become

part, of a free association which involves interrelated, mutual

planning among them. That's precisely why we want this particular

clause maintained. It's not that we want them forever — or that they're

going to be forever inflexible.

Section 4 requires — in fact, it

insists, if you like, and certainly provides for — a transition between

one set of uses for particular lands in question and others. Therefore

it is not frozen in stone. It's a very useful piece of material; it's a

very useful clause and we want it to continue. That is the point that I

am attempting to make. It is not something that without the approval of

municipalities, since they started it in the first place, we should

summarily guillotine. So that's the position I take, and that's the

position a lot of people take — including the UBCM.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to speak, Mr. Chairman, in support of

this amendment to retain

section 807. I'm going to be so narrow that

I'm going to confine my comments to the last six words on the fourth

line of

section 807(

l) of the act. The last six words of the fourth

line of 807(

l) read: "including the location of major highways." That's

what I am going to confine my statements to in supporting the retention

section 807.

I represent a riding, Mr. Chairman, which has five major arterial

transportation routes running right through it. If we include Marine

Drive, it would make six. As brilliant, intelligent, astute and caring

as the Minister of Municipal Affairs may think he is, it is not

possible that he should be able to make a better decision about the

location of major highways through Burnaby than the regional planners

and regional districts of that municipality.

For the minister to delete 807, to throw the future of the

communities in Burnaby on the mercy of the bureaucrats in his ministry,

is just absolute nonsense. Nobody, neither the member for Burnaby North

(Mrs. Dailly), nor the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) — if

he were in the House. which he isn't — nor I can stand on the floor of

this House, or sit in this Legislature, and see that

section deleted.

[ Page 2398 ]

No one municipality can make those decisions. That is the reason why it calls for a regional board.

Burnaby is surrounded by New Westminster, Vancouver and Coquitlam.

If anyone wants to get to Surrey, Hope, anywhere in the Fraser Valley,

or anywhere else, you have to pass through Burnaby. For the minister to

delete the board which designs the major highways and their location,

and take that responsibility unto himself, is clearly to place the

people of Burnaby and their community in jeopardy, because nobody from

Burnaby is a bureaucrat in that minister's department. No one from any

of the communities in Burnaby has any say about the decisions handed

down by that ministry. That is the reason why regional boards and plans

are important — so that the community and the residents can have a

voice in what happens to their community.

When you deal with a community that has five or six major

transportation routes running through it, then the people of that

community have to have some say about the location or even the

development of additional major highways. The best way devised for

those people to have some input into the destruction of the community —

which is what usually these major highways represent — is through

regional planning; through Burnaby, New Westminster, Coquitlam and

Vancouver sitting down together and making decisions based on what is

best for all of them, not by leaving it to some bureaucrat in Victoria

to make those kinds of decisions.

[9:00]

Now I am confining my statements very, very narrowly to ensure that I am in

order. This is a very important issue in Burnaby. If you were to run a questionnaire

or run a poll or stop any person in Burnaby on the street and ask him what is

the major problem facing him, he will say to you: "Traffic." If the

member for Burnaby-Willingdon were in the House, he would support that, even

though he is not a member of the opposition. The member for Burnaby North, whom

you have difficulty differentiating from me, Mr. Chairman, will support that

when she gets up to speak.

The location of highways and transportation corridors is of major

importance to the communities of Burnaby. As a result of the location

of these highways, Burnaby is not one big municipality or one big city;

it is a collection of communities. It is so chopped up, Mr. Speaker,

that in some instances you take your life into your hands to move from

one area of Burnaby into another. You are crossing either Lougheed,

Canada Way, Kingsway, Hastings, the freeway, or, as I said before, the

new Marine Drive, if we were to include that as well. For that reason,

Mr. Chairman, if for no other reason discussed in this particular

section, I have to speak in support of this amendment.

I cannot support the concept of regional planning being eliminated,

eradicated — wiped out. Once regional panning goes, Mr. Chairman, the

communities of Burnaby are at risk. The things that we who live in

Burnaby fight for and try to retain are our homes, schools and the

places where we work, shop and have our recreation. They are at the

mercy of the minister and some bureaucrats in his department.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am not going to permit myself to digress, based

on any of the heckling that comes from the government benches. Until

you live in Burnaby — and I'm willing to confess that — you don't

realize the serious threat that traffic can be to the quality of your

life. Until you have had to cope with five or six major transportation

corridors running through your community you don't realize the threat

that traffic can be to the quality of your life.

Mr. Chairman, that is the reason why I have to speak in support of

the amendment which is designed to preserve regional planning. Without

regional planning, New Westminster can decide to send all of their

heavy-duty trucks, any time of the day or night, rolling right through

the municipality of Burnaby. Without regional planning Vancouver or

Coquitlam could do the same. But as a result of regional planning, when

all of the politicians representing each of the regions sat down and

talked about what was necessary for their own community, compromises

were worked out. Cooperation took place. Now we find that trucks are

confined to certain routes. They don't run after certain hours of the

night. In terms of deciding the location of future highways and future

development, it is being done in consultation. We're taking into

account our neighbours' feelings and their needs as well as our own.

That is what makes

section 807 so vital and important, and that, Mr.

Chairman, is why I have to speak in support of this amendment.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe this argument has been

put before. It is one that I think you will understand because of the

part of the country that you represent. At the moment, under

section

807, there is a method for people in unorganized areas of a regional

district to have some say in what happens to their community. I'll give

you a for instance. In my constituency Queen Charlotte City on the

Queen Charlotte Islands is an unincorporated community. Nevertheless,

it is a very real, vibrant community. I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that you

have some in your community.

At the moment, because of

section 807, the people in the community

of Queen Charlotte City have a say, through the regional district, as

to — and I would just like to refer to

section 807 — the location of a

major highway. They have some say as to whether that highway will go

through where their homes are. Take away

section 807 and the people who

live in unincorporated communities and unorganized areas throughout the

province, will have no means whatsoever to have any say in what happens

to land use in the community they live in. So there is an argument that

has not been put before....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mention of highways planning was just reiterated by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. LEA: Yes, but highways is a broad scope.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And repetition is repetition whether it's of your own argument or other members'.

MR. LEA: But the member for Burnaby-Edmonds was talking about

highways within municipalities. I'm talking about highways that are not

within municipalities but in unorganized areas.

Section 807 says: "A regional plan may apply to any or all areas of

the regional district." That part of the

section then says there is a

means under the act, if 807 is in, whereby a

section of the unorganized

area can be set aside, for reasons of planning, into what is called a

specific area. That will no longer exist once this

section is deleted.

Therefore the amendment....

[ Page 2399 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, you're wrong.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it would be much better if the Minister of Municipal Affairs would stand up and give his reasons in this House.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The member is entirely wrong. If he would

read the bill he would see that we are dealing with official regional

plans as they would affect land use decisions in municipalities.

Regional districts will continue to do official settlement planning in

the unorganized areas, and I think that is very clear here. Obviously

he doesn't understand the system; otherwise, he wouldn't be saying

these things. Regional districts continue to do settlement planning in

the unorganized areas. We're dealing only with official regional

planning as it affects land use decisions in municipalities. Is that

clear?

MR. LEA: I thank the minister for clearing that up. Now let's talk about the Spetifore land.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the member for Prince Rupert to deal

specifically with the language of

section 807, which is the item we're

discussing now. As Spetifore was dealt with at some length in second

reading and in committee, I believe that any further argument would be

repetitive and the Chairman would have to ask the member to

discontinue. Does the member have new information to advance with

respect to the amendment dealing with

section 807 of

section 4?

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, let me tell you something. I have lost faith in the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you challenging the Chair?

MR. LEA: I'm saying I have lost faith in the Chair. My

arguments are finished. I have lost faith. Mr. Chairman, that is a

very, very serious statement I'm making.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It certainly is.

MR. LEA: It certainly is. There will be no more arguments from me. I can see it's useless.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have more to say?

MR. LEA: Yes, I do. I think what we're seeing here tonight in

this Legislature is only the beginning of what can be disaster for us

as a Legislature. Mr. Chairman, I honestly believe that what we're

seeing here is a conspiracy to stifle debate around the Spetifore land,

and as to that, I have lost faith.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the member accusing the Chair of any dishonourable motive? If he is, the member will withdraw.

MR. LEA: All I am doing is saying I have lost faith in the Chair.

MR. MITCHELL: I was going to step down for the member for

Burnaby North. I would like to say, before I get started, that I

realize the pressure you're under, and I promise not to make the

mistakes you have. I will not refer to you as the member for Prince

George North.

What I would like to do is follow up again on what my colleague was talking about....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The

member says he is going to follow up again on a point previously made

by another member. I suggest that is contrary to standing order 43.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order as made by the Minister of

Forests is well taken. However, we have not yet heard the member for

Esquimalt–Fort Renfrew. Perhaps we could allow the member to continue

to speak and see if he can advance new material with respect to this

amendment.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am rising

under standing order 43 to bring to your attention that the Minister of

Forests persists in irrelevant, tedious, repetitious interjections when

the members of the opposition are trying to do their business. I

suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is time you name him, and that

you should report him to the House.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I

think it would be indeed a sad day in this Legislature when a member is

named or chastised in any way for trying to bring to the attention of

the Chairman or the Speaker the orders by which we must conduct our

business in this Legislature. I think it is incumbent upon every member

to see that the rules are very strictly enforced.

MR. KEMPF: On the same point of order, it is quite clear in

standing order 43 that that repetition and irrelevance is only named in

debate. It has nothing to do with points of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. It refers to arguments in debate either by the member or another member.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you for listening to that and still keeping a smile, after all that repetition I get from my official critic over there.

We have to look at it very seriously now. When we were debating it

on second reading, we could not deal with the sections. As you recall,

on Friday morning, when I was trying in principle to refer to a

section, I was ruled out of order. In fact, they were just about ready

to throw me out. So we are trying to keep it very close to

section 807.

I have to congratulate the member for New Westminster for bringing

in this amendment, because what we are doing and why we want to keep

this particular

section in the bill is that when you repeal a

section

of the act, as Bill 9 does, you leave a void. When you leave a void,

you are creating chaos out in the community. We in the opposition....

Some of the government members feel we shouldn't enter into this

debate, but we have to look at what will happen if 807 is taken out. I

had a mark before my colleague got up about the location of major

highways. I am not going to mention any land in Delta, but I'm going to

refer to land that is affected in my constituency. It is a particular

subdivision. I am sorry the Minister of Highways is not here because I

have debated his with him, I have spoken with him, and he understands

the major problem within this particular community when the

[ Page 2400 ]

regional directors of that community are preparing

their community plans. In this particular area, the community plan that

is being prepared overlaps two regional areas. The regional directors

in the Western Community of my riding have been fighting for the right

to establish the location of highways.

[9:15]

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, we've talked many times this evening

in regard to relevance in debate. I was out of the House for just a few moments

about ten minutes ago, and what I want to know, Mr. Chairmen, is whether we

dispensed with the amendment to

section 4. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew,

since he started his debate, has not been relevant in any way, shape or form

to that particular amendment. Time after time members opposite have stood in

this House and made an absolute mockery of this parliament. I would ask that

the Chair bring them to abrupt order. The only one who was relevant in this

debate tonight in regard to

section 4 of Bill 9 was the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

The rest have been absolutely out of order, and that makes a mockery of this

Legislature. I would ask that you bring those members to order.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The

amendment deals with

section 807, which deals with regional plans. The

member who has the floor at the moment is talking about unorganized

areas, where the regional plan does not apply; rather it is the

settlement plan. He is totally out of order. He is not dealing with the

amendment at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. The member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will be advised to speak specifically to

section

807 of the Municipal Act, as that is the amendment before us, and not

relate his remarks to debate that might be better done during the

estimates of the Minister of Highways or the Minister of Municipal

Affairs.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I have heard a lot of

interruptions tonight about points of order, and in spite of what was

said by the member for Skeena I think the Chair is in a pretty good

position to determine whether or not the member is out of order in his

remarks. I think by and large the House will support the Chair, if not

in all of his decisions, at least in most of them. If points of order

are used to distract or obstruct or harass a member when he makes his

remarks, they should not be accepted by the Chair. I know the Chair has

difficulty, because the Chair has to hear the point of order before he

can determine whether it really is a point of order or a spurious point

of order. The point is that when people pop up one after another to

bother a speaker, then I think the Chairman has a right to ignore that

person.

Could I direct the Chair, for his wisdom, to a citation, because I

think we should base these things on citations. I look on page 79. I

won't read it all, because I know time is of the essence, but part of

citation 238 of Beauchesne says this: "Points of order are justified

when there is some flagrant misuse of the rules, but they are

unfortunate necessities which should not be regarded as usual phases of

procedure, and ought not to develop into long arguments with the

Speaker, who, being in a quasi-judicial position, should not be drawn

into controversial discussions." I think that that is good advice for

all members of the House, and I think it gives us an opportunity to

place our faith in the Speaker to make certain kinds of rulings to

protect the person who is attempting to do what he is supposed to be

doing. We're examining clause by clause in a committee deliberation.

The purpose of that stage of debate is to go into detail on matters

which may have been lost when we are looking at the great, broad sweep

known as the principle.

So that is my particular offering. I'm prepared to accept the viewpoint

of the Chair on matters of order, and I think the spurious points of order raised

by people across the hall distract the speaker unnecessarily.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the member for his support, but I will

remind members that the Chair, in most cases, supported members who

rose on points of order, particularly standing order 43, which does

deal with tedious repetition and irrelevancy. As members have pointed

out, some debate has been quite in order and other debate has not. It

is the duty of the Chair, in serving this committee and in following

our rules, that in fact the rules be maintained.

MS. BROWN: Further to the point of order raised by my

colleague, would the Chair cite for me which of the standing orders a

member would be able to use in appealing to the Chair for protection

against spurious points of order which harass a person trying to

participate logically and legally in orderly debate? There has to be a

standing order here somewhere. I have read my Standing Orders

from cover to cover, and I cannot find which one I could rise on and

ask for your protection against these spurious points of order, which

only serve to harass a member trying to carry on orderly business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing order is number 9, dealing with

the Speaker and how he will decide. Following that are standing orders

14 and 15, which deal with the Deputy Speaker and the rules in

Committee of Supply.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, getting back to the bill, I

believe that if we had some intelligent debate in here, a little give

and take, we would get through this particular

section a lot more

quickly than by having continual interruption that we're having. I know

my friend the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) keeps saying

that the minister doesn't have to answer. Well, maybe he doesn't in

parliament, but I think he has the moral obligation at least to listen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: I know the minister got up and tried to say

that

section 807 and "including the location of major highways" was not

a part solely left in the hands of a regional district. But when we are

making a major plan such as a regional plan, the parts that go into

that plan — the community plans, the local settlement plans.... It's

important that their input is.... As I believe the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) said, the whole is bigger than the

parts.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to rise again

and draw to your attention the fact that

section 807 deals with the

regional plan. The member is now talking about planning in unorganized

territory, which is settlement planning. Settlement planning stays in

place; regional districts continue to do that. You have to stay with

the amendment as it affects

section 807 — regional planning. You can't

[ Page 2401 ]

go drifting all over the place; otherwise I don't know how to answer you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point of order is well taken. The minister has indicated that we are beyond

section 807 as discussed in this amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: No, we are not, Mr. Chairman. The minister

keeps on deliberately missing my point. What I am saying is that if we

don't have the regional board or someone to coordinate it, we will go

back to the Ministry of Highways foisting it onto the communities. I

don't care if it's the Western Community or if it's part of the

community that makes up the riding of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis). The location of highways, the location of major roads is of

prime importance to everyone living in a community. There has to be

some avenue whereby the community, through their regional directors and

regional board, can coordinate the actions of the Ministry of Highways.

This has been the major problem that regional directors in the Western

Community, who are also part of the Capital Regional District, have

always had. When they try to get the beginning.... Everything starts at

a beginning at the community level. When they are trying to get that

into place so it can become part of a regional board, there is a lot of

interruption by the Highways department. Now you're taking out the one

section that coordinates it all. It would be ridiculous for each

regional director to say: "I want a major highway at this point...."

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The

member is rambling on and obviously does not know what he is talking

about. The transportation corridors and highways in the unorganized

areas are taken care of by the Ministry of Highways, and official

settlement plans are not registered unless they respect them. We're not

dealing with the unorganized areas of settlement planning. We're

dealing with an amendment concerning 807, which is regional planning as

if affects municipalities, not unorganized areas.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, in the interest of fair

play, the minister that time clearly was not on a point of order. He

was debating. He has the opportunity during this discussion to get up

as often as he wishes. I'm sure that any time that a member sits down

at the conclusion of his speech, the minister would be given the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't accept that. The minister clearly

pointed out that what the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was

referring to is not included in

section 807 of the Municipal Act, which

is the amendment that we are currently debating. Since we must be

strictly relevant, I could not find how we could allow the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to continue if he's not speaking to that

particular section,

MR. NICOLSON: When the minister says things like, "The member

doesn't know what he's talking about," that's fair enough comment when

you're in a debate. That certainly sounds like debate to me and not

like a point of order. If I missed the point he is trying to make, it

might have been because it was couched in such rhetoric that it sounded

to me more like debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member finds that expression by the

minister offensive.... The minister was pointing out that the member's

argument is not strictly relevant to this section.

MR. MITCHELL: That's the minister's opinion, and the minister

is trying to confuse it. He knows what I am saying, because we have met

with that minister. I have to repeat this two, three or four times to

get through: the location of major highways is important to this

section 807. If we wipe out the right of the communities to get

involved in the location of highways so that it is coordinated and

viable, you're going to have chaos out there. You're going to have

every little regional district, municipality and city bringing in where

they would like highways to go. It wouldn't work. You will throw it

open to people who will fill that void that is being created by

removing

section 807. It would then become the sole policy of the

Highways department. This is the whole theme of this particular type of

legislation. It is to centralize it within certain hands in Victoria,

the centralized government. I say very sincerely that I feel it

important that the community — not just Colwood, Langford, Esquimalt or

Saanich, but the total community — have that major input into the

location of highways. This is the part that you're taking out by

removing

section 807. You're leaving that void, and if you leave a

void, somebody will fill it. It will be the Highways department who

will do the major planning. At times it is important that the community

does have the input. I'm really worried, and I know the minister keeps

on saying that the community plans and the settlement plans will look

after that. But there has to be that overall coordination.

[9:30]

1'm not trying to get into the technical design of highways how wide they

should be, the cloverleafs — which is the technical end of things which the

Highways department should be looking after. But the social impact that the

major highways have on the greater Victoria area, in my particular case, requires

some group that centralizes it. This is why I have to support the reasoning

of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) that we can't wipe out a

section

unless there is something else that is going to carry over those duties that

have developed over many years; someone said this

section has been in there

17 or 18 years. Whole governments have spent hours and hours, days and days,

weeks and weeks living within this parameter of the regulation. Then, all of

a sudden, it's wiped out without something else replacing it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I do think at this point we have really

canvassed highways planning, in arguments very well presented by the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds and now by the member who has taken his

place. I think we could consider that the relevancy of that item in

this

section has been canvassed to the utmost in this committee.

MR. R. FRASER: It is apparent to me that I have a faith in

people that is more deep than that of many others, and I have a

feeling, having been a resident in the largest city in the GVRD, that

planning in the area began intermunicipally long before we had the

regional district. Certainly my experience in local politics in

Vancouver has brought me to the point where I know that many of the

things that were planned by people who were in office in Vancouver were

to be for the benefit of the region and in fact were outside of the

boundaries of that particular city. I have a lot of faith in the

councils

[ Page 2402 ]

of Burnaby and New Westminster, who I am certain

will take no time to raise their voices against anything that they may

feel is imposed upon them.

I will reflect on the most recent speaker to the amendment, who

talked about centralization, and in fact the theme of this particular

motion is decentralization. I would like to put back into the hands of

the local municipal councils the right to do some planning. Further, if

the time should come somewhere down the pipe when we would wish to then

again recentralize the planning of regional districts or cities within

districts, I am sure we can do that, but at this particular time I am

quite happy to speak against the amendment and will so do.

MRS. DAILLY: I am not going to reply to this last speaker,

because I realize that is not the purpose in this debate on the

amendment; besides, what he said had no validity. Subsection 807(4),

which will be deleted, reads: "The regional board may, in a regional

plan, provide for transition from present to proposed use, and shall,

in preparing the plan, have regard for interrelationships of areas and

uses." Why we have moved this amendment is that it is absolutely

essential that that not be taken out. I want to say to the minister,

and I hope he will reply to this, that in asking this question I am not

going to repeat the very good points made by the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) regarding highways. The same thing applies

in my area of Burnaby North, so I won't talk highways, but my area has,

as you know, a tremendous amount of traffic going through it constantly.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, as I stated before —

and as you have tried to advise the House — the debate on each

section

of the bill is quite narrow, and the debate on the amendment to a

section of the bill is even narrower. The debate on a

section of the

amendment is even narrower. This member is now repeating arguments put

forward by other members on the section, the bill in second reading and

the amendment to the section, and she is extending that to a

section of

a

section to be amended, which must indeed be extremely narrow, Mr.

Chairman.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, I am rising, Mr. Chairman, as

recommended by you, under standing order 9, to bring to your attention

that the Minister of Forests continues to harass the members of the

opposition when they try to discharge their responsibilities on the

floor of this Legislature.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're obviously delaying the democratic process.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I distinctly heard the Minister

of Forests say that the intention of the opposition is to delay. In

other words, what he is doing is giving a motivation here that is not

present, and I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not an unparliamentary motive applied

to any particular member, and I don't consider it worth withdrawal.

With respect to the point of order raised by the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), the minister simply rose to indicate that

he detected some repetition in the debate. But I would defend the

member for BurnabyNorth (Mrs. Dailly) who I am sure is going to advance

new material in her discussion of

section 807 of the amendment.

MRS. DAILLY: Before I was rudely interrupted by the Minister

of Forests I was going to advance a new argument, Mr. Chairman. Because

of the location of my constituency of Burnaby North, if an area

adjacent to it decides that it wishes to build, for example, a large

shopping centre, which is going to inject thousands more residents

coming through the riding of Burnaby North...Surely it is only

reasonable that the municipality of Burnaby should be part of a

regional decision, because it is going to affect my area. What I am

asking the minister to tell this House is this: if he removes this,

what protection is he going to give the residents of Burnaby North?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I take it that what the member is referring to here is some sort of intermunicipal....

MRS. DAILLY: Yes.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Right. So I have to ask the question which

I think is the real problem that we're having. You people are saying

that we must not give the decision-making to the municipality, to the

grass-roots people. We must take it away from them and give it to a

higher level of government. This is where we are disagreeing. The bill

is actually giving the authority to make those land use decisions to

the municipality. I would like to have you, Madam Member, through you,

Mr. Chairman, or any other member on that side of the House tell us:

are you opposed to allowing municipalities to make such decisions?

MR. COCKE: Yes, absolutely.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I wanted that on record, because you're

going to have to answer to most of the municipalities in this province

for wanting to take away that autonomy.

MR. COCKE: We'll stand up and do it. They don't want it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister and many other

members are now once again getting into debate which would have been

better canvassed in second reading. I'll caution all members that we

must be strictly relevant. The member for Burnaby North.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the

minister finally stood and went into some detail on his reasons for

this amendment. The very points that he made make it even more

essential that our amendment be passed. If I can reiterate one more

argument, you cannot live in isolation in 1983 in any municipality.

It's just a lot of nonsense to say that the NDP is against local

decision-making when what we're for is proper planning so that every

member of our community will have a good life and a good place to live

in. Mr. Chairman, will you please understand that what you are doing is

going to be disastrous for every community and every district which

before had the protection of proper planning. Our amendment,

particularly

section 4, which we want to make sure is maintained,

states again that you must have an interrelationship of areas and uses,

and if you remove the whole board and structure for that

interrelationship, how on earth can you maintain it?

[ Page 2403 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, that can be retained, not by

the domination of the regional board but rather on the wishes of the

municipalities. Under legislation, that can be retained. I am sure that

once we get this amendment out of the way and get further on in debate

in committee here, we'll be able to point that out to you.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to "including

the location of major highways." I was going to leave it at where I sat

down before, until the member for Vancouver South got up. If I can

paraphrase what he said in his statement.... He said he lives in the

largest municipality and that he has faith and that they can get their

ideas across in conjunction with the rest of the area. I would like to

bring to his particular attention.... I am sorry again that the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is not here, because I know he

would support me.

I go back to the previous Social Credit government, when they were

trying to bring in the major Trans-Canada Highway that was coming from

Victoria. It went through Blanshard Street six lanes wide to the

Saanich border. At the same time they brought the Trans-Canada Highway

right into Douglas Street. The major connection for the highway for

serving greater Victoria had to go through an area of less than a mile,

and that location could not be settled with the Saanich municipality.

There happened to be kind of a conflict of interest between the

municipalities and then the Minister of Highways. And what happened for

I don't know how many years.... That six lanes ended at Tolmie.

I know that when the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was the

Minister of Highways, they were trying to get it straightened out. They

didn't know if they'd have to dig a tunnel underneath Douglas Street,

because what had happened.... There was never any firm commitment by

the regional for the location of major highways, and that bottleneck

sat there to the extent that they ran one highway to the north and

another highway jogged around the shopping centre — because we did not

establish the location of major highways that can only come in on a

regional basis. You cannot allow these decisions to be left to the whim

of the individual municipalities; it is costing the taxpayers a bundle

— and I use that conservatively — because of the personalities that get

involved.

When you take out

section 807, the

section the member for New

Westminster is trying to hold in, it is because of this past history of

what happened when regional districts or regional boards did not

coordinate it. When you leave it to the personalities of Highways

Ministers and mayors.... I am sorry the Minister of Finance is not

here, because he was the mayor who caused this bottleneck. I say to the

government, before they remove this particular section, tell us — tell

the province, the community — what they are going to do to coordinate

the location of major highways in an area like greater Victoria if you

don't coordinate them throughout the whole area, and not have a

repetition of what we had in Saanich.

[9:45]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it may seem that we are pressing

the minister rather hard but this

section has stood the test of time.

It was, as pointed out previously, introduced with the regional

district concept in 1965. For 18 years it has existed almost unamended.

In 1966 — I don't think anyone has mentioned this — it was amended, but

only a few words were changed; the concept wasn't changed at all. In

1969, again it was changed, but again by just a few words; a few

clauses were changed but no real change in concept. The minister really

hasn't told us what urged him, what persuaded him, what convinced him

that he should do away with a

section which, as I say, has stood the

test of time and has served the municipalities.

Mention has been made several times of highways, but there are other

things. What about the planning of other services — water lines, sewers

— that run among municipalities? What about the planning of gas lines

that run among municipalities? All these things have to be supervised,

organized by someone above the municipal government. As I say, the

regional district government has been doing this since 1965, with only

two nominal amendments in 1966 and 1969. So it is with a great deal of

concern that we see the bill before us deleting this

section which has

stood the test of time.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, again I repeat that the

reason for removing the regional plan is to deregulate, to streamline

and to strengthen the autonomy of municipalities. The regional plan

deals only with land use decisions within a municipality: right?

MR. LEA: That's right.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It has absolutely nothing to do with the

provision of other services. The regional district continues to have

the authority to provide joint services, which could be sewer and water

service, parks, recreation. They are into different things. This deals

only with land use decisions within a municipality those other services

continue. If you study the act you will find that, indeed, the

legislation permits services to be provided through the regional

district at the request of the municipalities. The member for Nanaimo

is quite incorrect in his statement, and certainly there are no grounds

for fears that there will be no possibility of regional districts

providing those other services. This deals only with land use decisions

within municipalities.

MR. STUPICH: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman,

section 807 reads:

"Projected uses of land within the regional district" — not within

municipalities, but within the total regional district. Is the minister

talking about a different

section than the one I am reading?

Furthermore, is the minister saying that 807 is redundant in that the

same protection or the same instructions are contained elsewhere within

the Municipal Act?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: While 807 is dealing with a regional plan

that affects municipalities within that region, it has nothing to do

with unorganized areas that have settlement planning. Yes, the

Municipal Act does indeed allow for the the provision of other services

by the regional district upon request by other municipalities.

MR. STUPICH: Is this duplication, then?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You could consider it that, except that in

one case it's requested, while in this case it's a decision by the

regional board. The purpose of this bill is to take away that veto

power.

[ Page 2404 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, as I see it then, the minister is

saying each municipality may go its own way in planning highways, water

lines and sewer lines, without any regard at all to what neighbouring

municipalities are doing. That's what he wants. That's what he's

proposing. I just want to be clear. Is the minister saying that if we

take this

section out, if we agree to the bill before us to delete

section 807, each municipality may go its own way with respect to all

of those planning functions, regardless of what happens to the

neighbouring contiguous municipality?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: A municipality may — and some have already

— put in place an official community plan. That can become official

only when it's registered, and it's only registered after it has

respected all of these other things, particularly transportation

corridors.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I think we've heard sufficient

debate. This has gone on and on — last night for a number of hours,

tonight for almost two hours. Mr. Chairman, I move that the question

now be put.

MR. COCKE: A point of order. Mr. Chairman, my point of order

is that the minority must be heard. The member for Vancouver South made

a point, and I wish to come back on that point. This is my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the member is premature in his closure. It's a disgrace

in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair must decide this. I

think the Chair has heard.... There was ample opportunity for all

members. All members wishing to rise in their place have had an

opportunity to speak countless times on this amendment.

One more point of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, as to your comment that everyone has

spoken, there are still at least two members on the opposition side who

have not had an opportunity to speak to this amendment. I would also

like to suggest that the danger with using a tactic as final as

closure...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now the member is entering into debate.

MS. BROWN: ...is that it can become a habit, Mr. Chairman.

I'm just bringing that to your attention, that’s all. That bullying can

become a habit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Points of order were allowed as a courtesy to the members, but the question is put without debate.

MS. BROWN: There are two members who still haven't spoken.

MR. COCKE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I was the mover of

the amendment. For example, when making a motion, a minister in this

House has an opportunity at least to sum up the debate. There have been

questions put by the members of the government side. Mr. Chairman, I

think it's your obligation to see to it that I have an opportunity to

answer those questions. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kemp) is using the

muscle of government to trample all over the opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Now the member is clearly entering into debate, which is not allowed under standing order 46.

The question is that the question now be put.

Question approved on the following division:

[10:00]

YEAS — 26

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 8

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Mitchell

Rose

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 8

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Mitchell

Rose

NAYS — 26

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 4.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this

section also deals with the

repeal of another

section —

section 808. I cannot support the repeal of

section 808. I want to read the statement specifically....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'll advise the committee that we

had great discussion on

section 808. I would consider much more debate

to be repetitive and tedious and I would have to ask the member to

discontinue. If the member has new information the member wishes to

advance, that would be appropriate, but not much else.

[ Page 2405 ]

MS. BROWN: Well, I don't know whether the information would be new to you, but I have not used it before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That doesn't matter. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

Section 808(

l) talks about a regional plan

prepared under any act as an official regional plan. To delete regional

plans does two things. It says that the regional plans which have been

prepared at great cost to the municipalities who were involved in

contributing to those plans — that that is no longer operative. It also

says that the wishes of the people of the region which were taken into

account in the designing of those plans are now going to be ignored.

That's what repealing

section 808 is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support that section, and so I want to move an amendment to it. My amendment reads that

section 4....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Take your hands out of your pockets.

MS. BROWN: It's my hands and it's my pockets. You take your

hands out of the taxpayer's pocket, that's what you should be doing. As

long as my hands are in my pockets that's okay. When you and the rest

of your party stop slurping at the public trough....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will come to order and continue on debate or take her place, in her chair.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Because I don't like dealing with bullies, that's why I'm touchy tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please state your argument.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman,

section 4, line 1, where it reads

section 808 — that the number 808 should be deleted.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I don't care if Schroeder thinks I'm an anarchist. That's a lot more than I think of him.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I will observe

that the Chair had some reluctance in accepting the previous amendment,

which dealt with

section 807 as contained in

section 4; however, that

was allowed. But it is clear that this amendment is equivalent to a

negative of the bill or would reverse the principle of the bill as

agreed to on second reading. Therefore it is not admissible and not

acceptable. I rule the amendment out of order.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order with respect to the ruling, I

suggest to you that if in fact an amendment of this nature.... The

amendment prior to this certainly could have been deemed to have

reversed the principle of the bill, but this, Mr. Chairman, is much

narrower and certainly does not in any way negative the principle of

the bill. Good heavens, the weight of the amendment on 807 compared to

the amendment on 808 is like a ton over a pound.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is now clearly debating the ruling

of the Chair. Do you wish to challenge the ruling of the Chair? I have

ruled the amendment out of order. I have cited Sir Erskine May, and I

will give further citations if you wish.

MR. COCKE: I challenge your ruling.

[The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[10:15]

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 8

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Mitchell

Rose

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

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order on

section 4.

The hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: I rise under standing order 26. Prior to the

taking of the vote, while I was speaking, someone on the government

side made the sound of a cat. I was unable to do anything about it

because I couldn't identify who it was. However, Mr. Chairman, my

colleague the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) assures me that it

was the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) who made that sound.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: May I proceed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. State your point of order.

MS. BROWN: I am not asking the Minister of Health to

apologize. I merely want to say that that act is indicative of the

violence directed towards women by that minister and his government.

[ Page 2406 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, if you insist — the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, that member, who knows very

little about anything, is wrong again on both counts. I find her

remarks offensive, with her great knowledge about the attitudes of

other people. I find her remarks completely offensive, absolutely

wrong. I won't ask her to apologize, because it's not in her nature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Her idea is that she knows everything about everyone. If I made a sound, it wouldn't be that of a cat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think we can dispense with the matter.

section 4, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Having listened with a great deal of

attention to the garbage being thrown across the floor by the

opposition, I move that the question on

section 4 now be put.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. A member taking his place in

debate may make such a motion. The member was standing, the Chair

recognized the member, and the motion has now been put. I will accept a

point of order but no debate.

MRS. DAILLY: I was rising to my feet at the same time on a

point of order, which is that my name was brought up when the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) referred to the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen). I wish to completely back up everything she said.

The Minister of Health made a fool of himself here earlier tonight, and

I want that on the record.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the statements have been made. I think we've had adequate debate.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on another question right now, but briefly and in order.... Please refrain from any unparliamentary motives.

The Minister of Health.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) is also completely in error.

MRS. DAILLY: No.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh! She knows more than the person whom she

accuses. The member for Burnaby North.... You shall accept my statement

that you are in error.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Minister of Health will take his seat, please.

One more point of order....

MR. COCKE: No! This is a point of order with respect to the closure motion on

section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That will be allowed. That's just what I'm referring to.

The member for New Westminster on a point of order only; no debate can be entered into.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I don't propose to debate the

section. I propose, however, to indicate very clearly that this

section

has not been properly canvassed. This is not an opposition amendment;

this is a motion. This is the Spetifore clause in the bill. Mr.

Chairman, this must be debated thoroughly before the question is put;

otherwise parliament is a joke.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. COCKE: What do you mean, "order"? That's what I seek.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the House will come to order.

MS. BROWN: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I will not allow any more points of order,

because we are now entering into debate. The Chairman must decide

whether or not there has been adequate hearing of the matter. I'm sure

the records will show that ample opportunity has been given to all

members of this committee to discuss

section 4 last night, this

morning, this evening and in discussion on many amendments. Therefore I

rule the motion in order.

The question is: shall the question now be put?

[10:30]

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 8

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Mitchell

Rose

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

[ Page 2407 ]

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 8

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Mitchell

Rose

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, would you note that the salt has just gone down the tube and I hollered "no" for the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I will advise the member for New

Westminster that timing was done. Two minutes had transpired, and that

is the time which we can allow for a division. Two minutes to five

minutes is pointed out in our standing orders.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds on a point of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could tell me under

what standing order you exercised your authority to refuse to accept my

point of order prior to the vote,

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member raised a point of privilege....

MS. BROWN: No, I tried to raise....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was it standing order 26?

MS. BROWN: No, I tried to raise a point of order prior to the

taking of the vote, and you said you would not accept my point of

order. I want to know under what standing order you exercised that

authority.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing order 9.

We've had three members ask for recording, I believe. That's

satisfied, and now the Chair recognizes the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) on

section 5.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'd like to pursue the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, standing order 9 says in the second sentence: "In

explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing

order or authority applicable to the case." That is exactly what the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds just requested — that you state the standing

order or authority applicable to the case whereby you refuse to listen

to any more points of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The authority is standing order 9, followed by

standing orders 14 and 15, giving the Deputy Speaker the same power

that the Speaker has to decide rules and points of order. The member

had originally risen on standing order 26, relating to a matter of

privilege. That was what the Chair heard.

MS. BROWN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Prior to the taking

of the vote there was a discussion pertaining to the matter of closure.

At that time I rose on a point of order; it had nothing to do with

standing order 26. I rose on a point of order, at which point, Mr.

Chairman — may I repeat that it had nothing to do with standing order

26 — you refused to accept my point of order. You did it under standing

order 9, which states that you had to state the standing order or the

authority under which you made that decision. At the time you did not,

and I am now asking for an explanation. Standing order 14 simply says:

"At the commencement of every session.... . the House may appoint one

of its member to be Deputy Speaker." That doesn't mean anything.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Your point is well taken. However, I

will remind the hon. member that a citation from the powers of the

Speaker indicates that if the Chair thought the point of order not to

be a valid one, it must allow the House to get on with its business,

and that is what the Chairman ruled.

Now, on

section 5. the member for Prince Rupert.

section 5.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman. It seems strange to me that a

government that says its main intention is restraint would eliminate a

bill — and

section 5 is part of the elimination of these other

sections, especially the regional plans.... This

section is going to

cost the taxpayers of this province millions and millions and millions

of dollars; over the course of time it will cost billions of dollars. I

would like to point out exactly how that will happen.

When you have uncontrolled development, non-planned development,

there follows from that uncontrolled, unplanned development the need

for somebody to put in a transportation infrastructure to serve that

development, and that infrastructure is something that costs the

taxpayers of this province millions and millions of dollars. This piece

of legislation, when it goes through this House, is going to cost the

taxpayers of this province millions of dollars; over the course of time

it will be in the billions of dollars. If the Spetifore property is

developed, if the Gloucester property and other property is

developed.by municipalities, someone has to pay for the infrastructure

surrounding transportation that will service that development, and that

someone will be the taxpayers of B.C. through the general revenues of

this province.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to know how the government can do this,

and at the same time — out of the other side of their mouth — talk

about restraint. It's impossible. For instance, in order to serve

Delta.... If there's a large subdivision and an increase in the

population in Delta, then the transportation system that leads into the

city of Vancouver is going to have to be expanded. Probably there will

have to be another tunnel, or at least another transportation link

across the river. Who is going to pay for that, Mr. Chairman? It's

going to be the people of this province. So what's happening here, as

far as I'm concerned, is that in order to satisfy the

[ Page 2408 ]

whims and desires of individual developers, this

piece of legislation is going to cost the taxpayers of this province

millions of dollars. It's going to be a horrendous cost over a period

of time, and there is no way around that.

When I was the Minister of Highways, I experienced that. If you

allow a developer to do exactly what that developer wants, they're

going to develop into areas where it's not going to be necessarily

within.... Well, there won't be any plans any more. There's going to be

development willy-nilly, and that willy-nilly development is going to

have to be serviced by transportation corridors and systems. It's going

to have to be serviced across the municipal boundaries of all of the

services that my colleague from Nanaimo was talking about earlier —

water and sewer. In the final run, somebody has to pay for all of the

servicing necessary for these kinds of unplanned developments. There is

going to be no provision for the developer to pay for it; none

whatsoever. I know from experience that it is going to end up falling

on the backs of the taxpayers.

I would like to hear what the minister has to say about that particular thought.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the municipalities will

continue to do their official community planning. However, if the

concerns of that member and all other members on that side are real and

they are interested in seeing some intermunicipal planning; and if

indeed they are real when they talk about giving local government and

councils the autonomy and freedom to make decisions that they indeed

should be making; if in fact they are being real and honest when they

say they don't want the heavy hand of another government but would

rather see councils make the decisions for themselves, then indeed that

can continue.

Mr. Chairman, let me read a note I have prepared that I think should

put their concerns to rest, provided they are sincere and honest when

they say they believe councils should have a choice, and that councils

should make decisions because councils are close to the people who

elect them. To follow through with this, Mr. Chairman, there has been

criticism that the elimination of regional plans would remove regional

districts from any involvement in the coordination of the land use

development strategies of its member municipalities. In response, I

point out that under

section 770(2) of the Municipal Act, regional

districts may contract with a municipality to provide any work or

service within the powers of the municipality. A municipality or a

group of municipalities may contract with the regional district to

provide them with studies, reports and recommendations addressing land

use development strategies. The individual municipalities would retain

autonomy with respect to the implementation of such reports, studies

and recommendations but would be acting from a common or intennunicipal

perspective.

[10:45]

Mr. Chairman, allow me to read

section 770(2) of the Municipal Act:

"A regional district may undertake any work or service for a member

municipality, other than an electoral area, on mutually agreed terms,

if the work or service is within the powers of the municipality and the

entire cost of the work or service is home by the municipality." To the

members over there, what this really means is that they may continue to

do intermunicipal planning on request by the municipalities. If indeed

a municipality should have on their border a development that may be

offensive to neighbouring municipalities, they may enter into an

agreement with the regional district to do an intermunicipal plan. Yes,

they may request it.

The thing here, Mr. Chairman, is that we are trying to remove the

veto power, that control that you people want over municipalities. The

indications from all over the province.... Here we have it in the local

paper; we are getting telegrams from up north. We are getting requests

from all over this province asking us to take away this regional power

over councils, and that is what this does. When you refer to

section

770(2) of the Municipal Act, you will see that they could continue to

have those services, including intermunicipal planning, provided they

request them. If they should request them, then they have to pay for

them. That, to me, is the democratic way to do it.

MR. LEA: The minister is suggesting that the people who run

the municipalities are nuts. Why would they? He says they may; why

would they? It wouldn't make any sense. Why would they go to the others

and say: "Would you please come in here and help pay for this project

that we have approved but you don't agree with?" Does that make any

sense, Mr. Chairman? Let's say Delta goes ahead with a project that is

going to impinge on the neighbouring municipalities. Why would the

municipality that is next door — which was against the project because

it affected them in an adverse way, in their opinion — help pay for the

project? It just doesn't make sense for them to do that. So the

minister's argument really doesn't hold water.

What I am saying is that it's going to cost somebody money. It's not

going to cost the developer money. The developer will go out to the

development that he is responsible for, within the confines of that

development; but all of the services for that development have to be

paid for, and will be paid for, by somebody else. Whether it is the

taxpayers of a neighbouring municipality or the taxpayers of the

province, they are all taxpayers. When

section 5 passes — as I am sure

it will, probably by closure — it is going to mean that one

municipality is going to have to pay for a project that it doesn't

agree with. It means the taxpayers of that neighbouring municipality

will have to pay for a project that they don't agree with, or it is

going to fall.... Or a combination of the neighbouring municipality and

the taxpayers of British Columbia.

One of the craziest things.... The chairman of the transportation

committee of the Greater Vancouver Regional District came to see me

when I was the Minister of Highways, imploring me to use my power to

make sure that all of the municipalities — I think there are 14 of them

in the Greater Vancouver Regional District — would come together with

some plan for transportation. I said I had no power to do that. I said:

"If you go away and come back with the written permission of all of the

regional districts to grant me the power to do that, I will do it; I

will make sure it goes through." Bill Vander Zalm didn't come back with

that.

But Bill Vander Zalm is a man who understood the need for county

systems, because he found the need for regional planning, and regional

planning was just another word for county planning. It seems strange

that we would have to do this, but if I had my way we would have Mr.

Vander Zalm sitting in that chair of Municipal Affairs because I don't

believe there is any way in the world he would take away the powers of

county. He was a very strong proponent of county government. He

understood from his experience as a mayor

[ Page 2409 ]

of Surrey and from being involved in the regional

district involved to the point that he was the chairman of the

transportation committee — the need for this thing we are eliminating.

I cannot support

section 5, because it's going to cost the taxpayers of

this province millions and millions and millions of dollars, As I said

at the beginning, it seems a rather strange course of action for a

government that says they are talking about restraint.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I listened with a great deal of intent to

the member for Prince Rupert speaking about how this

section will cost

the taxpayers millions and millions and millions of dollars. On the

contrary; the removal of this planning by regional districts will save

the taxpayers millions and millions and millions of dollars. But that

is not the point. The point is that we have listened during this

session to hours and hours and hours of debate by the official civic

affairs critic, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe); literally

hours and hours and hours of debate on the same subject. Therefore, Mr.

Chairman, I move that the question be now put on

section 5.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: One speaker and you are moving closure, At least

pretend, for God's sake, that there's still a democracy, even if you

don't believe in it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, although a great amount of debate has been allowed in second reading and in other....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, profanity is not allowed in this

House. I will advise the member for Burnaby Edmonds to avoid using

profane language in this House.

MS. BROWN: I withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

If we can move back to the motion put by the minister.... I declare

that I will not put the question at this point or accept the minister's

motion. But I would ask all members to be strictly relevant to the

clause that we're dealing with now. There has been ample opportunity to

discuss the principle of the bill in second reading. I think if we can

maintain strict relevancy to the

section before us, then we can

probably carry on the debate in a more amicable manner.

MR. LEA: I'd just like to read one thing into the record,

because what I think it does is let us know that the municipality which

probably a lot of people suspect would be most in favour of this

legislation is against it. This is from today. "Delta council wants the

provincial government to table its restraint legislative package for a

cooling-off period while it consults with the groups most affected.

Council approved the motion after listening to Gary Johnson, Delta's

representative on the Solidarity coalition and a Canadian Union of

Public Employees official."

MR. REID: What's Bill 7 got to do with restraint?

MR. LEA: We're not on Bill 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But we are in Committee of the Whole, and the

argument that the member is now advancing was, I think, discussed at

some length in second reading. We are on

section 5. We must be strictly

relevant. This is a consequential amendment; it deals with

section 808

of the Municipal Act. Please make your remarks strictly relevant to the

section.

MR. LEA: I understand what you are saying, Mr. Chairman, and

I agree with you. I was only answering a question that the minister

threw out. The minister said that everybody was in favour of this

legislation.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the Hansard record

will show that I did not say that everyone was in agreement with this.

But let me say, Mr. Chairman, that at my most recent meeting with the

table officers of the UBCM they presented me with a paper; the heading

on one

section of it says: "How Can We Help to Achieve Your

Objectives?" — that's the objectives of the government and of the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs. "

(1) Remove the regional veto;

(2) restore local autonomy" — which you oppose — "(3) eliminate the

official regional plan; (4) clearly identify regional district

functions; (5) minimize the cost of government." Listen to this one,

Mr. Chairman, the final one: they ask that we "ensure certainty and

predictability in community development and coordination between local

plans." This is what I point out that

section 772 of the Municipal Act

does. We all agree with what we're doing here. The last one, to ensure

certainty and predictability in community development and coordination

between local plans, is what that

section allows. But it allows it in a

democratic way, not in the socialist way, which says: "We at the

regional level will tell you what you're going to get." What we're

trying to do here is to take away that power that the socialists would

have. What's wrong with you folks over there, that you're all hung up

on a piece of land in Delta?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. RITCHIE: A regional plan was in place here back in the seventies when the Tilbury property came out. Where was the hue and cry then?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister will come to order.

I've asked the members of the committee to please restrict their debate

to debate that is strictly relevant to the section. I find that the

minister has strayed. I will ask all members to be strictly relevant to

section 5.

The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: I would ask that the minister table the document that he read from, as called for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You cannot table in committee.

MR. LEA: But he can table after committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He may or he may not; that is not a responsibility of the committee.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, could you explain that to me? I thought that if a minister read from a document it was a

[ Page 2410 ]

requirement of the House that that document be tabled. When would be the appropriate time for that action to take place?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be appropriate in the House. The Chairman of the committee can make no ruling on that, I regret.

MR. LEA: So it would be when we go back into the House that I ask for the tabling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be the decision of the member and of the Speaker of the House, not of the committee.

MR. ROSE: I've sat here tonight and listened to a lot of very

wide-ranging discussion on this particular clause from the minister

himself. He was the one who got into

section 772. He got into this

great diatribe about this great socialist plot, which means veto power,

which was brought in, incidentally, by W.A.C. Bennett, and has been

perpetuated throughout the years through all kinds of governments. He

has never at any time, to my knowledge, agreed or offered to put

forward any correspondence from any source that has asked him for this

removal; that's the part that particularly bothers me.

The other side of it is that we were ruled by closure — out of order

before we could even discuss one of the protective things in a previous

clause, which was a part of

section 4. I'm not reflecting on it,

because we haven't even discussed it. The particular

section — 812,

which no longer exists — prevented a municipality from visiting upon

another municipality a multitude of problems which they could initiate

on their own without any kind of reference to that other municipality.

It could be anything from a garbage dump to a cemetery next to a

shopping centre, a single-family dwelling or high-density area —

whatever. A municipality now is free to do whatever it wishes along its

borders or within its borders regardless of its effect on contiguous

municipalities. And for the minister to stand up and say: "Well, 772

permits various municipalities, if they insist on moving ahead in a

headstrong way...." It permits them in a voluntary way to share some of

their power with a neighbouring municipality — one which might be

affected and altered tremendously by a decision made. That's why we're

opposed to this.

The minister says we're opposed to various levels of government such

as senior governments making these plans. I wouldn't object if there

were something in this bill, this new act as amended, which would

ensure that someone would take the responsibility for that, not just

leave it willy-nilly to a lot of independent, autonomous or

semi-autonomous municipalities. If the minister would guarantee that he

is going to take over these regional plans, that he is going to provide

the planning and plan for the interrelationship, we might be somewhat

relieved on that score. But he is not going to do it. But even if he

did, I don't think it's as important as the regions dealing with it,

because they know what they want. They know what their problems are.

[11:00]

I was there when these things started, as an alderman. Municipalities don't

give up powers willingly. It's not in the nature of the municipalities.

They rant and rave about losing their powers all the time. So that isn't

the objection. The major objection is what was outlined in former 812: the municipality

could no longer, after the letters of patent were issued, enact provisions or

initiate works which would impair or impede the ultimate realization of all

or part of the objectives of the regional plan. This is eminently sensible.

This is the kind of protection we need in a modern and complex, highly urban

world, particularly in the lower mainland. I would like to hear the minister's

response to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As the member from Coquitlam-Moody noted, the

minister took some latitude when he first spoke, and the member also

took some latitude. Perhaps the minister can answer briefly, but

confine his remarks to the strict relevancy of

section 5.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: As the member knows, a municipality may

produce an official community plan, and it will be the intention of

this ministry to encourage that. Now you must realize that at the

moment there are 15 municipalities in the Greater Vancouver Regional

District and only two have official community plans. The others have

not done so. Realize too that an official community plan has to go

through all of the loops, and therefore all of those things that you

are concerned about — transportation corridors, etc. — are all

respected. As far as I can see here, Mr. Chairman, the whole argument

is on the basis of whether or not the councils are fit to look after

their own affairs. I would like to again read a telegram that was

received here September 30.

YOUR EFFORTS TO HAVE LEGISLATION PASSED IN THE HOUSE HAVE BEEN

CLOSELY FOLLOWED BY THE MAYORS IN THE NORTHEAST

SECTION OF THE PROVINCE. WE

WOULD LIKE TO ASSURE YOU THAT WE SUPPORT THESE EFFORTS IN GETTING BILL 9 PASSED

BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO STRENGTHEN THE AUTONOMY OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS

IN MATTERS OF PLANNING AS WELL AS OTHER AREAS. AFTER ALL, WE ARE THE ONES WHO

MUST ANSWER TO OUR ELECTORS FOR WHAT TAKES PLACE WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY.

Mr. Chairman, that is what this bill does, and there is no need to

have anything in this bill that is going to allow control by the

regional district. I again refer you to

section 772, that

municipalities in a democratic way may request a regional district to

provide them with an intermunicipal planning service, and if they

decide to request that, they pay for it.

MR. ROSE: Just on that particular point, I don't think I've

abused the time of the House on this particular matter. The minister

said on the one hand that each municipality was encouraged to have a

community plan. That's excellent; it does zoning and planning and all

the other things that go with it — corridors. Then he said that the

ministry had to approve these official community plans and by that

means the ministry would see that these various community plans hooked

up to one another and related to one another before they would be

approved. Is that true? Is that what you said, sir? I would like to

know whether you said that or not, because it seems to contradict your

whole autonomy argument. You've removed 808(

l) and you have substituted

ministerial approval of the interrelationship of intercommunity plans.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, what I said was that an

official community plan, in order to be official, has to go through the

various ministries including the Ministry of Highways. That's where

those things such as the transportation corridors are going to be

respected.

[ Page 2411 ]

MR. ROSE: So, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the community

plan, communities are not autonomous. If any of their planning

decisions contradict something that the ministry feels is a positive

step, or if those plans include some provision that is likely to cause

interurban difficulties, the minister has the power to abolish it, to

prevent it. So much for autonomy. I am glad that that is cleared up.

The minister has told us that he has received a telegram — he has

said this in several instances — from the northern municipalities

requesting the rapid passage of this measure. I would like to ask the

minister if he is prepared to tell us who sent those telegrams, or the

telegram. Is he prepared to table, either now or when the appropriate

time comes, any other requests? For instance, has he had any from the

southern part of the province, where, after all, the need is greater

and we have a much larger urban concentration?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. With respect to the telegram, that was

also read last evening, and so further comment would be considered to

be repetitive. The minister may wish to briefly state the case once

again now.

MR. ROSE: Well, if it's in Hansard two weeks from now, Mr. Chairman, I'll get a chance to read it,

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, he said "some northern municipalities." Is he

not prepared to respond to that? And a further question was: does he

have any similar letters from anybody else — official individuals,

mayors or councils in the southem part of the province where the need

for urban planning and the coordination of various community plans is

far more important than in the rather sparsely populated northern areas?

MR. KEMPF: That's where the wealth of the province comes from. What are you talking about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Omineca will come to order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in speaking in opposition to

section

5, which eliminates official regional plans, I want to use two

examples. The minister quoted from telegrams which he received from the

northern end of the province. I'm wondering whether the minister was

present at the UBCM when a resolution was passed, or if he received a

copy of the following resolution:

"Whereas the government of B.C. Introduced Bill 9,

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, in the Legislature on July 7, and

whereas this legislation would amend the Municipal Act by removing

regional planning as a function of regional districts...and

whereas the

same provisions have enabled communities in the lower mainland and

capital regions to coordinate their development in cooperation with

their neighbours in a cost-effective way, with maximum local autonomy,

therefore

be it resolved that Bill 9, Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, is

unacceptable and inappropriate to the needs of British Columbia's

communities and that sections 2 to 6" — we're debating

section 5 — "of

Bill 9 should be withdrawn forthwith.... "

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that quotation has been made several times in the House and in committee.

MS. BROWN: The only reason I raised it, Mr. Chairman, was

that the minister was quoting as though he's got unanimous approval. I

was wondering whether he would respond to my question, which is: was he

present at the UBCM when that resolution was passed, or is he aware of

that resolution and would he like to respond to it?

The second reason that I am opposed to this section.... I don't

think this has been raised on the floor before, because it's a new one.

It's a letter which I received from the chairman of the Greater

Vancouver Regional District, and it says:

"Dear Ms. Brown:

"Local and provincial governments have worked together

for more than 30 years to provide overall guidance to the lower

mainland's growth. The update of the lower mainland plan completed in

1980 with extensive financial and staff support from the province and

the region's regional districts and municipalities marked a major

milestone in this process.

"The attached pamphlet is a handy guide to the updated

lower mainland plan and I hope you will find it