1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3047 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Public Service Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 37). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 3047

Tabling Documents.

British Columbia Buildings Corporation annual report for the year ending March

31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3047

B.C. Ferry Corporation annual report for the year ending March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3047

Oral Questions.

Cheque for Burnaby Meals on Wheels. Mr. Lorimer –– 3047

Logging truck load restrictions. Mr. Lockstead –– 3047

Forest employment standards for independent equipment operators. Mr. Lock stead –– 3048

Alleged chipping of quality sawlogs. Mr. King –– 3048

Victoria Trade and Convention Centre. Mr. Barber –– 3049

Eckard commission report. Mrs. Dailly –– 3049

Matter of Privilege

Alleged misrepresentations by Social Credit newsletter.

Mr. Skelly –– 3049

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Cowichan Valley PCP spill. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 3050

Cowichan Valley PCP spill. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 3050

Crown Corporations Borrowing Authority Increase Act (Bill 9). Committee stage.

section 1.

Division on

section 1 –– 3051

section 3.

Mr. Lockstead –– 3051

Mr. Mitchell –– 3051

Division on

section 3 –– 3052

Report and third reading –– 3052

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1980 (Bill 34). Committee stage.

section 7.

Mrs. Dailly –– 3052

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3053

Mr. Barber –– 3054

Mr. Lorimer –– 3056

Mr. Lea –– 3056

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3058

Mr. Cocke –– 3058

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3059

Mr. Barber –– 3059

Mr. Hall –– 3060

Mr. Barber –– 3060

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3061

Livestock Brand Act (Bill 32). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3061

Mrs. Wallace –– 3062

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 18). Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. Macdonald –– 3063

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 3063

Mr. Lorimer –– 3064

Mr. Levi –– 3065

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 3065

Mr. Macdonald –– 3066

Mr. Levi –– 3066

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 3066

Mrs. Wallace –– 3068

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 3068

Mr. Howard –– 3068

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 3070

Mr. Macdonald –– 3070

Tabling Documents.

Annual

return for the year ending March 31, 1980 in accordance with the

Educational Institution Capital Finance Act, together with a report of

the Authority for the preceding fiscal year.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3070

British Columbia Petroleum Corporation annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 3071

British Columbia Development Corporation annual report for the year ending

March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 3071

Appendix –– 3071

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I want to introduce today members of the Federation of Independent

School Associations of British Columbia, who are here in the precinct

and gallery and met with the various caucuses: first of all, Mr. Pel,

the president of the Federation of Independent School Associations and

the president of the Society of Christian Schools; Mr. Philip Thatcher,

co-ordinator of the society; and Mrs. Boucher, who in addition to being

president of Catholic School Trustees of British Columbia is also the

president of the Federation of Independent Schools in Canada. Also well

known to us is Mr. Gerry Ensing, who is the executive director of the

society. I would ask both sides of the House to make them welcome.

MR. HOWARD:

This is one of those moments when friendliness, compassion and concern

of human beings for each other manifest themselves. I'm sure the House,

as it expressed it earlier, unanimously welcomes the member for Central

Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) back to the chamber. When he was absent we

thought of him with anxiousness, and we are pleased that he's here. We

hope that he stays with us, in good health, for a long time to come.

MR. RITCHIE:

Just to get my feet wet, I really appreciate those kind remarks. Indeed

it is wonderful to be back. Apparently I am very healthy, other than a

little mechanical problem they had to sort out. I'm in good physical

shape and ready for the battle again. But I think I have learned from

my experience and I can honestly say that we in British Columbia must

be very thankful for our medical service, our doctors and nurses. I'd

like to express publicly my sincere appreciation to the doctors and

staff at the Abbotsford hospital. They were just wonderful. We can all

be very thankful for the marvellous medical service we have here in

British Columbia.

MRS. WALLACE: I certainly want to add my welcome to my old friend. I am glad to see him back.

have some visitors from the Cowichan-Malahat area in the gallery today:

Mr. Howard Schesser, who is the deputy director of planning for the

Cowichan Valley Regional District, and his wife, Mary Ellen; Mr. Roger

Stanyer, the president of Local 180 of the IWA; and Mr. Ross Davies,

the third vice-president and safety director for that local. They are

in the precincts today to meet with some members of our caucus to pool

our information regarding health and environmental hazards.

MS. BROWN:

Professor Derek Bell, the recently appointed dean of the faculty of law

at the University of Oregon, is visiting with us today. He is

accompanied by his wife, Jewel, who is indeed a jewel, and their three

sons, Derek Jr., Douglas and Carter. I wonder whether the House would

join me in bidding them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

a motion by Hon. Mr. Wolfe, Bill 37, Public Service Amendment Act,

1980, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980.

Oral Questions

CHEQUE FOR BURNABY MEALS ON WHEELS

MR. LORIMER:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and I have been attempting for some

three weeks to resolve a problem in Burnaby, but to date there has been

no resolution. The Burnaby Meals on Wheels submitted their budget in

December 1979. Payments ran out as of May 31, 1980. Meals on Wheels are

carrying on without provincial funds. Two weeks ago the minister

advised me that the cheque was in the mails. A week later he said that

this was not correct, but that the cheque would be in the mail very

shortly. On checking today I find that there is still no cheque in the

hands of Meals on Wheels.

The

preamble may have been

somewhat lengthy but the question is very short, Can the minister tell

the House whether or not the cheque has been sent?

HON. MR. MAIR:

No. I can't, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that the cheque does not

come out of my ministry, so I am not able to do that. I have undertaken

to the member before, and I do again, to do everything I can to

expedite its delivery. The member can correct me if I'm wrong, but I

believe I'm right in saying that the cheque comes out of the Ministry

of Finance and not out of my office.

MR. LORIMER:

Could the Minister of Finance report to us tomorrow whether or not this

particular cheque has been sent to the Meals on Wheels of Burnaby?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I heard the earlier question to my colleague, the

Minister of Health, and I take the question as notice, as the member

suggested. I will attempt to report to the House, or, in the interests

of time, directly to the member as quickly as possible.

MR. LORIMER:

I have another question for the Minister of Finance. Is the treasury so

short that a community group such as the Burnaby Meals on Wheels must

suffer delays in their funding in order to finance this government?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is not in order, hon. member.

LOGGING TRUCK LOAD RESTRICTIONS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Has the minister received

[ Page 3048 ]

representation

from the Association of Independent Equipment Operators alleging that

independent log haulers are forced by some logging companies to carry

loads in excess of the maximums set by regulations?

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'm not sure that I have. I don't know whether you're referring to just

currently, but from time to time.... It's always a very argumentative

issue, and I have received — it seems to me, last winter....What I'm

saying is that I am not aware of anything in the last, say, 30 days.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Our information indicates that they have attempted to contact the

minister. In any event, should this information prove to be correct,

has the minister decided to act to achieve tighter enforcement of load

restrictions?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm not sure of the

question; but we're always trying to tighten up on the regulations,

and, of course, the Motor Carrier Commissioner dealing with licences

and rates and so on...it's a continuous effort.

FOREST EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

FOR INDEPENDENT EQUIPMENT OPERATORS

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. In view of

the fact that independent equipment operators are protected by neither

the Labour Code nor the Forest Act, has the minister decided to enact

minimum standards for employment of independent equipment operators in

the forest industry?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is

irregular, hon. member, in that it does ask for regulation, and that is

out of order. If the question could be rephrased somehow....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will try the question on the Minister of Labour, who, I'm sure, understands this question.

view of the fact that the independent equipment operators are not

protected by either the Labour Code or the Forest Act, have you, Mr.

Minister of Labour, decided to enact minimum standards for employment

of independent equipment operators in the forest industry?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The question, hon. member, is the same question. The Chair is having

some difficulty in relating the proposed legislation or enactment of

legislation.... Simply by making it "have decided" still indicates

legislation would be required, and I must so rule.

ALLEGED CHIPPING OF QUALITY SAWLOGS

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Can the

minister advise what investigation or investigations he has launched

into photographic evidence which was presented to him recently both by

the IWA and in the Legislature that good-quality sawlogs are being

turned into wood chips by sawmill operators?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member didn't present any such

photographic evidence to me; he presented me with a series of pictures which

showed various logs going through head rigs and no evidence whatsoever that

they were going into chippers. I have asked that member and I have asked the

source of those photographs that they please identify the plant to me, which

hasn't been done. But there was no evidence whatsoever in those pictures

that those logs were going into chippers; in fact, Mr. Speaker, the photographs

showed just the opposite — that the logs were going past the chipper chute and

slabs were going into it, but that the manufacturing material was not going

into chippers.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, along with the photographs it was explained to the

minister that the allegation by workers in the mill was that those

quality sawlogs were being chipped. I'm not asking the minister to

evaluate that evidence. I'm asking if in the face of those allegations

he undertook any investigations on site at the mill to determine

whether there was validity to the charges and allegations that were

made.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just stated

here in the House that I have asked that member to please identify the

mill for me. I've asked the source of the pictures, the IWA, to

identify the mill for me. This hasn't been done, and I certainly can't

investigate that particular mill unless I know which it is.

But

in further answer to the member's questions, I told the member, also

during my estimates, that we are continuing our investigations of the

use of logs, as we have been for the last two years. This type of

observation is going on.

MR. KING: Either the

minister has a very short memory or a very selective one, because I

have copies of correspondence directed to him by the IWA identifying

the mill as Fraser Mills, which was also outlined in this Legislature.

So if the minister has difficulty I think he could review his

correspondence and the record of his estimate debate in the House.

Can the minister confirm that chipping quality sawlogs, and even lumber, is contrary to forest policy in this province?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

If the member has letters advising that this particular mill was Fraser

Mills, I wish he would forward me a copy of the letter that was

purported to be sent to me, because I haven't got such a letter.

No,

Mr. Speaker, it is the policy of the government of British Columbia —

and it has been for many years — that wood should be put to the best

possible use.

MR. KING: I find the minister's request

somewhat unusual in light of the fact that the letter was directed to

the minister with simply a copy to me. Perhaps if he'd answer his mail

he would remember it. But certainly, if he hasn't seen the letter, I

would be pleased to provide him with a copy of mine.

Can the

minister confirm that he has recently relaxed restrictions on log

exports, allowing the export of quality timber in totally unprocessed

form?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, not at all.

The same requirements for permits to export logs are in place now as

have been in place for many years, and there has been no relaxation

whatsoever. As a matter of fact, this year the level of log exports is

almost identical to what it was last year and the year before.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke back to the Legislature.

[ Page 3049 ]

MR. KING:

I thank the minister for his kind welcome back. I also underwent the

surgeon's knife, Mr. Speaker. I assure you that only my face is

distorted.

I have one other question. Can the minister

advise the House what he is doing about the loss of processing jobs

from chipping good timber and exporting raw logs? I understand that

there is a heavy export of raw logs. It was also my understanding that

the restrictions had been relaxed in response to the export committee's

recommendation. The minister says that's not so. At this time of high

unemployment, has the minister initiated any action to protect jobs in

B.C.?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Once again, Mr. Speaker,

the member is receiving erroneous advice. There has been no relaxation

whatsoever on the export of logs. We could, if we wished, have absolute

prohibition of the export of any round logs from British Columbia. I am

sure that would have the immediate effect of the laying-off of quite a

large number of loggers logging this material being requested for

export. But there's been no change in the requirements for log exports.

MR. KING:

I have a final supplementary. Has the minister decided to initiate an

inquiry into the widespread allegations of the misuse of sawlogs in the

province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I

think I have stated three times within about the last five minutes that

we have been investigating the use of logs for the last two years. This

type of spot check is going on and has been going on for a couple of

years now.

VICTORIA TRADE AND CONVENTION CENTRE

MR. BARBER:

My question is to the Minister of Finance as minister responsible for

the Provincial Capital Commission. As he will know, it was reported

yesterday that the B.C. Supreme Court held as not legal the bylaw

passed by the city of Victoria. This evening the city is considering

whether or not to pursue an appeal of that decision and/or to proceed

to a new public hearing in order to meet the technical requirements of

section 720 of the Municipal Act.

I'm asking the minister

whether or not he can inform the Legislature and the council today if

he has reconsidered the location of the Victoria convention centre, and

if he has decided that it is to be located at another site. If he could

so advise us today, it would save the city a lot of trouble in

unnecessarily appealing a decision or in holding a public hearing for a

building which may not be located at the Reid centre after all.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I take the question as notice,

ECKARDT COMMISSION REPORT

MRS. DAILLY:

I have a question for the Attorney-General. On May 1 the

Attorney-General undertook to inform the House of the opinion he was

expecting to receive from his deputy re the allegations of political

interference with the Eckardt commission. I wonder if the minister is

prepared to give us that opinion today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The position today remains as it was when the question was asked

earlier. I have not received my advice from the Deputy Attorney-General.

MRS. DAILLY:

On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, it is now 133 days since the

Attorney-General commissioned this report. I wonder if he could tell

the House when we can expect to have this report.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I will share the report with the House immediately it is received.

MR. SKELLY:

I rise on a question of privilege. The question of privilege relates to

a deliberate misrepresentation by the Social Credit Party caucus

newsletter, published on May 9, 1980, of statements I have made in the

Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's got nothing to do with the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. I will caution hon. members. for this one

time only, that the member is standing on a point of privilege. Any

interruption will be dealt with exceedingly harshly by the Chair.

MR. SKELLY:

The Social Credit caucus report is entitled "Government Reports." It

states: "Robert Skelly, no growth member from Alberni, recently stated

in the House: 'We don't want to bring any power or energy to Vancouver

Island. What we do want to do instead is to conserve energy. People

should use less energy: instead of turning on the light you should use

a candle or coal-oil lamp.' " I have at no time made that statement in

the House.

On the other hand, the statement was made by the member for Surrey, Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm at page 1468 in Hansard ,

March 14, 1980. I contend that this constitutes a wilful

misrepresentation of members' proceedings as outlined in Sir Erskine

May, nineteenth edition, page 153. We went through every issue of Hansard

in which I have spoken and could find no such quotation by myself. I

would like to read the

section from Sir Erskine May on misrepresenting

members' proceedings. It says: "Wilful misrepresentation of the

proceedings of members is an offence of the same character as libel."

It goes on to describe a commons resolution dated April 22, 1699, where

that Commons resolved: "That the publishing of the names of members of

this House and reflecting upon them and misrepresenting their

proceedings in Parliament is a breach of the privilege of this House

and destructive of the freedom of Parliament."

I believe I

have a prima facie case of breach of privilege. I would therefore move

that a special committee of privileges be appointed to consider the

matter of the statement attributed to the hon. member for Alberni on

page 4 of the Social Credit caucus newsletter entitled "Government

Reports," series 1, volume 1, May 9, 1980, and that the said committee

report its findings to the House, the said committee to comprise eight

members to be named by the special committee of selection, and that the

committee so appointed have the following powers: namely, to have all

the powers and privileges of the Legislative Assembly under the

Legislative Assembly Privilege Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. Without prejudicing the member's case presently

presented, I will take the matter under advisement and undertake to

return with a decision at the earliest opportunity.

[ Page 3050 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that when the Speaker is

taking this matter under advisement and during his consideration, he

would attempt to get copies of the Alberni Valley Times

and review the columns by the member for Alberni, which are clearly

full of lies, just so that he would have the whole story about....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. At this stage we are not proceeding on a debate; but yes, I take the information.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would hope you would avail yourself of copies of the Alberni Valley Times and the member's weekly report from the Legislature.

MR. SKELLY:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would gladly make all of those

columns available to you, the committee, or the member if he asks for

them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be the opportune time, hon. member.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday during question period I was asked a rather

detailed question by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). I

didn't wish to take up the time of question period today to read the

answer. Could I have leave to proceed?

Leave granted.

COWICHAN VALLEY PCP SPILL

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I should start off by reminding all members that I replied on June 20

by way of formal letter to the member, in which I said I would keep in

touch with her. However, in respect to the alleged PCP spill in Duncan,

the issue was first brought to the attention of our fish and wildlife

branch a month ago, when a farmer complained that his livestock had

become ill. Two members of our staff, Mr. Ken Austin and Mr. Ted

Oldham, visited the site and discovered there were eight possibilities

that had to be examined as a means of determining what had caused the

cattle illness.

The possibilities are as follows: Was it the

location of the tar field near the stream? Was it the location of the

herbicide spraying program which the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway had

begun approximately a month ago? Was it the location of the Canadian

National Railway storage of ties near the stream? All of these ties

were sprayed with creosote. Was it the wood preservative or PCP that

was said to have been stored in the tank car? Was it the refuse that

was associated with MacMillan Bloedel's dry-land sorting procedures?

Was it the discharge from the truck-washing plant? Was it the steam

cleaning plant? There are five to ten acres of dry-land storage, all

paved and constantly covered with bark from logs which periodically

falls or is washed into the stream. A final point is that the area is

also the watershed.

After consideration of these eight

possibilities, Ted Oldham and Ken Austin narrowed down the issue to

three basic possibilities. These are: oil traces, PCP and fecal

coliform. The results of initial tests indicated there were less than

0.1 parts per million of oil found in the stream, less than 0.001 parts

per million of PCP found in the stream and surrounding areas, and 11

parts per million of fecal coliform, which is considered below normal

for a stream in an agricultural area. You couldn't drink it but you

could swim in it, the staff tells me; I don't know that I would want to

do either. In addition to the first study, an examination was made of

the level of Mr. Williams' water supply. The results were found to be

0.2 parts per million, which is below the danger level.

The

results of the initial sampling state that neither oil, PCP or sewage

refuse was considered to be the source of the current problem. After

the results had been determined, members of the fish and wildlife

branch were informed that Mr. Williams had his cattle slaughtered, and

a large portion of lead content was found in the bloodstream. As a

result of this, on Monday the 23rd, Bill Thomas asked Ken Austin and

Ted Oldham to sample the site, including the well of Mr. Williams and

the stream, for phenol, arsenic and lead. As a further check, I am

informed that Mr. Austin also checked for iron and other suspended

solids. It is important to note that there was a rush placed in

obtaining the results for the samples. They should be coming within a

week and a half. A further point worth noting is that while we must

show our concern for finding the source of the unknown substance, the

ministry doesn't have a magic box with which to locate the source

quickly. There are over 70 possibilities, hon. member, which can be

carried out, each one of which requires a sample. If we did this it

would cost approximately $300 per sample. Yesterday the question of

financing and samples was raised in the House. Perhaps I can add a

further point. If we package the 27 parameters, referring to the

possible methods of sampling in our own lab, the cost is over $107 per

sample. The total cost of that becomes rather exorbitant. I think we

can find out without going through all the various possibilities.

I have a couple of answers on acid rain and on the dam at Atlin but I think I'll save them for next week.

HON. MR. MAIR: I would like, with leave, to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Cowichan Malahat.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR:

After listening to my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, I'm

not sure that I'm not answering the same question in indicating that

the bureaucracy works in wonderful ways and we have two people working

on the same problem. In any event, the hon. member asked me yesterday:

"One

final question, this one to the Minister of Health. Wells in the area

that I've been speaking about are only some 30 feet to 40 feet deep. In

recent weeks, since this pollution occurred, water has intermittently

appeared that has been brownish in colour in at least three of the

walls. Yesterday, at the request of the residents, your Duncan

representative came out and took water samples. The residents were told

that it would be some two to three weeks before they could know whether

or not the water was safe to drink. Now I'm asking the Minister of

Health, as the minister responsible for the health of those people,

whether or not he can do anything to accelerate those tests. "

must say I am mystified as to where the information came from that it

would take two to three weeks, because I am informed by the public

health inspector that samples were

[ Page 3051 ]

taken

on Tuesday and the people were advised that they had been sent to the

lab and verbal response would be relayed to the officer in question on

Monday next. If there is any problem or danger, immediate action could

be taken. He relays to me that he has no idea where the hon. member got

the idea that it would take three weeks. If the hon. member would like

to give me some idea of that I would like to take it up with my staff.

That kind of information should not be given out, because it is

misleading. The people are entitled to know the facts.

I am

also instructed that more samples will be taken tomorrow — Friday — and

those results will be made known to the public health inspectors on

Wednesday next.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: With leave of the House I would like to introduce some very distinguished guests in the members' gallery.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

We are very honoured in British Columbia today to have Mr. Norman

Campbell, who is an internationally recognized producer and director of

television musical shows, and Mrs. Aileen Campbell, who has won renown

in her own right as a stage producer and lyricist. The Campbells, the

House will be pleased to know, have returned to their native British

Columbia to write the music for "The Wonder of It All," a stage

adaptation of the life of Emily Carr which will be presented by the

Four Seasons Musical Theatre Society on Friday night. Accompanying the

Campbells in our gallery are Mr. Peter Mannering, the artistic director

of the Four Seasons Musical Theatre Society, and the theatre's

secretary-treasurer, Maureen Milgram. As we all know, a growing theatre

in British Columbia is of great significance in our own citizens' lives

and it will be a great addition to tourism of the future. I hope all

members will not only join me in welcoming the Campbells home to

British Columbia but will take the opportunity to see "The Wonder of It

All" when it debuts Friday night at the Newcombe Auditorium. Again I

would ask the House to welcome these fine British Columbians.

Orders of the Day

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

CROWN CORPORATIONS

BORROWING AUTHORITY INCREASE ACT

(continued)

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

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 2 approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 3.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

We covered this particular topic of Hydro borrowing at some length

under second reading. I just wanted to go on record for reminding this

House that Hydro does not seem to be accountable to anyone for its

actions. Hydro operates under its own act and this borrowing bill,

which will increase Hydro's borrowing from $5.6 billion to $6.4 billion

overall and will constitute about three-quarters of the total debt of

this province. We have had no indication from the government or from

the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority on how they intend to spend these

funds. Exactly where are these funds going? The Cheekye-Dunsmuir

transmission lines or Site C projects.... We don't know. Therefore we

on this side of the House intend to vote against this section.

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring a small item to the attention of

this House. I'm worried about what's going to happen to this money that

Hydro is attempting to borrow. It involves possible expenditures or

fines that may take place if the Attorney-General acts on certain

requests that have come from my riding. I would like to bring to the

attention of the House an application made by B.C. Hydro for permission

to spray 2, 4-D....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon.

member, that is entirely out of order under this section. That would

possibly have been more appropriately discussed in second reading. As

you know, in committee we are strictly relevant to the

section and

there is nothing in this

section that indicates that the subject matter

the member is now canvassing is at all in order.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that it

definitely deals with B.C. Hydro, because B.C. Hydro is a corporation.

I would like to read you the reasons I....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The

[ Page 3052 ]

Chair

is bound by the regulations of the House that we must, particularly in

committee, be bound by the strict relevance of the

section we are

debating. The debate that the member was engaged upon would certainly

have been in order in second reading or estimates, but not in committee

at this stage.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order,

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind you that during the course of

second reading I attempted to raise the matter of Hydro's use of

herbicides along its rights-of-way and elsewhere, and I was ruled out

of order at that time. I think we should try to be consistent, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we are now

dealing with nothing other than the borrowing authority under this

section. We're not dealing with herbicides; we're not dealing with

anything other than what is specifically laid out in this section. It

is of some surprise to the Chair that this point has to be continually

repeated to hon. members in committee.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Chairman, further to my point of order, not only was I ruled out of

order at that time and now you tell the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew that he would have been in order in second reading, but further

to that, Hydro obviously is borrowing funds for the use of these

herbicides that the member is attempting to raise in this debate. It

seems to me that that should be in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It might seem to the hon. member, but it does not seem so to the Chair.

MR. MITCHELL:

If you would just allow me to read one little section, it's on this

that I really feel there are grounds to debate it under this section.

The corporation is going to borrow three-quarters of a billion dollars,

and under the Pesticide Control Act there is a

section that if there is

a conviction laid by the Attorney-General they will be forced to pay a

fine of no more than $2,000, and it will be laid to the corporation. I

feel that if this corporation is going to borrow three-quarters of a

billion dollars, the expenditure of $2,000 is a part of the discussion.

Within that area I feel I'm on sound ground.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the Chair has allowed the member some latitude in bringing

forward the point that he wanted to make, but now I must advise the

member that continued discussion on that particular topic is out of

order and does not fall within the confines of the section.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 18

Howard

King

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 9, Crown Corporations Borrowing Authority Increase Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 34.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1980

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 7.

MRS. DAILLY:

Yesterday we had a considerable amount of debate on this

section of the

bill, but for those members who may not have been here and for the

edification of people in the gallery, I would like to pose, once again,

some of the reasons why the opposition is very concerned and intends to

oppose this

section of the bill.

This is an amendment to the

Highway Act. As a representative of, I believe, the largest

municipality in British Columbia, the municipality of Burnaby, with

over 150,000 people, I am particularly concerned, as are my other

Burnaby colleagues, over this

section of the act, because we believe

that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has taken unto himself

through this

section powers that never before have been given to a

Minister of Highways in relation to large areas such as Burnaby,

Vancouver and Victoria.

Any area with a population over

30,000 was excluded before from this particular act in terms of the

powers granted to the minister. I'd just like to go over what some of

these powers are which this minister has now taken upon himself.

This

is to do with the matter of the designation of arterial highways. That

power is now given to the minister in areas the size of Burnaby. He has

now taken unto himself the right to control the construction and the

maintenance of arterial highways. All the powers, previously the

municipality's, to

[ Page 3053 ]

lay out, construct and maintain the highway, the minister has taken unto himself these powers.

Most

importantly, Mr. Chairman, he's taken the power under this

section to

fix a distance from a highway at which fences, buildings and other

structures may be placed, including the power to order demolition of

any structure along the highway.

This

section appears to

give the minister total zoning control at and around an arterial

highway even into a municipality the size of Burnaby. As I said

earlier, these powers were limited to smaller communities. This type of

arbitrary zoning control by a Minister of Highways did not exist

before. Yet here we have the Minister of Transportation and Highways

for the Social Credit government presenting us with this

section which

is tucked away inside the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. Not

only are we concerned over the fact that he's taken unto himself these

extraordinary powers, but the other great concern we have is whether he

has even discussed this with the municipalities that are going to be

the ones involved and concerned about this major change. It is a major

incursion into the local autonomy of these large municipalities.

our concern is right now. Yesterday we never heard from the minister.

We're very interested in hearing from this Minister of Transportation

and Highways if he can give us any rationale at all for taking on these

awesome powers which the Social Credit government seems determined to

have in so many areas. Also, I would like to know whether the minister

has at any time informed the Burnaby council, the mayor, or any of the

officials that he had any intention of presenting this amendment to the

Highway Act to the Legislature today.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I just want to clear up a few points that have been made. First of all,

to the member for Burnaby North, I did speak on this yesterday. But I

realize the opposition weren't listening and they didn't want to listen.

MRS. DAILLY: You didn't say anything, Alex.

HON. MR. FRASER: That, of course, is your opinion; you're entitled to that — I didn't say anything. I'll try and clear it up when....

get quite thrilled over the point that it's secret. I don't know what's

secret about the B.C. Legislature. I haven't found anything very secret

about it. This is here for debate and has been on the order paper for

some time, so I can't say that it's very secret.

The

proposed change is to

section 29 of the Highway Act. The members of the

opposition are concerned that this is a move to allow designation of

feeder routes for the new Annacis highway.

MR. BARBER: You're not allowed to read from notes — only in your maiden speech.

HON. MR. FRASER: I appreciate your concern and I have some detailed answers.

Members

have not studied the statutes or circumstances very closely. The

present Highway Act provides for arterial highways in all

municipalities regardless of population, but it restricts arterials in

cities and towns with a population of more than 30,000. Consequently,

the present situation is that arterial highways may be, and have from

time to time been, designated in Delta, Richmond and Burnaby. However,

since New Westminster is a city with a population over 30,000, it has

been excluded from the ability to have the province pay for and

maintain arterial routes. The facts are, therefore, that if we're

concerned about the Annacis highway the only city which would have to

pay its portion would be New Westminster. I say to you people: is it

fair that Burnaby has arterial routes paid for by the province while

New Westminster pays these costs itself? I would like to inform the

House that the mayor and council of New Westminster not only support

the Annacis highway proposal but are also in favour of the proposed

revision to the Highway Act.

The opposition members are

concerned about the effects of sections 31, 33, 34 and 42. I would like

to respond to these concerns one at a time.

Section 31. It

should be noted that

section 31 requires that there be consultation

with the council before designation is proposed to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Section 33. This

section

makes the ministry responsible for control and maintenance of arterial

highways. This provides for setting of speed limits, load limits and

other operational requirements.

Section 34. This

section

give the ministry the power to carry out the bylaws of the local

council. The opposition would like us to believe that this is an

independent veto power, On the contrary, it is the power to carry out

the wishes of the local government.

Section 42. This

provides for setting of regulations for set-back of fences, buildings

or structures from the highway, and also the right to direct removal of

signs, shrubs, buildings, etc., for the safety or convenience of the

travelling public. This is not arbitrary authority, as it may exercised

only for safety or convenience purposes or where the road bed is

affected. It should also be noted that it is subject to payment of

compensation.

The opposition were concerned about zoning

controls, Mr. Chairman. It should be noted that in these sections there

is no mention of powers to zone or to create bylaws.

The

points made earlier by the opposition members are irrelevant to the

revision of the Highway Act, which is under consideration here today.

This revision to the Highway Act provides for fair treatment to all

municipalities and cities. It will enable designation as arterial

highways of those routes within large cities which carry heavy volumes

of traffic travelling through the city. This will relieve these large

cities of the cost of building and maintaining these routes.

This

revision does not in any way affect the following municipalities:

Burnaby, Delta, Richmond, Surrey. It only affects New Westminster and

Vancouver in the lower mainland. In any of these cities the designation

of streets as arterial highways has no relevance to zoning. It supports

and makes effective local bylaws on any streets this ministry takes

over. It enables the province to adequately meet its responsibilities.

think it is not only fair but also essential that New Westminster, for

example, be treated the same by the province as neighbouring Burnaby.

This will, for example, allow the province to take over the maintenance

of the Queensborough Bridge in New Westminster. I might say, that is a

costly item to the city of New Westminster. As I recall, at one time

that bridge was partly looked after by the province and then it was

turned over to the city. The maintenance and upkeep of the bridge is

expensive. Under this

[ Page 3054 ]

amendment

they would be relieved of those costs. While I appreciate the concern

of the members of the opposition, I don't think their concerns are

warranted.

MR. BARBER: I know the minister

appreciates some of our concerns, but apparently he doesn't appreciate

all of them. If he did, he would have referred at somewhat greater

length to a

section that I'll refer to now.

The minister is

aware, as is any person familiar with the problems of land use, that

where you build a highway of any consequence, so too population goes

there or leaves there.

The principle of transportation in an

urban community is one which recognizes that the impact, designation

and construction of a major highway — in this law it's called an

arterial highway — determine to an enormous extent the uses to which

the land adjacent may be put. Clearly, if you designate a road that was

formerly a through road as an arterial highway and you upgrade it to

those standards, the living conditions of the human beings who happen

to own homes along that former small-use road will change drastically.

For the minister to purport that this had nothing to do with planning

or with the human values of those who are affected or the economic

values of their property is to purport a wrong thing.

Anyone

concerned about planning is concerned about roads. Anyone concerned

about how roads are designated and paid for and how they are

constructed and chosen in the first place has to realize the

extraordinary powers that are now being conferred upon the Minister of

Highways in an urban community where never before did he have those

powers and, indeed, where he is yet to make a case that he needs them.

would advise again, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has yet to make any

case whatever as to why he needs these powers. If the minister chooses

to make a grant-in-lieu to a municipality in order to maintain an

arterial highway, let him do so; he's empowered by the Highway Act to

do that. The minister does not need the power himself to designate an

arterial highway for the reasons he has offered. There may other

reasons; we'll get to those in a minute. If his solitary concern is to

assist in the construction and maintenance of arterial highways in such

poverty-ridden municipalities as Vancouver and New Westminster, then he

is empowered by law to simply make a grant. The minister doesn't shake

his head. He knows that's the case; he's empowered to do that. The

Highway Act, reasonably enough, allows him to do these things.

The

minister, in fact, told us today, if I understand him correctly, that

his authority has nothing to do with zoning, planning or any of the

other options open to a municipality. Well, with all respect, we read

the law quite differently. The minister has agreed that by introducing

this seemingly innocuous amendment to the Highway Act, other key

portions of that act now come into force. They never did previously.

One of these is

section 34(2), which is the one I propose to read. If

you listen carefully you'll see precisely how under this new statute,

if it passes, the minister will now be given these old powers in a

community where he never previously had them.

section 34(2) reads:

"The ministry, for an arterial highway" — that being

the key phrase in all of this statute — "has all the rights, powers and

advantages conferred by bylaw, contract or otherwise on the municipal corporation

having control of the highway before it became classified as an arterial highway

under this act, and the minister may sue in the name of the minister on these

rights or under the bylaw or contract in the same manner and to the same extent

as the municipal corporation might have done if the highway had not been classified

as an arterial highway."

What

is the consequence of that? It is simply this: it allows the minister

to take action that previously was reserved solely for the municipality

itself. It allows the minister, in his

interpretation of such zoning as

may previously have been granted by the municipality in the designation

of an arterial highway, to take steps even to the point of lawsuit to

have his will done. This clearly confers on the minister powers that

were previously restricted solely to the corporate municipality, in

this case, as he tells us, Vancouver and New Westminster.

Section 34(2)

— and others, which I will refer to in a moment, as well — gives to the

minister certain of the previously exclusively held rights and

prerogatives and options in law that the municipality alone could

exercise. So it is not simply what the minister tells us. The

minister's intentions — I don't doubt him; he is an honourable man —

may be personally restricted to paving the potholes on the

Queensborough Bridge. However, not suspecting the minister's motives, I

do suspect those of certain others who are prepared to push the Annacis

crossing through at all costs and are prepared to do so over the

considerable and vocal and increasingly powerful objections of

neighbourhood groups concerned about the integrity of the

neighbourhoods through which inevitably the access roads and feeder

routes will have to pass.

There is another issue at stake

here. As a result of the sections which will now come into power — 31,

33, 34 and 42 — new authority has been granted to that minister. He may

tell us that he would never propose to use such authority. He will not

deny that this authority now includes the right to order the demolition

of buildings. Now why would a minister need that in an urban community?

Where all the roads are already built, where no new decisions could be

taken on the basis of an old plan — unless a new plan were in the works

— it doesn't make sense that he should require these powers. Why, for

instance, if all that the minister wished to do is to pave the potholes

on the Queensborough Bridge, does he also require the power to order

the demolition of structures within, as is conventionally organized,

half a mile either side of the median of the arterial highway? Well, if

you are in trouble over the Annacis crossing you might need that power.

If you can't find the access and feeder routes to make the Annacis

bridge succeed you might need that power. You see, the power to

demolish structures in an urban community is a vast and expensive

power. It is a power of the sort we doubt this minister or any other

should have.

The minister himself said two days ago — I

quoted it yesterday and will quote it again now — that the problem with

Annacis is not the structure itself. Any competent engineer can build a

bridge — at least so they thought in Tacoma and at the Hood Canal and

other places. But by and large the rule applies that any competent

engineer can build a bridge and it will not fall down. However, the

problem, as the minister himself said two days ago, with the Annacis

crossing is not the structure. It is access to the structure. The

problems there are twofold. On one side of the river the problem is

that you will be removing certain acres of land currently within the

ALR. The problem on the other side of the river is that to obtain the

clear flow of traffic and the

[ Page

3055 ]

access and feeder routes that are required for Annacis you have to go through

built-up neighbourhoods.

The

minister himself gave another clue just a few minutes ago., He said

that the only interest here is the interest he has in safety and road

conditions and the usability of the road itself. Do I misquote the

minister? No. Those are admirable intentions in isolation. We are all

concerned about safety and road conditions. I am glad he is too. There

was never any doubt. We are both concerned. The point is that if what

you are really in the business of doing is giving yourself a

legislative out for a year from now when Annacis doesn't work because

the feeder routes are inadequate and the access through those urban

neighbourhoods cannot be obtained, then suddenly you see why there

would be the necessity for the powers of a municipality — which is to

say the power to demolish buildings and to undermine the economic value

of those private property owners who once held them. The minister tells

us that there is also the power to fix compensation. Of course. That is

not in dispute. The point in question is why you need the power to

demolish buildings if all you propose to do is pay for the potholes on

the Queensborough Bridge.

There are other legislative

options. It is not necessary — if the minister's intentions are all

that he has said they are — to have all these other powers as well. If

the minister wants the power to pave the Queensborough Bridge and

Kingsway, to pave North Road, and he finds he does not technically have

that power right now, then he could bring in another and totally

different amendment to the Highway Act to give him that power. It would

be a restricted, narrow and perhaps even welcome power which the

opposition would support. Instead the minister has chosen a very

different and significantly more dangerous course. By virtue of the

provisions of 31, 33, 34 and 42 of the Highway Act, which will come

into play should this amendment pass, he now has powers which he

himself would have us believe he does not intend to exercise. He tells

us he doesn't want to have anything to do with that new authority, no

matter how vast and sweeping it may be; he tells us he doesn't need it

and he doesn't want it. I ask him in reply: "Then why are you giving it

to yourself?"

There is a test, Mr. Chairman, and it's called

the Gaglardi test; it was a test first enunciated by David Anderson,

the member for Victoria at one time. Mr. Anderson said: "Look, in a

two-party province neither party trusts the other; in a two-party

province neither party wants, out of government, to be given, when in

government, powers that the other party can abuse later on. Every time

you examine what happens when a minister proposes to give himself

awesome new powers, apply the Gaglardi test just for a minute and ask

yourself whether or not you would trust Phil Gaglardi with those

powers." Now no right-minded person would — at least, given what

happened in this province during his tenure in office.

If this minister wouldn't trust a New Democrat minister — who shall be elected

after the next election — to have this power in urban communities, why does

he ask us to trust his administration any more? If neither side would trust

Phil Gaglardi to have these powers, why should either side propose that anyone

have them? The minister has failed to apply the Gaglardi test, which is: although

you may be personally trustworthy and although you personally might never abuse

this authority, what would happen if some unscrupulous person came along and

used this new authority and did so? How would you feel then? What would you

think at that point? What doubts might you then have in hindsight about the

wisdom of granting future Ministers of Transportation and Highways that authority?

Apply the Gaglardi test and you'll see that this

section fails to meet the

requirements of that test.

The current Minister of Transportation and Highways is a nice guy; he's

honourable; he's not a crook; he doesn't give deals or favours to his

sons; he doesn't build bridges, for instance, on his own ranch with

Highways equipment and Highways material. He doesn't do that; he's an

honest minister. So we have no doubt that in his personal hands the

likelihood of personal abuse of this is zip. But that's not the issue.

We're not writing a law for that person; we're writing a law for this

province and for all of the ministers who may come at some time in the

future.

So apply the Gaglardi test and ask yourself whether

or not even though you may personally not want to abuse, and would

never abuse, these authorities — you would trust a New Democrat to use

the power that you say you wouldn't misuse.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

You really want the opposition to have this new power? Well, if you

can't honestly say yes, maybe neither you nor we should have the power

in the first place. Maybe the power should remain where it has been for

years: in the hands of the municipalities. Maybe the power should

reside where it belongs: in the hands of local government. Maybe the

power should stay where it is: in the hands of the most competent

authorities. and those are local authorities.

The power to

designate an arterial highway, which could be any old road until you

name it such, is a very significant power. The further power to order

without appeal the destruction of the property of citizens on either

side is an awesome power. The power to do all of the things which

sections 31, 33, 34 and 42 will now allow you to do is a power that

must not he granted lightly. The minister wants us to award it to him

lightly. because the reasons he's offered are the lightest of them all.

He says he wants to guarantee the safety of existing roads. he wants to

make sure the traffic flow is adequate and in control and he wants to

pave potholes on the Queensborough Bridge. In isolation those are all

perfectly reasonable things. But the point is that the minister has not

asked for an isolated power; he has asked for a broad, sweeping power.

Therefore it's reasonable to ask if he needs it. So far the minister

has not made a case that he needs such a broad, sweeping power — to

order demolition, to lay out, construct and maintain highways, and to

do all of the other things through urban communities — that he never

had before.

Let me restate it, Mr. Chairman. In the

unorganized territories of British Columbia it is legitimate that he

have this power. There are no municipalities in many of the places

where the minister might designate an arterial road connecting with a

major road — be it Highway 10 or 5 or 11 or 41 or whatever. A

connecting road, connecting one small unorganized community with

another across a major highway, designated "arterial" may be an

appropriate thing for him to do. We don't object. In fact, even in

communities under 30,000, where the minister currently has these

considerable powers, we don't object.

Let me restate that we don't object because it's clear that in those communities the planning resources, the planning

[ Page 3056 ]

capacity, the planning will

of many of those people is pretty thin soup — they don't have the skill

at command. In these communities the planning apparatus often consists

of a part time town clerk, who may be an honourable, tough-minded,

hard-working guy, but who doesn't have the necessary skill.

the contrary, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs do have the skills. Those skills are

welcome, that planning ability is a good thing, and we take no

objection. But we're talking about grown-up municipalities like the

city of Vancouver, which has well over 600,000 people, or a community

like the city of New Westminster, one of the oldest organized cities in

all of British Columbia. These are mature, independent, autonomous,

able communities, who are well able to decide for themselves on

questions like the demolition of buildings, the set-back of structures

and where the roads shall go to feed Annacis and other crossings.

They're perfectly able to do it for themselves. They don't need a man

sitting in Victoria deciding for them.

I point out again

that if all the minister wants to do is to guarantee the safety of

arterial highways to assure that traffic flow is handled ably on them,

and to pave the potholes on the Queensborough Bridge, then let him

bring in another amendment to the Highway Act that does not give him

all these additional powers. Let him bring in an amendment which

specifically says that his authority in these Urban communities over

30,000 shall be narrowly restricted to paving arterial highways, or

whatever it is he cares to do on the narrow basis of his own argument.

The

minister can't have it both ways. He can't argue a narrow case and have

us enact a wide law. If you only have a narrow case to make, bring in a

narrow amendment, and I expect we'll support it. But you are making a

narrow case, passing a wide law and giving to yourself great powers

that you never had before, which we suspect you shouldn't have at all.

The

minister himself is an honourable guy and would pass the Gaglardi test,

but the possibility for the future abuse of these powers is real. The

minister should ask himself whether or not he would trust us with these

powers. In this province, hardly ever do Socreds trust New Democrats

with any additional powers, and vice versa. It is the nature of our

politics. If the minister, who's an honest guy, can't honestly say that

he would trust a future New Democrat minister with all of these powers

— although it may be that for rhetorical purposes he might hint he

would — then he's got to ask whether or not such broad powers are

necessary to serve the narrow purpose he's described. If he cannot

answer that — if he cannot make a better defence of his intentions —

then we cannot accept the amendment and will continue speaking against

it for some time to come.

MR. LORIMER: This amendment

is only six lines long, but it creates for the Minister of Highways

these awesome, sweeping powers. My colleague says he will not abuse

those powers, but the powers will be there and may well be abused.

For a long time now the Minister of Highways has had powers of planning for

wherever highways exist in the smaller communities. In most of those communities

there are no planners, and someone should do the planning on behalf of the people

who reside in those communities. It's my belief that the amendment that

should come in is one to cancel those powers that presently exist for the Minister

of Highways and transfer them to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In the planning

field, in my opinion, the Highways ministry plans for one purpose by and large

— generally for highways and the communities, to facilitate the use of highways

and the better movement of traffic on those highways —

whereas the Ministry

of Municipal Affairs can look at a wide scope of options and a wide field of

interests in the community and could probably have a much more effective method

of planning than that of the Ministry of Highways.

it would be my opinion that the amendment should be the opposite.

Instead of giving those extra powers to the Ministry of Highways, I

believe the Ministry of Highways should have its powers curtailed in

the field of planning in this province.

I'm also convinced

that the Minister of Highways is not clear on the powers that he has or

is trying to grant to himself, and I'm quite sure the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is not aware of them. If they

are aware, then there has apparently been a struggle between the

Minister of Highways and the Minister of Municipal Affairs for power,

with reference to planning in the urban areas of this province.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That doesn't happen in this government.

MR. LORIMER:

It smells a little here, Mr. Minister of Finance. That could well be

the case, but I don't think it is, due to the fact that I don't think

either the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Highways

knows the possible end result of the amendment that is before us. So I

might well agree that there has been no power struggle, but I think

there will be a power struggle in the weeks to come now that they're

both familiar with what they've done by this amendment.

The

Minister of Municipal Affairs is not here at the present time. I expect

that he is consulting with his staff to see what this amendment means.

He's wondering whether or not the Minister of Highways has, in fact,

usurped some of his authority. In my opinion, the Minister of Highways

may be more able to look after planning in the areas. I think the

matter should belong to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. At the

present time they have considerable powers — the Ministry of Highways —

to check over any bylaws passed by the smaller communities and regional

districts, and can have the power to veto certain approvals to bylaws.

I would prefer to see the larger communities — those over 30,000 that

have a planning department — take care of the local planning within

that community.

There are other powers that have been

mentioned that the Minister of Highways can grasp, in any event, and it

would appear to me that this is not only a poor amendment, but a

backward amendment. The amendment should be reversed to take powers

away from the Ministry of Highways and transfer them to the Ministry

of Municipal Affairs.

MR. LEA: I don't think we

should cause a panic — I don't think we could cause a panic — in the

populace about what I consider to be another loss of freedom. You can

take all of these little things that happen over the course of time

with government, and each one in itself doesn't leave people with a

complete lack of freedom in society. But when you start adding them up,

one after-the other, then I think it's time for the opposition to

caution the government on taking too much power into its central

location; that's in Victoria.

[ Page 3057 ]

It's

a temptation for any government to take more and more power unto

itself, because it's oftentimes pragmatic; it's more efficient in some

cases to take things into the central level and deal with them. Or at

least that's been a supposition put forward by some proponents of the

theory that if you can bring everything into a central position, then

you can get a bit more efficiency out of it. I think there are a great

many more people these days, including myself, who think maybe the

other way around, in the final run, is the more efficient way, and

that's to decentralize the decision-making process.

One of

the safeguards of freedom that we have in our system is the different

levels of government platforms that we have. We have municipal

governments; municipal governments generally are much closer to the

people. When you are dealing with things that surround you immediately

and personally, then it's probably the most desirable thing to have the

group that is making the rules that will affect you personally and

immediately at the local level.

We then have our provincial

government, because we have provincial matters that must be attended

to. At that level, because it is more democratic to have those

decisions made at the provincial level — it's better to have, for

instance, resource decisions made at the provincial level as compared

to having those decisions made at the national level....

But

at the national level there are, obviously, issues that have to be

dealt with by a national government, dealing internationally on

fisheries and resources. We do have to have our national voice to be

heard at an international level.

I'd like us to consider a

little more simply what our job in the Legislature is, because I think

we tend to get too hung up on the complexity of it all. I believe that,

very simply, our job is that we're sent here to make those rules by

which society will have to live — the rules surrounding provincial

matters. That's what our job is — to come here and say there are going

to be certain provincial rules. People have elected us to make those

rules; we call them laws. But basically they're just rules, and

everybody in society has agreed, no matter who you vote for, that once

the rules are made you have to obey them. You have to obey the rule;

you have to obey the law. If you don't obey those laws you have

disorder, and we must have law and order in order to run our society.

But it seems to me that time and time again this government forgets the

basic principles of democracy.

Just what is it democracy is

replacing in our society — and it is replacing something. If we had no

rules, if we had no structured society — political philosophers refer

to that as the state of nature. We would have maximum freedom to do

anything we wanted. We could set our own rules, be our own

administration and our own executioner of the rules we personally set.

You'd have maximum freedom. But along with that maximum freedom in that

perfect state of nature you would have maximum insecurity, because each

and every other person would be living by his or her own rules and

there'd be no safety for any of us personally. So we decided that we'd

go into a structured society, a society of constitutional law and

order, but within that structure there are safeguards, because it's all

too easy to make life too secure and do away with too many freedoms,

and we must maximize those freedoms at every opportunity. That is

another one of our jobs in this Legislature — not to take away freedom

but wherever possible to enhance those freedoms.

This

amendment in itself won't bring the world tumbling down, but what it

does do, in my opinion, is take away the opportunity for communities

over 30,000 that have the means and the will to do their own planning

and make their own decisions.... It will take those decision-making

processes away from people at the local level. That is what is

happening here in this piece of legislation, in this amendment. Another

little freedom is being taken away. What is frightening about it is

that it is one in a long series. The now Minister of Finance, when

Minister of Municipal Affairs — in Bill 42 of that particular session —

gave more powers to the central government. We have to look at Newton's

third law: you can't have a force without that force being opposite in

direction and equal in strength. When you take a power unto yourself

you take it away from someone else; that's a law of physics that

applies in every case that I've ever looked at. And it happens in law

too. The minister said: "From now on I, the minister" — whoever is

holding the Municipal Affairs portfolio — "shall decide whether any

bylaw passed by a municipal council will be allowed to stand or will be

set aside. "

MR. BARBER: He could even rewrite it to his own convenience.

MR. LEA:

Or rewrite it to his own convenience and push it on and make it stick

on that city council. We saw this government bring in the Government

Reorganization Act, which took away to the cabinet room from this

Legislature powers that it had previously held, therefore confining and

narrowing that decision-making process to an even narrower scale than

this Legislature already has.

We've seen all of those things

and more happen over the course of five years with this government. It

is frightening, because I don't believe that the kind of arguments

we're making here in this House make a dent on that side of the House.

That to me is the frightening part. I remember when this party was in

government and every day, without fail, from this side of the House

they raised themselves up and demanded the world listen to them as

freedom-fighters. Today I would like to hear those ministers stand up

and talk about freedom; it would be healthy. Not since they've been

elected have they talked about freedom; what they have done is take

away freedom. They've inched and inched away at the freedom tree and

they're climbing higher and higher, taking freedom away from the people

of this province inch by inch. Again, in this amendment, another

freedom is disappearing off the freedom tree.

They are not

the freedom-fighters, they are the freedom takers, Mr. Chairman. This

amendment is another grasp to take away the freedom of municipal

councils and therefore people at the local level in this province. As I

said, what bothers me is the look of puzzlement on their faces when you

talk about having to safeguard freedoms and having the opportunity to

run your society by constitutional law and order. They look back

blankly, appearing not to understand what we're talking about. I hope

they understand it. I hope they can make an argument for what they're

doing and against what we're saying, but we get no argument. All we get

are blank stares and ridicule because we've had the audacity to mention

that many of the areas that they are delving into are taking away the

personal freedom of councils in this province, and therefore taking

away freedoms at the local level to decide on issues that affect you

immediately and personally. Again, it is happening. It is frightening

that this government doesn't seem to understand. As my friend

[ Page 3058 ]

the

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) pointed out, they want to cure a

narrow situation and they bring in a wide law that gives them more

powers than they need to do the job at hand, as outlined by the

minister.

I, believe it is incumbent in this debate for the

Attorney-General of this province to stand up and discuss freedom, the

different layers of government and the way we have to safeguard those.

The Attorney-General of this province, the chief of all our lawmaking

machine, should explain to us in a philosophical way why he agrees,

once again, with this taking away of a municipal power and, therefore,

taking away and stripping away from that freedom tree another branch

from the local level.

I would like to hear ministers stand

up in this debate because probably every time we get to one of these

issues — whether the opposition is right or wrong in the specifics —

they are debates that every member of this House has an obligation to

enter. It is the very core of the reason that we are here. In this

Legislature we are here to make the law. That government, as part of

this Legislature, administers it for the people of British Columbia,

but here in this group we make the laws and pass the laws. For this

group to, time and time again over the past five years, chip away at

the freedom tree is an item that every one of us has an obligation to

join in debate over. Maybe we don't have an obligation to raise our

voice in this Legislature when we are giving a freedom, but every time

we chip away and take a freedom previously held at a more local level

we are in danger of going against the very reason we were asked to

serve in this House by the people in our constituency.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I don't think that we've convinced some of the members on the other

side about this very small amendment. The member for Prince Rupert

didn't really say anything about the amendment. The first member for

Victoria made a few interesting comments about it. One, if I recall,

was: "Would you trust this to the NDP?" It goes on the statute books.

My answer is that we certainly would, because you'll never have the

opportunity, in my opinion, to ever exercise government. That is what

you were saying.

The member for Victoria really zeroed in on

section 42. I think I should read it into the record because I think he

missed a few points in it. This is what

section 42 says:

"

(1) The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may fix the distance from a

highway at which fences, buildings or other structures may be placed,

and at which trees, shrubs or hedges may be planted.

"

(2) The minister may direct the removal of a tree, shrub, bush, hedge,

fence, signboard, gasoline pump, building or other object growing or

standing on land adjacent to a highway where required, in his opinion,

for the safety or convenience of the travelling public..."

That

is a very important section. I would suggest to the House that it

definitely is a responsibility to be concerned about the safety of the

travelling public.

Section 42(2) continues:

"...or when an object might cause drifting or accumulation

of snow or is injurious to the road bed, but subject to payment of compensation

..."

other words, if compensation is required — in a lot of cases it isn't,

but in some cases it is — it provides for that. I really don't know

what all the concern is about. I would like to also remark that the

amendment was put in there to give a break to the municipalities with a

population over 30,000. They haven't had it in the past. If you want a

little history on it, I believe not many years ago the level of

population was 2,000 and it's been moved up gradually over the years by

different increments: 2,000 to 10,000 to 15,000 and then to 30,000. We

are now saying it's above that, so I don't feel concerned at all about

the concerns the people have on the other side.

MR. COCKE:

I understand what the minister is saying. The minister, I believe, is

losing track of the opposition's criticism in one aspect. You see, Mr.

Chairman, we're in total support. I am, particularly, from New

Westminster. The only money I can ever recall as coming from the

Highways ministry was an allocation for an overpass which was on a road

going from New Westminster to Coquitlam. I was delighted to see this

minister actually carry out an undertaking made by his predecessor, the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). That's the kind of thing that a

city the size of New Westminster requires in terms of assistance from

the provincial government on what can be deemed to be a highway or a

road that carries people from one municipality to the other.

We're

placed in a terrible spot in New Westminster, as I have outlined to the

House during other bills, and we've discussed this question. We've got

Burnaby on the one side with a number of highways. They are judged to

be highways and are treated as such by the Highways ministry, on the

other side we have Surrey and Coquitlam in the same position. Here we

are, carrying all the traffic and getting no assistance. So from that

standpoint I'm in total agreement with the minister providing some

assistance. For the minister's information, frankly, the amount of

upkeep on the Queensborough Bridge is not really where the action is,

as far as I can see. I think Braid Street to some extent, and certainly

to a very large extent 10th Avenue and in on to the Pattullo Bridge, is

probably one of our greatest problems. Certainly we require some

assistance. Now you are going to run the Annacis throughway through New

Westminster as well. I can certainly understand your feeling of

obligation toward that city, in terms of some kind of highway

assistance. Okay, let's provide the assistance.

Under a

number of acts, not the least of which is the Municipal Act, this

government has the right to change zoning. I don't see why the minister

requires zoning in this particular "assistance" he's giving to

Vancouver and New Westminster. It goes beyond that, anyway; I'm sure

it's going to refer as well to Victoria and other municipalities or

cities which are of that particular size — the ones that haven't been

treated before.

Can the minister tell us why he cannot put

forward an amendment that will give the kind of assistance required,

and at least show the city some respect with respect to their autonomy

in planning? I don't think there's anything magical in the minister's

office. I can imagine what's going to happen. It's going to mean that

everything is going to grind to a halt in terms of any kind of

development, particularly in our town. Now we're going to have to go

through the city. Then you're going to have to go through the Highways

ministry. Anybody who has had that experience knows that there is

nothing slower, with the possible exception of the Lands ministry —

that has slowed almost to a grinding halt. As a matter of fact, I think

that sometimes the Ministry of Lands....

[ Page 3059 ]

MR. BARBER: Works backwards.

MR. COCKE:

Precisely. It works backwards; it's so slow in terms of any kind of

decision coming out of that department. I understand that they don't

even acknowledge letters. I think the Highways ministry is a little bit

better than that, in terms of at least letting a person or people or

corporation know that they have the matter before them. This is the

kind of problem we're facing — you know, the awesome powers and so on.

The government has awesome powers in any event, particularly a

centralized gang like this one.

This particular

section

gives the municipalities and the cities another hurdle to go over. It's

going to take forever and a day to get any kind of approval for

development. I'm sure that in the future oftentimes we will find people

dead and gone before they can ever achieve the development they're

asking for.

There is a faction in all of our departments:

it's called a bureaucracy. Part of that bureaucracy likes to put the

brakes on everything.

you don't give an approval, you

can't make a mistake, so the best thing to do is not to give an

approval, and then you're in no danger of making a mistake. I don't

think there is anything that follows more closely than that; it's like

day following night. Put in your request, fill out all your forms, send

them in and watch the cobwebs grow and grow on the forms. That's really

what we're talking about, Mr. Chairman. Why don't we clean this up a

little bit; say to the local governments: "Stay in line." That

government has the power, through the Municipal Act, if they see ribbon

developments that should not grow.... If they see cities or

city-municipalities doing what they feel is wrong, then for heaven's

sake,

first consult and then, if necessary, bring down the power of the

government through the Municipal Act. But I see absolutely no necessity

for getting this whole bureaucracy involved in planning in our

municipalities.

Having said that, I appreciate the fact that

we're going to get some assistance on highways in some of those areas,

but at what a cost! I just suggest to the minister: how about asking

for a recess? Or let's pull this bill for the moment, get on with

something else and then come back with an amendment that's more

suitable. I'm sure that can be done, because really what these few

lines do is give the minister the same.... These rules and

regulations in the Highway Act all apply to our town and all the other

towns. And good heavens, by the time you get through reading this, it

scares the blazes out of you. You wonder if you can ever get anything

done. I feel that the minister should have this whole area sharpened

up. Let's not create another great problem for our municipality-cities.

What does the minister have to say to that?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. FRASER:

Well, Mr. Chairman, all I have to say about it is that the member for

New Westminster has admitted that it will help the Corporation of the

City of New Westminster, and really he's kicking a gift horse in the

mouth.

MR. COCKE: Isn't that marvellous! That's the

reply from the hon. Minister of Highways: "kicking a gift horse in the

mouth." That beneficent minister, that magnificent altruist! Look, this

is the people's money that we're talking about. It's about time that

those cities had some assistance. But why do you have to give them

assistance on one hand and then tell them they can't make their own

rules on the other? You do have the last resort. you do have the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Kicking a gift horse in the mouth indeed!

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, this bill gives power to the minister to remove people

from their homes and to remove business from their premises. This bill

is another Social Credit attack on private property in British

Columbia. It's typical of the disrespect in which private property is

held by this coalition: it's typical of a consistent attack on the

principle of private property by the coalition government. They don't

care about private property rights: they treat them with disdain and

disrespect, and they always have.

The minister tells us that

the only point is to allow payment for arterial highways. The minister

fails, as usual, to speak to the whole issue.

section 41 (4) — look it

up, Alex, page 13 of your copy — already is the device which, with

[illegible] brief amendment, could give the minister the power to do

what the MLA for New Westminster has been requesting for years, which

is to share provincially in the local cost for the maintenance of

arterial highways.

Section 41(4) reads: "The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-CounciI may authorize an annual grant to any

city having a population in excess of 30,000 to defray expenditure on a

street where it is considered in the public interest that the street is

a necessary connecting link in the arterial highway system of the

Province." Now how could the minister do only and narrowly what he says

he wants to do? Well, he could amend 41(4) to read "expenditure on a

street and arterial highways" and then go on. That's all he needs to

do, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, we may shortly introduce such an

amendment and take the minister at his word.

We want the

municipality of New Westminster to be granted provincial funds to

upgrade and maintain its roads, and the guy who's fought harder for

that than any other member in this House is the long-time MLA for New

Westminster, Mr. Cocke. Everyone knows that's a fact.

What

we do not want is for you to be given powers that you do not need, by

your own admission; what we do not want is for any other Minister of

Highways to use those powers for a wrong purpose without our consent in

the first place.

This

bill gives you more powers than you

need, if the government is speaking truthfully when it tells us what it

proposes to do with those powers. If all you want to do is remove

hedges and snow, if all you want to do is allow New Westminster to fix

up the Queensborough and other roads, then bring in an amendment to

41(4), include arterials therein, include a designation for arterial

highways in the

interpretation

section of the same act, and you can do

what it is you say you want to do. But if the government insists on

bringing in these awesome, sweeping powers, then we have to suspect the

government has another motive. We have already proven beyond contest

that the government may make a grant to municipalities for this

purpose. We have proven, beyond contradiction, that the government

could simply make a grant to New Westminster and other municipalities

over 30,000 to fix up their now arterial roads. And we've demonstrated

how you could bring in a brief, simple, uncontentious amendment to the

Highway Act. as it is cur-

[ Page 3060 ]

rently written — 41(4) is the way you could do it. We've demonstrated all those things.

will, if necessary, introduce that amendment ourselves, although it

would surely have a better chance of passing if the government

introduced it. But the government would be well advised to withdraw the

current amendment, which gives it powers that it does not need and

should not have. The government would be better advised to amend 41(4)

as we've suggested. We will then support that new amendment, because it

won't be giving you powers you shouldn't have. It'll be giving you the

ability to do something that should have been done a long time ago,

which is to assist the communities of New Westminster and others to

maintain these roads. That's what my colleague for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) has fought for. It's the powers that you don't need that we are

fighting against.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, the

minister's explanation as to why he requires this

section in the

Highway Act doesn't sit too well with me. To make a somewhat

lighthearted remark about it, I think the member's memory is going.

When you grow older that's the second thing that goes. It's not that

long ago that we had the throne speech, and in the throne speech is

reference to the particular

section that we're referring to. I think

the member has forgotten that in the throne speech, following the

paragraph regarding initiating long-range plans to work in partnership

with our municipalities — and I'll be talking about that in a second —

"My Minister of Transportation and Highways will propose that the

existing provision of the Highway Act be amended so the province may

establish provincial highways in any city or city municipality. "

That's not what you just said when you explained why you wanted this

act. You talked about snow removal and hedge-trimming. But in the

throne speech it tells why you really want it.

It goes on to

say: "It presently excludes city and city municipalities from having

classified provincial highways where the population exceeds 30,000. The

amendment will remove anomalies created by the expansion of a number of

cities within the province in recent years." You just said it only

referred to Vancouver and New Westminster. And yet the throne speech

itself refutes that remark, Mr. Minister. There's a serious difference

between what you said and what the throne speech says — a serious

difference. The throne speech says "a number of cities within the

province in recent years" and in your explanation you said Vancouver

and New Westminster. One story is all I can handle at a time. I can't

handle a throne speech that says one thing and a minister that says

another.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Come on, you were able to handle Goldberg and Barrett at one time.

MR. HALL: No, no, I can only handle one of those. I will want a victory and then move over to the next one. You know that, Garde.

Now

then, I want to now tell you that, in the spirit of the cooperative

partnership that was referred to in the throne speech, I decided I'd

better phone Surrey and find out just exactly what partnership there

was developing in my municipality with the minister. The man who pulls

most of the weight in Surrey is Mr. Closkey. Surely you know Mr.

Closkey; he nearly became a deputy minister. Nearly. But I guess you

must have ganged up on him somewhere along the line.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: No, that's why you don't know him, that's for sure. He never made it.

But

anyway, Mr. Closkey, who is a very close confidant of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, doesn't know anything about this section. There's

the cooperation. He doesn't know anything about this

section at all.

never heard anything from the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the

Minister of Transportation and Highways about the largest municipality

in B.C. in terms of geography and people combined. We've not heard a

word from the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of

Transportation and Highways about this section; the mayor has not

heard, a word from the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of

Transportation. I've not got on to the city of White Rock yet, because

I wanted to get back in the House and catch up with the debate, but I

should be phoning the city of White Rock shortly to find out all about

the long-range plan to work in partnership with the city of White Rock

on transportation, roads and

section 7 of Bill 34.

That just

isn't good enough.

Section 7 places powers in the Minister of Highways'

hands that he doesn't need, according to his explanation, and that he

said he does need when he was writing his part of the throne speech for

the Premier. Which are we to believe — the throne speech or the

explanation we just got? I can't vote for this

section until that is

cleared up, and if it is not cleared up to our satisfaction, then I

guess we've got to keep on going at him either here or in estimates

until we do get some explanation as to which explanation it is that

represents accuracy — what is really happening in transportation and in

highway development, in terms of the Highway Act.

You know,

I can remember things and I think it's time the government started to

remember what they said in February and not allow it just to come back

to haunt them in June and July.

MR. BARBER: I think

we've demonstrated that this bill gives the minister the authority to

demolish buildings within a certain distance. The distance ordinarily

affixed is half a mile from the median line of any arterial highway in

the communities....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

It is half a mile. That's right. Ask him. Are you the Highways

minister? How would you know? We've asked and that's the distance

ordinarily affixed. It gives him the power to demolish buildings and

the authority to sue and act in law in all of the ways that a municipal

corporation may act in law in order to designate whatever he wants,

wherever he wants it in a city or city municipality. The minister tells

us that it is for the innocuous purpose of snow removal and pot-hole

paving. If that were so — and only that — one has to ask why he needs

this power to do all of these other things. If he doesn't need the

power he shouldn't have it. We have demonstrated that he already has

the authority in law to make grants to municipalities for these

admirable purposes of maintaining safe roads and guaranteeing good road

conditions from an engineer's point of view as well as from the

driver's.

[ Page 3061 ]

Heavens,

I'm just advised that given the proximity of the Blanshard Street

extension, he could even order the demolition of the parliament

buildings. Even Social Credit wouldn't do that in Victoria, although

they've done every other thing that you could possibly imagine to

defeat themselves in Victoria. Right now they're on the way to

defeating the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis),

courtesy of the minister of science and tunnels. However, that's

another issue.

Apart from the self-defeating instincts of

Social Credit on Vancouver Island, the central question remains whether

or not a Minister of Highways should have such broad authority over

land use as is implied and explicit when you give him the authority to

demolish buildings and drive people from their homes and businesses

from their premises. The government probably thought I meant it

facetiously when I said this was yet another Social Credit attack on

private property rights, but I'm not entirely facetious at all when I

say that, because if they don't need the power they shouldn't have it.

If they're going to exercise it they should tell us where, and if

they're going to keep quiet, then the people of British Columbia have

every darned right to be suspicious of what it is they're really up to.

June 24 at 4:30 p.m. the minister said: "A bigger problem than building

the structure is getting access to it." He said that in relation to

Annacis Crossing, a most unwelcome bit of engineering business, a

highly contentious issue in which our disinterested and impartial

Chairman, of course, has no interest whatever. "Hear, hear," he says —

the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) banging his gavel. I know that's

the case and I pursue the claim that if all the minister wants to do is

remove snow, trim hedges and pay grants to New Westminster, then will

he accept our proposal to withdraw this amendment and substitute

instead an amendment to

section 41(4) that would allow him to do that

and only that? If the minister doesn't need any more powers, he

shouldn't ask for more. If the minister is telling the truth — and I

have no doubt that he is; he's an honourable man — that all he wants to

do is pay money to maintain and designate arterial highways in great

urban communities like New Westminster and Vancouver, then we tell him

that he does not need the broad, sweeping power he's asking for. He

doesn't need it at all, Mr. Chairman, and he never did.

Now

there is an apparent contradiction between the government's intentions

as revealed in the throne speech and the minister's explanation as

given yesterday, today and tomorrow, — because we'll be on this

tomorrow and maybe even a bit longer.

AN. HON. MEMBER: This section?

MR. BARBER:

We're perfectly serious about this. If you're prepared to withdraw this

section and substitute instead the amendment we propose, then get on

with it, and we'll support that amendment and the person who has the

guts to bring it forward. It's not often in this House that the

government accepts an opposition proposal, but when they do they often

get credit from not only this side of the House but also from the

general people. They get credit for having the courage to admit that

they should have taken a second look, and having taken a second look,

proceeding with a better law than the first one. We ask the government

to take a second, look.

May I make the case for the nth

time. If all the minister wants to do is pay grants to designate and

maintain arterial highways and no more — all of which is in the

interests of safety and no more — then we tell him he doesn't need this

power to do it. He already has another power more than adequate in

section 41(4). If there is a technical problem with the

Interpretation

Act in regard to the designation of a street as opposed to that of an

arterial highway, then let him amend

section 41(4) — and we will

support it — and add the phrase "arterial highway" there. Then the

minister may authorize an annual grant to any city to defray

expenditure on a street where it is considered in the public interest,

etc. Half an hour ago we pointed out that the government already has

the power to pay money to municipalities for road purposes. Okay,

there's no dispute about that. Specifically, you have the authority in

section 41(4) to pay money to municipalities which have populations in

excess of 30.000, so there's no dispute about that either. If you need,

by virtue of some legal advice you may have had, the specific authority

to name an arterial highway as one of those "streets" to which you may

— through a municipality — make a grant, then that's fine too; we don't

object to that either.

What we object to most seriously and

repeatedly is this government giving the Minister of Transportation and

Highways powers that he does not need and should not have. What we

observe as well is that as long as they continue to ask for powers in

excess of what they say they need them for, then we have to ask what

other reasons and motives they have for wanting those excessive powers.

I ask the government — maybe they're consulting about it now; I hope so

— will they withdraw this section? If so, we'll instantly give leave

for withdrawal. Will they come back instead with an amendment to

section 41(4) which would designate arterial highways and allow the

minister to pay the money to maintain them? Is the House Leader going

to speak on that? If you'll accept this proposal, we can get on with

the rest of the bill in good short order.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I don't wish to deprive the member of his opportunity to make some

remarks and he will certainly have an opportunity to make additional

remarks. But I have had a discussion with the minister, and the

minister would like to analyze with his officials the remarks that have

been made during debate today.

On that basis I would therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. BARBER: That's very fair.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 32, Mr. Speaker.

LIVESTOCK BRAND ACT

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In moving second reading of the bill I'd just like to take a few

moments to discuss the principle of the bill. Its purpose is to replace

the current detailed and outdated Livestock Brand Act with a more

general act that

[ Page 3062 ]

provides

the necessary authority to aid in the control of cattle rustling in the

province, and at the same time to place the details of brand regulation

and brand inspection in the regulations relating to the act.

Major

changes in the ministry's policy with respect to the administration of

this act have rendered the current act outdated. For example, the

current act relates to inspection of stock being driven on the hoof

whereas practically all stock movements are now made by truck. The

current act requires the use of truck seals

whereas sealed shipments,

in most cases, are impractical and if not used properly are a false

sense of security. The current act also requires the inspection of all

cattle slaughtered other than those of a bona fide rancher for his own

use. This is an expensive and impractical provision from a regulatory

point of view.

There is also a need to clarify the

regulation dealing with the detention-seizure powers of an inspector as

well as to redefine a branch, a stock dealer, a hide dealer, as well as

who is entitled to slaughter stock at a place other than a licensed

slaughterhouse. The new act will make it possible for brand

registration and inspection procedures to be quickly amended to

effectively meet the requirements of an ever changing industry. It will

also enable the ministry to administer the act and its regulations at

the lowest net cost to the taxpayer, taking into consideration manpower

and material resources that are available to do the job. The board of

brand inspectors and the executive and livestock administration of the

committees of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association have been consulted with

regard to the drawing of this new act. With those remarks I would move

that the bill now be read a second time.

MRS. WALLACE:

I don't have a written statement to read regarding this act, but I do

have some remarks I would like to make about it. I agree that the

existing piece of legislation that this particular bill is replacing

is a very old piece of legislation and certainly needs revising, but

I'm not in complete accord with the minister. He seems to feel that the

way to do this is to put everything into regulations. That, basically,

is what this act is doing. We are replacing some 24 pages of

legislation with five pages, one of which is a very lengthy list of

regulations. It seems to me that in doing that we are taking out of the

hands of the legislators of this province the right to make decisions

and we are placing those rights in the hands of employees.

was interested to note that the minister indicated he had discussed

this with the people connected with the livestock industry. I too have

discussed it with people in the industry — apparently not the same

people. Perhaps they are; I don't know. I have been told in no

uncertain terms that generally the livestock industry and the farming,

community are extremely concerned about the trend that is so evident in

this government, particularly in regard to legislation relative to farm

operations. It is a trend to take things out of legislation and put

them into regulation. Certainly if there was ever an outstanding

example of that being done, this particular act is doing just that.

have in this act a number from A to R, some of them with three and four

parts of regulations. The meat of the act is in the regulations and

the bill becomes a minute part of the total which was spelled out in

the original act. Not only that, but some of the clauses in this act

certainly seem to change the degree of responsibility that was spelled

out in the previous act. For example, in the act which this one is

repealing,

section 47 says — and this has to do with the cancellation

of licences:

"Where the licensee holding a

licence issued under this act contravenes a provision of this act, the

minister, on proof to his satisfaction of the fact or existence of the

contravention and after hearing the licensee, if he requests to, be

heard, may suspend the licence and all rights of the licensee under it

for the period the minister sees fit or may cancel the licence.

Then where the licence has been cancelled, the minister can review an appeal.

The

suspension and cancellation clause in the bill we are presently

discussing, under

section 4 reads.... You know that talks about the

minister; we're talking about elected people, the people really

responsible. Under

section 4 of this bill it says:

"Where

the recorder believes that a licensee has contravened this act or the

regulations or has done or failed to do something that the recorder

considers inconsistent with the responsibilities of the licensee, the

recorder may suspend or cancel the licensee's licence."

Now

there are two things there. Firstly, we're moving it out of the elected

person's responsibility into the hands of some appointed official to

make this decision. There is nothing to indicate that there would be

any hearings or any opportunity for the licensee to present his or her

case. I suggest that this bill is certainly not a good substitute for

the bill which it is repealing.

I'm extremely concerned

about the amount of power that is being placed under the regulations.

So much of it is removed from the elected arena — the area for which

the minister is directly responsible. To introduce this legislation on

the pretext of updating what, I agree, is a very outdated piece of

legislation — as the explanatory notes say — and still to water it down

so much and to put so much into the regulations, is a continuation of a

trend that is becoming more and more unpopular in this province. The

trend is certainly unpopular with the farm population and has been

mentioned to me by every person I have contacted in the livestock

industry regarding this piece of legislation. That was the first

comment I received when I made phone calls regarding this bill. It was

mentioned in conjunction with the feeling of the general trend that

this government has of putting everything in the hands of the

bureaucrats and removing themselves from the responsibility to

administer their own legislation.

While we have no choice

except to support this bill, because naturally the old bill is

outdated, being some 30 years old, I want to express very strongly and

very clearly my concerns about the change in responsibility and so much

in regulations where we have no knowledge of what's going on or what's

happening. Those regulations can be changed at the will of the minister

or with an order-in-council with no discussion in this Legislature.

Now

it may be said that the Livestock Brand Act and branding of cattle and

prevention of rustling and so on is something that is a minor thing and

shouldn't be discussed here, but I think that if we're going to protect

the people for which this act is designed, they deserve the same kind

and degree of protection as any other group of people for which a piece

of legislation is written. It's just not that democratic to place so

much power in the hands of the people who are

[ Page 3063 ]

administering

the act rather than in the hands of the people who write the

legislation. While we are proposing to support the act, that is a point

that I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan-Malahat is quite correct. The old

act, I believe, had something like 61 sections and we reduced it. She

will also note there are amendments on the order paper which will

extend the act to 13 sections.

I think she mentioned the act

would now be in the hands of the employees. Any change to regulation,

of course, would go through the cabinet and not be decided upon by the

employees. I think the amendment to regulations would accomplish one

major thing, and that is that by allowing the change by regulation

we're able to respond more quickly to the industry. Instead of having

to wait for the House to sit to debate changes in

an act, we are able

to get input from the industry, and staff are able to make

recommendations to me as minister. With the industry's input we can

then move forward to regulation amendments which will resolve any

problem that occurs. I think that flexibility is a big improvement over

the system that we have at the present time. I think the Cattlemen's

Association recognizes and understands that they would have that input

before any amendment to regulations took place.

The member

also mentioned the recorder under section, 4, and the fact that the

recorder rather than the minister had the ability to suspend or cancel

licences. I'd like to point out two things. First of all, the recorder

must comply with the act and its regulations before he takes any action

to cancel or suspend a licence. Secondly, under

section 6 of the act

there is a Board of Brand Commissioners, which is appointed, and any

individual has the right to appeal to that board should he feel that he

has been unfairly treated.

So with those comments I move second reading of Bill 32.

Motion approved.

Bill

32, Livestock Brand Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 18; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. MACDONALD:

I suppose I have to defend this

section now — defend secrecy — because

the minister isn't here — in terms of applications for liquor licences.

Secrecy's

very important in certain circumstances where licences have been

granted in a kind of strange way. It's very important that the facts

should not come out to the public. Therefore we're bringing into this

House a

section which provides guidelines for the employees of the

liquor licensing branch — in effect telling them not even to talk to an

MLA about it.

Oh, there's the minister. Now I can attack the

section; I was defending the

section on the basis that it was very bad

for the public to hear about improper things, Mr. Minister, if they

occur in the administration of the branch. But now that you're here to

defend the section, I can attack it. Is that okay?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Sure, go ahead.

MR. MACDONALD:

I ask this question of the minister under "Confidentiality," which

incidentally is very strangely worded, as the minister and Mr. Gould

behind him would probably recognize. It doesn't say that you can't do

these things; it says that no person past or present shall be compelled

to do things. Really, what you 're doing is firing a warning shot, are

you not, over the present employees of the licensing branch, and

even over past employees of the licensing branch — telling them that if

it doesn't fit into these three situations, they can't be compelled to

yield up the information and therefore presumably shouldn't. Why do you

word it like that? That's my first question.

In terms of the

marine pub application I referred to, Mr. Minister, we are in total

disagreement as to whether the other three applicants had anything like

natural justice done to them when someone was persistent and as a

result got the licence. We can't debate that at any length at this time

under this section, but if the member defends that kind of thing where

you have four applicants and the one who is persistent and somehow, by

buzzing around Victoria, finds out about new regulations and bangs in

his application and gets the answer back within five days of the new

change, before the others have even heard about the change, and they

weren't notified.... If you can defend that kind of thing, Mr.

Minister, you can defend anything.

Whether we can debate

that under this

section may be a little questionable. Maybe we should

debate it under the minister's estimates as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on

section 2 in committee and there must be strict relevance to the section.

MR. MACDONALD:

I am asking, through the Chairman, what kind of information should be

secret. Let's take that application for the marine pub licence as an

example. Why should any part of that be secret?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

We are speaking about information which would be on file in the offices

of the liquor control and licensing branch. That information could

include the information in the application. That information in the

application I would not consider to be in the category of sensitive

material, but in the records within the liquor control and licensing

branch there may be information which perhaps could be considered

sensitive from a business or personal point of view by those persons

who may be licensed or engaged with the branch in some other capacity.

asked my officials to offer some examples, and they advised me. We may

have private business records of a licensee or a criminal record, which

is part of the check we do. Some of it may have to do with the actual

business, the amount of sales and so on, information perhaps of some

use to another person involved in the same business, which

[ Page 3064 ]

probably

should remain confidential. The other information generally available

to anyone who has reason to have the information would not fall into

that category, I don't think, of being sensitive material.

are attempting to supply guidelines to employees in the liquor control

branch, guidelines that at the present time they simply do not have. As

I mentioned when we were discussing this in second reading, a tradition

of some kind has developed in the liquor control and licensing branch

where employees have developed the idea that all information should be

considered to be confidential. We hope we are spelling out to them an

opportunity to make certain information available, as may be directed

by the general manager. The sensitive material, I think, would deal

with the individual applicant, as to his personal life and his business

life, dealing with his capitalization, perhaps his business, his profit

margin, if you like, and the rest of it. We think that that information

should be generally restricted unless there is a reason it should be

made available. I think the general manager would have that opportunity

to demand that the information be made available.

Mr. Gould

tells me that the choice of the word "compelled" was to suggest that an

employee or ex-employee could not be forced to testify or provide

information except in the circumstances outlined in this section. I am

further advised that any employee or ex-employee can always give the

information if he wants to, on his own volition or under direction. If

that makes any sense, that is the explanation I have been offered for

the use of the word "compelled," to try to identify that it would be

compulsion of some kind.

Mr. Member, I can assure you that

the confidentiality section, as I mentioned last week, is very similar

in nature to the confidentiality sections of many of our acts in the

ministry. There certainly is no attempt nor desire to prevent a person

who should be able to get that information, from getting the

information he seeks. Remember, we are dealing only with liquor control

and licensing. We're not dealing with the liquor distribution side.

Information sought by a person who, upon examination, should have

reasonable access to the information will certainly be provided. It is

not an attempt to restrict information but rather an attempt to set

guidelines to the employees so there is no confusion in their minds as

to what information should be provided. I can't in any way see how this

would prevent a reasonable person, with just need or cause to have the

information, from getting the information. I can assure you of that. I

think it simply sets out in the act a procedure of some kind, and

provides for certain instances where there is no question that whatever

information asked for will be available.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, in answer to the minister let me say this: to take the

example I gave, you had four applicants in Gibsons. So you had in

effect an adversary procedure. It seems to me that the other three

people were entitled to know on what basis their applications were

rejected. If it had been an appeal situation — which it wasn't, Mr.

Minister — all of the information would be available on the appeal

process. Supposing the licence of one of them had been denied and they

appealed — which they could then do.

Would not all of the information you referred to — including the fact of whether

or not there had been a criminal record — come out on that appeal? And you say

it is an open appeal process. So I don't think the examples you gave of

other legislation — and some of those we might quarrel with as to the degree

of secrecy involved in them.... But here you have a situation where you

may have two or three different people applying for a neighbourhood pub, lounge

or marine licence in a given area. It seems to me that should be an open process.

Otherwise, the danger remains — and I think it undoubtedly happened in the marine

pub case that I referred to — that there would be gross injustice done to some

applicants and they won't be able to do anything about it, because there

won't be any appeal and the facts will not be out on the table. So I am

against this section.

don't think there is any reason why what you are doing under this

section.... If, as you say, all you are doing is to give the

general manager the authority to release information, surely it's

public information anyway. Even in the case of somebody with a criminal

record, supposing they apply for a licence and they are rejected on

that basis. When they put in their application, knowing that the

character of the applicant has to be part of the consideration as to

whether that licence should be granted, why shouldn't that be public?

It certainly would be if, say, you were turned down by U.S. Immigration

to go to the United States because you had had some conviction. Then

that is part of the reason.

What you are doing is

unnecessarily requiring that the information that can be divulged, even

to an MLA, about an application has to be such as is authorized by the

general manager of the branch — who, I would like to add, is a man of

unquestioned integrity and a very capable administrator. So I am

against the section, and I am certainly against what happened at

Gibsons, because obviously that was grossly unjust to the other

applicants. If the files had been open and these three other people who

applied for that licence, Mr. Minister, had been told the only reason

the Grammas pub people got it was that they were persistent, and they

got it before the other people even heard or were notified about the

change in the regulations, they would say to themselves, "There has

been something very strange about the case of Grammas pub," and they

would be perfectly right.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman,

I think we all appreciate the fact that liquor is a fairly sensitive

area under any jurisdiction, which makes all the more reason why

there should be complete openness and availability of information

regarding applications under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act.

Those that make applications for licences — whether they are granted or refused,

but especially if they are refused — should have the opportunity of checking

the files to see why one application was turned down and another was successful.

The

minister has stated that there may be something in the application with

reference to that person's personal or business life that should be

kept secret. I am of the opposite view. I think that if they

want to make an application under this act, they should decide whether

they should make it, having consideration for their personal life and

their business life. But just because they make the

application, that information should not be hidden from those who make

applications and who are refused, or from the general public.

The

information set out, in my opinion, should be completely open. What we

need is an open government. As I mentioned, if someone doesn't want to

divulge that he has gone bankrupt in some previous enterprise, or feels

that that might be a bar to his success in obtaining a permit, then I

would suggest that person should not apply. I don't suggest that that

particular information should be hidden from the public.

[ Page 3065 ]

There

is also the problem of applicants to become agents for listings for

wines or other spirits. The question of secrecy here, in my op