1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament
HANSARD


The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.


Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)


TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 1971

Afternoon Sitting


[ Page 829 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 88, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): As this is Private Members Day, would you consider moving to private bills?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill 88, An Act to Amend the Regional Parks Act. The Honourable Member for Surrey adjourned the debate.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This act, An Act to Amend the Regional Parks Act has within it, Mr. Speaker, some changes in terms of the make-up of the regional boards and some changes in the areas in which the Park Authority could move, namely, the question of trails. It was my intention, Mr. Speaker, to raise a number of points of principle regarding the membership of the Parks Board. However, since I adjourned the debate, Mr. Speaker, it has come up under another bill which is, I think, a better vehicle to debate that particular issue.

May I say, however, on second reading of this bill, that, whilst it has given certain administrative freedoms to the Regional Parks Authority it still does not, in my view, give them sufficient freedom in order to meet the problems, particularly in the lower mainland? I feel that the bill falls short in meeting the problems which I've announced to the Government in two successive Sessions, regarding the land assembly programmes in the Lower Mainland Regional District. However, I think we can usefully debate that, as I say, under the other bill. This administrative amendment can be supported by this side of the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 88 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 100, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 100, An Act to Amend the Municipal Act. The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): Mr. Speaker, there have been amendments to the Municipal Act and the purpose of the amendments are to make what is already the best Municipal Act in Canada better. It is interesting that the emerging Province of the Yukon has very recently made a decision, having examined all Municipal Acts in Canada, to adopt the British Columbia model.

The three items I draw to your attention are the changes having to do with voting procedures, which are self-explanatory. The second one has to do with the provision for a new approach to zoning, having to do with the introduction of the principle of the land use contract. The third one which will take some working up during the course of this year, and it's the intention of the department to involve the industry and manufacturing people, elements in the trade union movement, in bringing together what will in effect be a looseleaf set of by-laws which will have a flexible method of variance and a flexible method of amendment and will try to fit a standardization process into the context of the British Columbia scene, leaning heavily on the National Building Code. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of sections in this bill and, for the short time we've had it, one has had to work like the proverbial one-armed paperhanger to look it all over. But there is one area that disturbs me and that is the section dealing with the changes in the community planning, the sections which state that the community plan will have no effect on the areas which are at the present time tree farm licenses and timber sales or timber areas. I suggest that this is a retrograde step. I think the situation here is that the people in the area are losing their rights to deal with the forests in the areas within their regional districts. I think it's a mistake to have this change. I think, at the present time, where the regional districts do have some say in the area, this should be retained. We'll be speaking more on the other sections of this bill in the committee stage, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, there is a section of this bill that we see recurring again and again and again in various forms of legislation referring to the rule of the minority. I'm wondering, once again, as we talk in terms of requiring 60 per cent votes rather than just 50 or 51 per cent votes, as I look back into the history of Parliament, I wonder if we are not violating a very important rule — a rule that was established as far back in the Greek times of Aristotle, who said that the rule of the majority of free and equal citizens as opposed to monarchy and aristocracy, the rule respectively of individuals consisting of the best citizens. Even he recognized that he would limit the vote of the best citizens but, still, the majority of those best citizens would make a decision, not 60 per cent, but the majority. In addition to that I would refer you to the rules of Beauchesne, page 50, section 98, which reads as follows — because I wonder if this isn't in contradiction of the British North America Act and the Magna Carta, as well: "The principle that the majority rules was conceded in section 49 of the Magna Carta, which reads: 'In all those things which are appointed to be done by these twenty-five barons, if it happen that all the twenty-five have been present and have differed in their opinions about anything, or if some of them who had been summoned would not or could not be present, that which the greater part of those who were present shall have provided and decreed, shall be held as firm and as valid as if all the twenty-five had agreed upon it."' The British North America Act states further, "Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a vote."

I'm concerned that, once again, in this we are

[ Page 830 ]

perpetuating a principle of rule by the minority that, at least, if it is not to the letter of the law, it is opposed to the spirit and the intent of the great charter by which we sit in this Legislature.

I'm pleased to see that it has moved one step further but I think it should have moved all the way and allowed for a majority vote in every case, which is by the very right that each of us sit here and hold office. I'm asking you today, as Speaker, if you could make a judgement or a ruling or an opinion on the constitutionality of us putting in legislation, even if it were a rule, a regulation, but to actually place in an act of our Legislature the principle that the minority shall rule. I believe this principle is wrong and I cannot support the bill on this basis, until a corrective statement can be shown in some way that this is not rule by minority. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The Member raises a point of constitutionality. The Speaker, of course, not only cannot, but must not judge points of law. The Supreme Court of Canada deals with the interpretation of the British North America Act. So far as the notation in Beauchesne is concerned, this House is not governed by Beauchesne, only that it's used as a reference if and when our own Rules are silent and nothing appears in the British practice. I find no Point of Order raised by the Honourable Member.

The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, we welcome the changes in this act that put the Blue Book of the National Building Code of Canada and our own B.C. Provincial Plumbing Code into effect in every part of the Province. The Minister and I have been agreeing on this for two or three years and we're delighted to finally see this come into the House. I also agree with using our own plumbing code rather than that of the National Building Code. I think the Provincial one is a better one than the National one in this case.

I am concerned, and I think some segments of the construction industries are concerned, about the apparent ease with which changes can be made once we have instituted this as a Provincial code. The Minister may do this very simply by regulation and, if this is done very often, very easily, we're going to end up by rapidly drifting away, I'm afraid, from the National Code, and we conceivably can get back into some of the problems we've already had. I hope the policy will be to make such changes only when they're very essential, very necessary, and perhaps only after reference to some sort of special board, which is not referred to in the bill. Perhaps this appeal board could conceivably be used for that purpose.

Referring to the Building Code Appeal Board, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that it will be large enough. It refers really only to one person in the bill. I hope it will be large enough to include representation from all segments of the construction industry, every part of it, to adequately serve the Minister. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that there are conflicts in this code that we're talking about, this Blue Book. There are conflicts with other present Provincial Statutes, including the Gas Act, the Electric Act, Fire Marshals Act, the Boiler and Pressure Vessels Act and the regulations thereunder do have a great many conflicts. I hope the Minister will explain perhaps what action is going to be taken to resolve these conflicts and which will take precedence — the present regulations that we have or the new code.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, could the Minister give us some idea of when this particular section might be proclaimed?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, in rising on debate on this bill, in particular on the standardization of the building codes, I hope that safeguards will be applied to stop some over-eager innovators from wrecking everything. However, it is going to cover plumbing and I think that there should also be regulations included regarding septic tanks and waste disposal because, right now, the whole situation is far too lax. I think, in the building code, we should have the inclusion, where there is no sewage system, that there should be certain specifications for septic tanks.

In the other part of the bill, I notice that the Minister is including development zoning and I would like to see him go one step further and put in density zoning as well. I think right now we're not fully or properly utilizing some of our areas. There can be…(interruption). You can do it, because there can be some areas where perhaps say 100 acres, where 20 acres would be best suited for the residences, for residential use, and yet the other could be left as a green area, as a green strip. If you put density zoning in, say, a specific area, there can only be so many housing units per acre or per 10 acres and I think we can do away with a lot of the problems that we're facing today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, of course, I accept the words of the Minister that the Municipal Act that we have in this Province is perhaps second to none. It certainly should be. I can't remember any Statute which has been amended more than this one has over the years. The Minister never seems to be able to make up his mind but, slowly, we get changes. As a matter of fact, it must be a very good Statute in order to allow our municipalities to develop as well as they can under the gentle ministrations of the Minister. It must be a good act, in order to protect the municipalities from you.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we now get around to discussing it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was coming to that. I join with the Honourable Member from Delta in the concern that he expresses about the continued impact that this act permits to minorities. I join, too, with the Member from Esquimalt in expressing appreciation at the changes that are to take place in the zoning and the development of our municipalities in the increased powers and increased concerns that municipalities must have for proper development of their areas. I trust that I heard correctly, during the remarks of the Member from Esquimalt, when he raised his question of zoning, that the Minister considers this to be in this section because, as I read it, I'm sure that the matter of density is included within the new section that is being provided.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to have concern at the actions of this Government when it brings in proper amendments to the act, that it, at the same time, takes action which diminishes, the status of local government in this Province. Time and time again, we've heard the Minister make pronouncements

[ Page 831 ]

that local governments are a full level of government within our system, entitled to fulfil their responsibilities and to discharge the powers that are given to them under the act. Yet, when we find this significant change with regard to the development of lands in one section of this bill, we find, if we turn to one of the later sections in this bill, that the municipal government can't use this new provision without first obtaining the approval of the Minister. Then, we…(interruption). Well, why limit it? Are local governments a level of government or are they not? And we also find that, so far as the regions are concerned, if the regions turn down any developer from a proposal which he may wish to make, the Minister has got power to over-ride the regional board. There's not much point, Mr. Speaker, in saying that these local government levels, be they municipalities or be they regional districts, are a full level of government in this Province, if the Minister is always going to hold the reins.

The Minister speaks, from time to time, to the fact that no additional monies are going to be made available from the Provincial Government, unless and until these regional districts, these local governments, become efficient, operating levels of Government. Yet, each time we pass amendments to the act, we find that the Minister prevents them from so acting. In matters of development, matters of zoning, no one knows better what should take place in a local area, in a local community, than the government which is directly elected by that area and understands the situation. If they, in their wisdom, determine that a particular development is not acceptable, then, I say that it is wrong for the Minister to exercise his judgement, which would have a tendency to over-rule the decisions made at the local level.

I can recall when regional districts were first contemplated in this Province and there was the right given on the part of local Governments to opt out. This didn't work and the Minister took away that authority. He substituted it with authority which gave greater and greater power to him, the Minister. All I say is that if we continue with these kind of amendments, local governments are not going to attain the status which the Minister says they must attain if they are to be efficient and to enjoy the full respect and full benefit that is available to them from this Government at the Provincial level.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to see the progress that we do make from Session to Session in this sense of growth. I'm sure that it's the results of municipalities wishing to take onto themselves more and more responsibility for the needs of the local citizens. I think this is as it should be. I'm glad to see that in the area of becoming provenders of information, they will now have an added bit of tantalizing bait to offer the people, probably, and in cablevision, television, etc. and I think this is good. I hope that they don't feel that the entertainment field, though, should be taken over in respect to theatres, as well. I trust it's only meant that they may be able to provide that wonderful, necessary assessment to our household in the field of television.

I would look at and canvass the section regarding the setting up of municipalities and certain steps and procedures. It seems the more we get into this identifying of procedures we may forget that it's impossible to legislate all situations. I think it demands a flexibility for situation ethics in the field of allowing people self-government or the privilege of going into self-government. I think of the Islands and the way in which they've got pocket development. I trust that they won't have pocket municipalities that later on create vulcanized divisions that never can be vulcanized. I like to see harmonious situations on those Islands and I think we've got to work with situation ethics. I trust the Minister may keep that in mind, that it's not meant to sterilize areas and that we can't conform to a harmonious, overall picture on, say an island, because we're looking only at the mainland or something. We're not looking at the pocket developments that have taken place in the growing situations that have taken place on these little kingdoms of their own, as it were.

I hope that there will be always room for situation ethics in the Municipal Act. Then, I think of the National Housing Code. It's good to have conformity there but, again, we have far more improvements under Canadian standards. Frequently, the regulations under Canadian standards seem to run contrary to what National Building Codes are and you get, specially in manufactured housing, you get a code that meets all the Canadian standards, under the electrical standards and the plumbing standards, and then you find the National Building Code says, "No dice." People are buying these manufactured, modular homes, bringing them into the country and then finding that the municipalities, under certain zoning by-laws that they have picked up from the National Code, forbids these homes to be placed in the community. We have a contradiction of purpose here and I trust that we will be able to accept both standards. I think, where possible, where one standard is superior to the other and not named, it should go forthwith, and accepted that the Canadian standards will be acceptable as well as the National Building Code. I would hope that this would be covered.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): I'm waving this orange flag, Mr. Speaker, because at the bottom it says, "When in distress, hoist or wave this flag." It's an international orange flag. It's a recognized distress signal and I'm waving this on behalf of the municipalities of British Columbia — because of their financial distress…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR.STRACHAN: …because the Government has failed to restructure the tax divisions within the Province of British Columbia. I think the proof of the fact that the Government has failed to restructure the tax system adequately is based on two things: one, that the Government continually attaches a virtue to being debt free, the Government continually claims that it, as a Government of the Province of British Columbia, is debt free, but the Government continually refuses to allow the municipalities the kind of financial income that allows them to remain debt free.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. STRACHAN: Within the principle of this act, and if you want to divert a Section, I will, it allows the municipalities to borrow on a short-term basis, it doubles the amount they can borrow on a short-term basis. And, of course… (interruption). Well, as I say, distress, distress. They have to borrow money on a short-term basis and then

[ Page 832 ]

convert it into a long-term basis. I think this is a factor within the legislation. While I agree that our municipalities are in distress in the whole field of getting enough money to meet the demands that are made on them, they're not as badly off in this Province as they are in some other Provinces. Well, I'll say some other Provinces. The municipalities are the creatures of the Provincial Government and I think the Provincial Government rightly keeps a careful eye on what's happening within the municipalities. I think rightly so.

I know that, a few years ago, when I was in Ontario, I was speaking to some of the M.L.A.s in Ontario and some of those municipalities were at the point where their financial situation was so bad, they just couldn't borrow another penny (interruption). Because we like to think we do things better in British Columbia. We like to think we do. And the municipalities are unable to meet many of the demands that are put upon them because of your failure to see to it that the whole financial division in the Province of British Columbia is changed completely.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. B. CAMPBELL (Revelstoke-Slocan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill has many sections and many principles but the one which I wish to deal with very briefly this afternoon is in the second section and that is where 60 per cent of the voters turn out, then, a by-law may pass with 50 per cent plus one of those who cast their ballots. It was to make a suggestion along these lines that I, earlier in the Session, put questions on the Order Paper to both the Minister of Education and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to find out what sort of voter percentage turn-outs we have had in this Province. I think that we should remember and keep well in mind that the present 60 per cent requirement, which we're changing here, is of those who turn out to vote, not of the voters as a whole, so that if we get only, for example, a 10 per cent turn-out at the polls, 6 per cent of the people are putting an obligation on the people of the community for probably not less than 20 years. We had the same principle in a previous bill in this House, 47, section 75, in the Public Schools Act and we gave it our support, at that time, and I expect we'll give this one our support, at this time.

What I am particularly pleased about in this particular section is that, with respect to by-laws for environmental purposes, such as sewage by-laws, at the present time, this type of by-law is being turned down frequently, even though it has a very high percentage turn-out of voters. The voters are sort of one set of sidewalk experts versus another set of sidewalk experts. They're not against the sewage referendum but they get convinced that maybe one system is better than another system and, this way, by-laws, such as I indicated — environmentally desirable — will get a good percentage turn-out of voters but only those which get over the 50 per cent approval from those who turn out will receive approval. Therefore, I think that this section is very much in the public interest.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver-East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver-East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister might be commended on a couple of points in the legislation and I'm prepared to go as far as doing that.

The land use contract is an interesting idea, one that might well have application especially in the more sophisticated municipalities. The idea of a registered condition in the Land Registry Office, with respect to development, is a worthwhile departure in terms of Government policy. On the basis of that recommendation, I hope the Minister doesn't reconsider the legislation. The National Building Code references are also worthwhile.

There's an important area where he's taking a big step backwards. He's taking a bit of a step forward in the specific municipal areas in by-law controls, but he's stepping back when it comes to the whole question of regional planning and the question of more local input with respect to resource questions in the regions. He's yanking out the forest reserves of the Province from control of the regions. He's yanking out the tree farm licenses from control of the regions. These, to a great extent, are banana republics in British Columbia where the few forest giants manage them almost at will. The one area, where we might well have made progress at the local level with respect to resolving resource conflicts, was in this area where the regional districts could have stepped into these areas controlled by the forest giants and started resolving some conflicts and started asserting the public interest in those areas.

In the Minister's own riding of Comox almost all of his own electoral district is in tree farm licenses and he's been after them to establish regional planning and develop staffing on a regional planning basis and so on. Obviously, the next step was to have these professionals concerned about integrated resource management, looking at the specific actions of this one industry in relation to the public interest as a whole. Now, he's gutted the legislation by this one simple step. He's gutting the legislation and telling them that the forest giants are in control and you leave them alone and that policy will be theirs to resolve, not the new regional districts.

I know the Minister likes to talk about the regional districts as possibly the new arbiters of resource conflicts in the Province and they could very well be that. Certainly the district in the Cariboo sees itself as that kind of agency. Certainly the district in East Kootenays sees itself as that kind of agency. By taking out the tree farm licenses and taking out the forest reserves, you're taking out most of the land area under their jurisdiction so that official community plans will have no meaning over those areas whatsoever. You only need to look at the map in the latest Forest Service Annual Report. Everything that's brown on that map, and that includes most of Vancouver Island, is in a tree farm license like most of the Minister's own constituency. Everything outlined in red, in terms of red bands on this map, which is the southern two thirds of the Province, with the exception of the valley bottoms, is in Provincial forest reserves. With that one step, the Minister is gutting the bill and taking a big step backwards away from the area where the regional districts might really see their real role fulfilled in terms of resolving resource conflicts and developing integrated resource management policies at the local level, which, in turn, could be integrated into the work done by the larger committees under the Land Use and Environmental Committee here in Victoria. It's unfortunate that the Minister is taking this step in taking these areas out.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

[ Page 833 ]

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, most of the general principles of this bill have been dealt with and I don't intend to repeat the debate on them, but I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, one basic inconsistency in this act, namely, and it is one specific section but, as it is a principle, I think it would be better debated on second reading.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in an earlier debate in a different bill, we discussed the principle of where land returns to the Crown, due to default on tax payments, that, first of all it should return to the Crown and, secondly, that, in its resale or release, Canadian citizens should be those in a position to receive these benefits. In this bill that we are considering today, Mr. Speaker, we set up an entirely new set of circumstances and we say to the municipalities, who up till now have not even been able to bid on tax sale lands, that the municipalities may now bid on tax sale lands. So we have put the municipalities, I admit it's a small step forward but it is not in keeping with the earlier principles we have debated, we are putting the municipalities in a position of competition with the private entrepreneur, which I don't think is right, and if tax sale lands returning to the Crown are right Provincially, why are they not municipally? In my opinion, the section in this bill is inconsistent with the debates that occurred in this House earlier. In my opinion, tax sale lands within the municipality should go to the Crown in the form of the municipality to be disposed of as that municipality sees fit. We should not have a bidding process which is set up in this bill. As I've already pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the position regarding Canadian citizenship and these lands does not apply if the lands are within municipal boundaries.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister will close the debate.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming that the Member for Delta might be inclined to review his position so that he can be consistent with his vote on the Public Schools Act.

The two points that were raised that I do want to comment on, though it's inconceivable to me that, at least, some Members of the House feel that the taxpayers in the unorganized areas and, indeed, in the municipalities don't load the Department of Municipal Affairs with comments from time to time about the actions of councils or regional districts. We've already had examples within this current Session, when the Leader of the Opposition and Member for North Vancouver–Seymour had occasion to comment on a certain action in an unorganized section of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The Member for Kootenay blew the whistle, here, not very long ago when some of his people were very upset about the action of his regional district and he was very quick to phone the Minister. The Member for Cowichan-Malahat, on occasion, has had reference to the Department of Municipal Affairs because the people were upset about one action or another of the regional districts.

Surely the kind of Statute that we have here does not or should not preclude somebody being in a review position on some of the actions by regional districts. It's as simple as that. I can tell you all over British Columbia that petition after petition comes to the department and we review it. We review it in that context and we review it because I think there should be some kind of court of last resort, at least, to review some of these acts. That's one of the reasons why the section having to do with land use contracts is in there.

That's why I assume there will be some ongoing responsibility by the department to review some action. I don't think that's inconsistent with good municipal operation.

The other one…(interruption). Well, certainly, the Member for Kootenay didn't object to the action I took up in Kootenay. He asked me to come up and we looked over the situation and I think came to an appropriate conclusion. I think the Member for Kootenay would agree with that.

The other point is, and I find this most difficult to understand, that somebody in the planning business could get up and talk about the section having to do with forestry. There's nothing in that section that presumes that a regional district will not have some input as far as the decision on lifting certain lands from forest communities is concerned, but how foolish it would be if we have a forestry system in the Province, we hire forestry experts at the Provincial level. Is he suggesting that we go out and staff a whole set-up of 28 regional districts with forestry experts, too? This is the very thing that we want to get away from. We have the East Kootenay regional district now, and the Member for Kootenay, you should listen to your own Members, because sometimes they're smarter than these planners are. The Member for Kootenay made the observation, here, just the other day, that here's the regional district of East Kootenay, it presumably has call upon the pollution control resources of the Province and, then, they bounce off to Calgary to hire some more pollution control experts. Now this is just a ridiculous misuse of the ideas involved in resource management in regional districts. Surely if we're hiring biologists in various Government departments, we're hiring public health inspectors at the Provincial level, why, in the name of common sense, would we ask the property owner in the regional districts to hire some more and everybody running around vetting everybody else's work. That makes no sense at all. I'm amazed at the planning consultant for the East Kootenay regional district coming up with that kind of an idea. He should talk to the Member for Kootenay. I move second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 100 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 102, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 102, Greater Vancouver Regional Water and Sewer District Act. The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which was, in large measure, worked out in cooperation with the various bodies involved in the Greater Vancouver area of the Greater Vancouver Water and Sewer District, the Greater Vancouver Regional District merely places the water and sewer functions beneath the umbrella of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. I move second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 102 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 834 ]

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 104, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 104, An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act. The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, this is the annual goof-up Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. CAMPBELL: I think, because of the nature of this bill, it's more appropriate to discuss it in committee. I will indicate, now, that, at the request of the Member for Nanaimo, sections 194 and 195 in committee, I will move to delete. I think the rest of the bill is quite self-explanatory. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, there are, however, I think two principles I do want to refer to in a more general way, although I agree, basically, with the idea of this going into committee, each section on its merit. You are dealing with a principle which is hitherto, as the Minister is wont to say, not found in some of the legislation and that is that we are suggesting to the Greater Vancouver Regional District…I'll wait until everybody quietens down. We are suggesting to the Greater Vancouver Regional District that they take over the function of parks but in so doing, Mr. Speaker, we are allowing municipalities, within that regional district, to opt out of that particular function. We don't allow them to opt out of any other functions, if my reading of the act is correct, but we are going to allow municipalities in the Greater Vancouver Regional District to opt out of their fair share of paying for the costs of the parks in that area. Not only that, but we're saying that those municipalities that were in the old parks district which are now outside the Greater Vancouver Regional District will continue to have to pay their share. So we've got this peculiar situation, where we've made, in my view, a mockery of the kind of legislation everybody in this House has been supporting in terms of regional districts.

I want to say quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, I'm against any municipality having a free ride as far as parks and land assembly, in terms of park functioning, is concerned. I'm against free rides. This Government has said frequently through the mouth of its Premier and other officers of the Cabinet that they're against free rides so why are we allowing this to continue? Why are we allowing it to continue?

The problems of that regional district are so great that they have, now, come, as I say, to the question of an examination, an investigation, and I'm sure many Cabinet Ministers are looking at the results of that investigation. I agree that it's probably right, at this time, to put this. function into the Greater Vancouver Regional District but, in so doing, we should now tidy up our legislation to make it mandatory for those people who are going to enjoy, whose citizens are going to enjoy, the benefits of these parks, and the cost of the land assembly should be borne by those people who enjoy the privileges. That's a clear principle and I think that the Minister has, as I read the act, not fulfilled that simple principle.

The second principle, Mr. Speaker, deals with the city of Vancouver. I'm not going to debate specifically what the Minister has done to the city of Vancouver but I am going to say this and very clearly, that, having been in this House for five years, and on the Standing Orders and Private Bills Committee for four of those five years, I think it's time that we threw out the Vancouver Charter and put the city of Vancouver under the excellent act you've just talked about, the Municipal Act. I think it's time that the city of Vancouver had the same treatment and privileges as other municipalities and vice versa and if, indeed, the idea of having a separate charter, as suggested in this bill, is to allow for special provisions and perhaps experimental legislation, the history shows that that doesn't happen because, when it does conflict with some of the Government's preconceived ideas, they say it's not public policy. You play fast and loose with this act as much as the city does. I think it's time we called a halt and got all the municipalities on the Municipal Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to nail that one quickly before it goes very far, Mr. Speaker. The Honourable Member for Surrey is entitled to his opinion about the status of the city of Vancouver but, as one of the representatives for the city, I'd like to make it abundantly clear that the city of Vancouver should have its own charter, as most major cities in most Provinces and States in North America, in fact, do have. What it shouldn't have is the kind of boondocks treatment that it gets under this Minister with that charter. This major city, no. We're a country, outside of the east, we're essentially a country of city states. The major concentrations of population are in a handful of great cities in this Nation and these cities should, more and more, have the right to determine their own destinies, the right to determine where and how they tax and why, and they should have the right to determine how they develop, internally, and free of these rurally-dominated Legislatures, like this one, because of an unfair, rotten electoral system which you've been willing to live with.

The city of Vancouver, under the charter and the kinds of activities of this Minister of Municipal Affairs, might as well be in receivership. When they try and show a little initiative, whether we agree with it or not, but when they do try and show some initiative in the revenue field, as they have done I believe in their right to determine these things. If I was on the city council, I might vote differently than the mayor. In fact, most of the time, I'm sure I would, but that has nothing to do with it. The people in Vancouver have elected that mayor, they've elected that council and they should have the right to govern. You're not allowing them to govern and you're not allowing them to develop into the kind of maturity that they should have. In a way you're really snipping at the kind of leadership potential in that great city by your own activities, by saying you know better, that you know better than the people in the city. I say, Mr. Speaker, that's just not so.

The people of that city can govern themselves and they should be given the opportunity to govern themselves and, again and again, with respect to this specific issue, this Government has been less than honest with the city of Vancouver. When the city has come and said they want these new revenue sources, you have turned them down, year in year out and, then, finally, you say you want the revenue sources, yourselves. You just haven't been honest with them, at all. They've made it clear that they want to change their

[ Page 835 ]

licensing procedures and change their fees and so on and, now, you're saying you can't. So, you are nipping them in the bud again. It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that this rurally-dominated Legislature continues to treat this major western Canadian city the way it does.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself, and I don't very often do this, with the Second Member from Vancouver East. I recall that at the first Session of the Legislature at which I sat, the city of Vancouver made application to the Provincial Government for permission to increase the bicycle fee in that city from 50 cents to a $1. They were turned down. That's the kind of smallness of mind which holds back great cities in North America and particularly the city of Vancouver. Who is the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who gets elected by people in Campbell River, to push around the city of Vancouver and who are most of the Members who sit in this House? Every single alderman who sits on that City Council has been elected by almost ten times as many people as the Members who take seats on the floor of this Provincial House.

The city of Vancouver should have very, very broad powers to chart its own destiny, to tax, to borrow and to spend. They should be given every encouragement by every Member of this House. I, too, as a city member, am completely disgusted with the way the Provincial Legislature has pushed that city around for a generation, where Ministers of Municipal Affairs, who haven't known a tooth about city affairs, have pushed them around and dictated to them, limited their taxing powers and have done everything to interfere with progress that Members could possibly do. This Minister of Municipal Affairs is no exception. He's the same as all the others who have gone before in this Government.

I think the time has come when very broad powers should be given to the city of Vancouver, when they should stand up and dismiss this Government with a flick of its wrist, which is what the city of Vancouver could do if they wanted to stand up for their future and their destiny. They've been dominated too long by rural Members and it's time for a change. That time should come with a complete rewriting of the City Charter. It should come with broad powers of that city to raise its funds and to borrow and to break the rural yoke that's held the city back.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Minister's warming up, if nothing else, Mr. Speaker. Without any question of a doubt, this particular part of this bill is just an example of the lofty posture of this Minister and the mandarin-like pronouncements that he's been putting out over the last few days without investigation, without consultation, without even notice. This is just a straight slap in the face to the city of Vancouver. It's machete legislation. It's in the face of a Court decision of only about two or three days old and quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, how this Minister can designate his office as the self-appointed oracle to interfere with the license base of the city, to me, is absolutely preposterous. I say that this Minister is trying to create the most enormous power base in the Province of British Columbia, since the roads-to-vote programme of the Premier a few years back. I know why he's trying to do this. This is just a straight push towards the leadership of the Social Credit Party…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR.GARDOM: …while you're bringing in these kind of things, Mr. Minister. There's no question of a doubt, the city of Vancouver wanted this revenue and they needed it. They were of the opinion that they would inject some of this directly into the industry which needed it, the industry which produces this kind of money. The city of Vancouver has more tourists in it, during the year, than the rest of the Province put together and make no mistake of that fact. So, they brought in their private bill and you strangled it in its crib. Then, you heard from the Second Member from Vancouver Centre, who made an excellent speech a few days ago, when he said that you'd shortchanged the city by $300,000 by your form of assessment. I'm very happy to see that the Second Member from Vancouver Centre is in the House, when I mention these remarks. It was a first-class speech.

Now, you're coming in today with this legislation and this is the second $300,000 kick at the city. You know, I'm thankful for one thing — that the Session hasn't got too long to go because you're knocking the city of Vancouver off at about $300,000 a day. I don't think it's a bit fair. This city has the intellectual capacity, the morale capacity and the legal right to manage its own affairs in this particular field. You are denying it to them and you have not introduced a single, solitary, valid reason as to why you're doing it. You said one word. You said you did not want to create a tax jungle. Well, that's absolute nonsense. I suggest that the Honourable Minister, when he's talking about tax jungles and something like this, which side of the cage is he looking out of?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister will close the debate. Would the Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver East kindly watch his remarks.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, it's rather revealing, I think, that the Members opposite would have to go back into the history books to bring forward the idea of the city state. Anyone who understands anything at all about history knows the story of the city state because a city does not sit in splendid isolation from its hinterland. Cities like the city of Vancouver would not be there if it were not for the total Provincial economy, the resources of the hinterland and the activities in the hinterland. Anyone who understands anything at all about the weaknesses of city states and their splendid isolation knows very well that they very quickly withered and died on the ground because they did not have any attachment to a hinterland. All over Canada today we're hearing this kind of nonsense about city states and the idea that they can, in some way, live in splendid isolation from all the other people around them.

I want to tell you, it's not only nonsense, it's nonsense when we hear this continual talk in this House about rural British Columbia. What in the name of common sense is rural British Columbia today? We have… Oh, wait a minute, Mr. Speaker, we have in British Columbia today 80 per cent of our people live within municipal jurisdiction on one half of one per cent of the total land area of the Province of British Columbia. You tell me, when you're talking about rural

[ Page 836 ]

British Columbia, what in the name of common sense is rural about Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Prince George, Dawson Creek, Nanaimo? This is a myth which the Members opposite can keep repeating, as far as I'm concerned, because it's one reason, Mr. Speaker, why they're over there and we're here, because they don't understand. They don't understand, Mr. Speaker. They haven't the foggiest notion about what the make-up of this Province happens to be, not the foggiest (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the Leader of the Liberal Party always sounds so insincere in this House when he talks about the city of Vancouver but I imagine, Mr. Speaker, that the reason is that he comes up to places like Campbell River and he comes up to places like Port Hardy and he comes up to places like Prince Rupert and he comes up to places like Prince George and tells a completely different story, and that's the reason you're over there and not over here. If you're going to be consistent about how British Columbia is governed, then, I think, you'd get off the kick about city states pretty quick. I move second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 104 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

The House proceeded to the Order "Private Bills."

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 50, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 50, An Act to Incorporate the Vancouver School of Theology. The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, Bill 50 has to do with the Incorporation of the Vancouver School of Theology. It covers a resolution to establish an ecumenical centre for theological education on the campus of the University of British Columbia. I think the preamble to the bill is self-explanatory and I, therefore, move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I just feel obliged to say a few words about a group of institutions which are situated on the campus of the University of British Columbia which are governed by this bill and which I think are, to a great extent, overlooked by many citizens in the Province. For many years, these schools have not only produced ministers for the various churches in our Province but have provided accommodation for students at university when that accommodation has been unavailable elsewhere. I consider it a privilege that I was provided with such accommodation and, when I was at one of the schools, it was the hope, at that time, that, at least, intellectually on the campus some unity would prevail amongst the denominations. I feel this is a step in the right direction and I would, therefore, happily support second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 50 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 51, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 51, An Act Respecting Central City Mission. The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 51 is An Act Respecting the Central City Mission. In effect, it's a tidying up of bills to more or less amalgamate what is known as the Central City Mission, Limited, and the Central City Mission Society, both of which organizations have been in existence for some years. This bill has been approved by the committee and I, therefore, move second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 51 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 54, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 54, An Act to Amend the Seaboard Assurance Company Act. The Honourable Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this bill was sponsored by the Honourable the First Member for Vancouver-Burrard and, on his behalf, I speak to the bill, now. I think I should say to the House that this bill was very carefully considered by the Select Standing Committee that had it in charge. There were some unsatisfactory features involved that we required, after hearing from the majority of shareholders and hearing their representations, we heard from the minority shareholders and we asked them to get together, resolve their differences and come to us with a joint representation to proceed, which they did. We were, then, satisfied to proceed with this bill, which is primarily designed to permit the company to conform to the Alberta legislation and keep it, therefore, in good standing. We were faced, finally, with the unanimous representations from all shareholders that the bill, as finally agreed to, would proceed and I, therefore, move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: In rising to support this second reading, I think it is definitely a shortcoming, at the moment, that the rules which exist for the control and operation of what may be termed private bill companies do not match the standards that we have for public Companies under the Companies Act. If we had the same standards, the difficulties experienced by the committee, I feel, would have been lessened, if not avoided altogether. Until we make sure that what is sauce for the private bill companies is also sauce for the Public Companies Act legislation, then, we will fall short of giving the protection to shareholders that I think this Province should require.

[ Page 837 ]

In short, what would at one time in the history of this Legislature, have been a plus item, namely, that the rules and regulations surrounding a private bill company were better than those surrounding a public corporation, has now been reversed and by legislation put forward by this Government over the years they have taken the public rules and regulations in advance of those that are still attendant to the private bill companies.

I seriously suggest to the Attorney-General that he remedy this at the next Session of the House and, at the very least, prepare for the observance of all private bill companies, with possibly some sort of mandatory legislation that those private bill companies get their affairs in order to meet the rules that we've laid down now in our general Statutes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): I certainly join with the Member for Surrey in trying to find a method to prevent the situation that developed in this particular bill from occurring time after time. My suggestion is that, when we have private bills by petition coming to this House, it be provided in the Standing Orders requirements at the time in the Gazette, where people look for the rules by which they are governed in applying by petition, so that they know that they must comply with certain mandatory provisions of the Companies Act, so amended from time to time — those vital provisions of the Companies Act that protect shareholders, for example, and the idea that they don't need a 75 per cent resolution by the shareholders, on a special resolution by the shareholders, to change and alter the capital structure of the company, which is one of the purposes of this bill. That they don't have to comply with what every other company has to comply with is, I think, a curious anomaly that we have to cure. My suggestion to the Attorney-General is that, in future, to spare both the Private Bills Committee and this House the problems that were thrown up by Bill 54, that a look be given at incorporation under the rules of private bills and private bill companies, the safeguards that are, from time to time, in the Companies Act.

In this particular case, I don't think the committee would have been too favourable to this application, had it not been for the concern of Members on all sides of the House in that committee for the safeguarding of the shareholders and, particularly, the minority shareholders. We found ourselves straying into a corporate jungle of such immensity it was almost like finding yourself in the middle of Disneyland. It was repellent to most of us to see the kind of corporate take-overs that have occurred and in a vital field of insurance, where we have a company, here, that has done well in British Columbia and will continue, I hope, to do well. I'm not going to go into all those details. I just want to say that we did what we felt was best for the minority shareholders to protect their interest. They agreed to it with the majority shareholders and it seems the only course to follow to keep this company on the rails.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I was out of the room for a moment when the Honourable the Member was speaking and I'm not sure if he covered this point. If he didn't, I'd like to mention that it's my view that all future companies that are incorporated by private acts of the Legislature should automatically come within the provisions of the B.C. Companies Act. We have two standards of company law in the Province of B.C. and it's just not right at all.

We've got the standards as prescribed in the B.C. Companies Act, an excellent standard, and we also have the standard of whatever may or may not come in in a private bill. I think that there should be an omnibus provision in each private bill that the private bill companies, who are seeking private charter, agree to comply with all of the provisions of the B.C. Companies Act and all necessary and applicable amendments.

Insofar as the ones that are already incorporated and carrying on business in the Province of British Columbia, I cannot see why those companies, themselves, also should not be requested to bring their charters and their affairs in order, in order that they themselves may comply with the provisions of the B.C. Companies Act. In this particular bill, part of the major opposition by one side, during committee, was to the effect that they were unable to have a meeting as can be called within the provisions of the B.C. Companies Act, which is a meeting upon special resolution — two weeks notice, three quarters vote and you've got to give notice of the resolution which you intend to pass — and this provision was not within the provisions of this private bill company. I want to make it absolutely crystal clear and, I think, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, this was the general feeling of the committee, too. I'm not just expressing my own opinion and the opinion of our Party here (interruption).

It has been. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, I'm glad it has been expressed. There's nothing like reiterating the fact. I do hope that, over the coming year, the Department of the Attorney-General, and we don't need the Law Reform Commission to look at this one, we've got the power right here to do it, the Department of the Attorney-General will see that, in future, it is a requirement of private bill companies that they comply with the provisions of the B.C. Companies Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I hope the honourable Member is about to speak to the principle of this bill. We've heard the pronouncements of three Members now, none of whom have spoken to the principle of the bill. Proceed.

The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. TISDALLE: Mr. Speaker, in respect to the position of those responsible shareholders involved in this bill, the Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953, if it's done anything I think it's pointed out the fact that there's nothing sacred about companies and it doesn't necessarily hold true that you're going to make a windfall. I hope that the committee's work will have done more than just settle a dispute amongst these shareholders but also have come to bear and to focus the attention, the spotlight, upon the fact that the company is no better than its administrators. It also requires the continual surveillance by the shareholders to see that their responsibilities and opportunities are fulfilled in the structure of the company.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 54 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

The House reverted to the Order "Public Bills and

[ Page 838 ]

Orders."

The following bills were read a third time and passed:

Bill (No. 38) intituled Mortgage Brokers Act.

Bill (No. 44) intituled An Act to Amend the Marriage Act.

Bill (No. 62) intituled An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act.

Bill (No. 67) intituled An Act to Amend the Wildlife Act.

Bill (No. 68) intituled An Act to Amend the Forest Act was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Bill (No. 80) intituled Ecological Reserves Act was committed, reported complete without amendment.

The Committee further reported that in consideration of section 4, the Committee divided.

The committee recommended that the division be recorded in the Journals of the House.

By leave of the House, on the motion of Mr. Barrett, the Rules were suspended and it was Ordered that the division on section 4 be recorded in the Journals of the House as follows:

YEAS — 17

Messieurs

Brousson Williams, R.A. Strachan
Gardom Calder Dowding
Cocke Clark Nimsick
Hartley McGeer Barrett
Lorimer Williams, L.A. Dailly, Mrs.
Hall Macdonald

NAYS — 34

Messieurs

Wallace McCarthy, Mrs. Smith
Ney Jordan, Mrs. McDiarmid
Marshall Dawson, Mrs. Capozzi
Wenman Kiernan Skillings
Kripps, Mrs. Williston Chant
Mussallem Bennett Loffmark
Price Peterson Gaglardi
Vogel Black Campbell, D.R.J.
LeCours Fraser Brothers
Chabot Campbell, B. Shelford
Jefcoat Wolfe Richter
Tisdalle

Bill read a third time and passed.

Bill (No. 78) intituled Mobile Home Park Fee Act was committed, reported complete without amendment.

On the motion for the third reading of Bill 78, the House divided.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 34

Messieurs

Wallace Bruch Wolfe
Ney McCarthy, Mrs. Smith
Marshall Jordan, Mrs. McDiarmid
Wenman Dawson, Mrs. Skillings
Kripps, Mrs. Kiernan Chant
Mussallem Williston Loffmark
Price Bennett Gaglardi
Vogel Peterson Campbell, D.R.J.
LeCours Black Brothers
Chabot Fraser Shelford
Jefcoat Campbell, B. Richter
Tisdalle

NAYS — 17

Messieurs

Brousson Williams, R.A. Strachan
Gardom Calder Dowding
Cocke Clark Nimsick
Hartley McGeer Barrett
Lorimer Williams, L.A. Dailly, Mrs.
Hall Macdonald

Bill 78 read a third time and passed.

The following bills were committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time, and passed:

Bill (No. 82) intituled Environment and Land Use Act.

Bill (No. 83) intituled An Act to Amend the Water Act.

Bill (No. 94) intituled An Act to Amend the Health Act.

Bill (No. 97) intituled Hospital Corporations Act.

Bill (No. 98) intituled An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act.

Bill (No. 103) intituled Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act.

Bill (No. 105) intituled An Act to Amend the Credit Unions Act, 1961.

Bill (No. 107) intituled Statute Law Amendment Act, 1971, was committed. The Committee reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

The House proceeded to the Order "Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees."

Mr. J.D. Tisdalle presented the Second and Third Reports of the Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education.

The reports were taken as read and received.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.


The House met at 8: 00 p.m.

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

Bill (No. 107) intituled Statute Law Amendment Act, 1971, was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 839 ]

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

The committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again at the next sitting.

Mr. W.F. Jefcoat presented the First and Second Reports of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. The reports were taken as read and received.

The House adjourned at 11: 34 p.m.