[ Page 2633 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Point of order Statement on Glenshiel Hotel made in writing by Hon. Mr. Hartley. Mr. Speaker — 2633

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2633

Mr. Chabot — 2633

Mr. Speaker — 2633

Mr. Williams — 2634

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2634

Mr. Chabot — 2634

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2635

Mr. Williams — 2635

Mr. Morrison — 2635

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2635

Mr. Speaker — 2636

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Planning Authority Act 1973.

Mr. Morrison.

Introduction and first reading — 2636

Oral Questions

New equalization of assessment appeal board. Mr. Richter — 2637

Tudor Tavern incident. Mr. Wallace — 2637

Vancouver murder ring. Mr. Phillips — 2637

Safety study for Ocean Falls dam. Mr. Smith — 2638

Purchase of aircraft. Mr. Wallace — 2638

Inquiry into UCS operations. Mr. Williams — 2638

Removal of heavy metals from Hat Creek deposit. Mr. Richter — 2638

Fort Nelson-Fort Simpson highway construction. Mr. Phillips — 2639

An Act to Amend the Park Act (Bill No. 174). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2639

Mr. Smith — 2640

Mr. Wallace — 2640

Mr. Williams — 2640

Mr. Phillips — 2640

Mr. Lockstead — 2641

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2641

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2641

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (Bill No. 175). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2642

Mr. Fraser — 2642

Mr. Williams — 2643

Mr. Curtis — 2645

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2645

Mr. Nunweiler — 2646

Mr. McClelland — 2646

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2647

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (Bill No. 176). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2647

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2648

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2649

Mr. Wallace — 2651

Mr. Richter — 2652

Mr. Williams — 2652

Mr. Gardom — 2653

Mr. Lauk — 2654

Mr. McClelland — 2654

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2654

Mr. Fraser — 2656

Mrs. Jordan — 2657

Mr. Morrison — 2664

Mr. Smith — 2664

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2664

Division on second reading — 2665

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1973 (Bill No. 183). Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 2665

Mobile Home Tax Act (Bill No. 181). Hon. Mr. Lorimer. Introduction and first reading — 2666

British Columbia Cellulose Company Act (Bill No. 179). Hon. Mr. Williams. Introduction and first reading — 2666

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act (Bill No. 44). Hon. Mr. Hartley.

Introduction and first reading — 2666

An Act to Amend the Distress Area Assistance Act (Bill No. 178). Hon.

Mr. Stupich. Introduction and first reading — 2666

An Act to Amend the Revenue Act (Bill No. 74) Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction of amendments — 2666

An Act to Amend the Constitution Act (Bill No. 180). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 2667

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: May I have your attention, please? Yesterday in question period Members of the House requested that the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) table some documents from which he was reading. We never heard the documents in full or in extenso that he was reading from.

In the midst of these documents was a statement which he had apparently embarked upon making to the House explaining the transaction involving a hotel which had been the reference of numerous comments by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

In examining these documents I found that a statement was made in them that I would not have permitted had it been made orally in the House as the Minister had apparently intended to do. I consequently would have asked him to withdraw such a statement impugning another Member.

The statement to which I take exception are the words "deliberate attempt to mislead the House and the public" made by the Hon. Minister concerning the statements that had been made previously in the House by the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

Since I would have asked him to withdraw that had he made it orally, and since the House ordered him, in effect, to table the documents from which he was reading, I ask him to withdraw that statement now unconditionally to the House.

HON. W. L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I take it you are asking that the word "deliberate" be withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. We don't use the words "deliberate attempt to mislead the House" in this House against any other Member unless you're prepared to make a substantive motion.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared unconditionally to withdraw the word "deliberate." I've done that and I would just like to state that I think in fairness to the Member for Columbia River, if he was given false information with regard to the matter in question, with regard to the date of that advertisement referred to on page 2082 of April 3 Hansard…In the first paragraph he stated that the ad that he was waving had run for several months prior to our purchase. And the ad offered the property for sale for $470,000. Now, he may or may not have been aware that that ad was almost four years old.

Now if he is prepared — and I think he should be — to withdraw the fact that he was given false information, and in that way then he did not deliberately mislead the House. If he was aware that that was a four-year-old ad, then he deliberately misled the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I take it that you're not saying that he deliberately misled the House but that he may have been misled?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's correct.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A point of privilege on the same matter. I prepared a statement relative to this situation, Mr. Speaker. It reads as follows:

During the question period yesterday, in reply to a question posed by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) on the Glenshiel Hotel affair, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) read a letter addressed to the Deputy Minister of Public Works dated July 15, 1969, signed, as he indicated, by John Relling. Upon objections from some Members of the Legislature that the document should be tabled, the Speaker indicated, that it could be filed with the consent of the House.

The Minister requested leave to table the document. The question was put and leave granted. Attached to the document was an undated statement entitled "Statement to the Legislature on the Glenshiel Hotel," on stationery with the provincial crest surrounded by the words "Minister of Public Works, Province of British Columbia."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, there's no dispute of that. I don't think we need to try and prove it.

MR. CHABOT: No, this is very important. In the prepared statement, which was never read in the Legislature, the final paragraph reads as follows:

"The Member for Columbia River has engaged in a deliberate attempt to mislead the Members of this Legislature and the people of British Columbia. This sort of behaviour should be beneath the dignity of any Hon. Member."

I consider this statement to be false and defamatory, and to be a statement which would not have been tolerated to be given in the Legislature verbally. The statement was not a part of the documents requested to be tabled and constitutes an unfair and unprecedented attack against the Member for Columbia River.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Yes. It was released to the Press as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I take it that you are stating to the House that there was no deliberate

[ Page 2634 ]

attempt on your part to mislead the House in the statements that you made in the House.

MR. CHABOT: I have one more short paragraph….

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to ask that question. Because it's only fair, if I am asking the Hon. Minister to withdraw that statement that he made that you also assure the House that you made no deliberate attempt to mislead the House. Usually you would have the opportunity to stand up and make that statement and ask him to withdraw it. Do you wish to ask him to withdraw that statement?

MR. CHABOT: I'll finish my article here:

The Minister stated that the National Trust company no longer listed that particular property beyond 1969. He has made reference to this just a few moments ago.

The information available to me is that National Trust Company actively, actively advertised the property for sale during 1969, 1970 and 1971. The sales sheet that I used in the Legislature to indicate that the government could have purchased the hotel in the summer of 1972 at $470,000 was given to a prospective buyer in July, 1972 by a representative of National Trust Company.

I have a signed document to confirm this fact.

I wish to reiterate that the Member asked leave for the tabling of a document. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the undated statement is not a document and the Minister breached my personal privilege by tabling his undated statement for which leave was not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you ask him to withdraw the word "deliberate"?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I've withdrawn it.

MR. SPEAKER: Then that's the end of the matter.

MR. CHABOT: That's not the end of the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if you wish to take any further steps you know the procedures for doing so.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have here a signed document by the National Trust wherein they stated that the advertisement that the Member for Columbia was waving was listed on June 27, 1969 and it expired in 1969.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you file that document with the House with leave of the House?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'd be pleased to.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: All right. We'll leave it. It's up to the Members what happens to it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the Member for Columbia River please file the document to which he referred as well?

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member file the document to which he referred?

MR. CHABOT: I'll file a copy of the document I referred to. It's a copy of the document which I made available to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) some considerable weeks ago. The Minister of Highways has taken a Xerox copy of it. But if other Members want availability of this document I'm ready to make it available to all Members of the Legislative Assembly.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): The document you've been asked to table is the letter which you said you have just received from them.

MR. CHABOT: No, I didn't say I had just received….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You did! That's what you said. And that's the letter I'm asking you to table.

MR. CHABOT: No, no. I didn't. You'd better look at the tape. I didn't say I received any such….

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Did I take the Hon. Member to say that he had a letter from the National Trust indicating that this matter had been advertised after 1969?

MR. CHABOT: No. I said that the sales sheet that I have here, which I made available to the Minister of Highways several days ago, of which he made a Xerox copy and which the Minister claims to have filed in this House, was never filed yesterday along with the documents. I said that the sales sheet that I used in the Legislature to indicate that the government could have purchased the hotel in the summer of 1972 at $470,000 — which is correct — was given to a prospective buyer in July, 1972, by a representative of National Trust Company.

AN HON, MEMBER: No, he didn't say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he did.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The matter will, of

[ Page 2635 ]

course, be….

MR. CHABOT: Did I say I have? I said I have a signed document to confirm this fact and that document is in the hands of my legal counsel.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, when I rose on this point of order the document that I would ask the Member for Columbia River to file is that signed statement showing that the sales sheet was handed to a prospective purchaser in July of 1972.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member file that document to the table?

MR. CHABOT: I'll consult my lawyer and if my lawyer deems it appropriate…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: …to file it, I will. I'll file it probably in court…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR.CHABOT: …depending on what my legal counsel tell me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Member that this is the highest court in the land when it comes to the conduct of these proceedings. I ask the Hon, Member if he will table the document. Is it the wish of the House that the document be tabled?

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): No, no!

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Oh? What are you hiding?

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. In terms of this kind of unfortunate incidents involving the heat of two Members, it is for the House itself to judge in terms of the tabling of documents — if one Member tables documents, the other Member should table documents.

I don't think it's right that allegations should be made and a statement should be left in this House that there is documented proof to counter any allegation and then a refusal to document the counter allegation. What are we leading ourselves into — an exchange of innuendo that smears? I think in the good name of all the Members of all of this House — that all the documents should be filed with this House as they have been referred to in this particular exchange.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would agree with the Hon. Premier, if this statement hadn't been released by his Minister to the Press and gone all over this province. That is the reason why, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has said. Just because there has been the widest publicity given to a statement filed by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) in this House, regardless of what the rights may be between members in some other tribunal, we in this House are entitled to know what the information is so that we can make our decision as to whether or not some particular action, which is permitted under the rules of this House, can be brought.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to lay this matter to rest once and for all. The salesman from National Trust was in my office in the summer of 1972. He gave me that document at that time at that price. I was definitely under the impression that if I chose to, I could purchase that building at that time for that price.

I was not a Member of this House. I was not running for candidate. He was in no way attempting to try and discredit this government. I happened to keep that document and put it in my files. I resurrected that document at a later date. At no time was the salesman involved in trying to do anything except sell me a building which in the summer of 1972 — in both his opinion and my opinion — was available for sale at that price.

That document listed a building which had 80 suites, not 45 suites — 80 suites. The price was $470,000 in the summer of 1972, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I welcome the statement from the Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison); however, a document was referred to by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) stating, as I understand it — said twice today — a document stating that a representative of National Trust had offered that

[ Page 2636 ]

building for sale last year at the price mentioned by the Member for Victoria. The Member for Columbia River says he is in possession of a signed document alleging that National Trust was handling that sale and offering that sale at that price.

Now, if the Member has such a document and because the dispute exists, that document rightly belongs in the hands of this House so that the House can make a proper assessment of the exchange of allegations. If, however, the Member is suggesting that a conversation that took place between an unknown salesman and the Member for Victoria, trying to make a sale, on the page that National Trust, as we understand it, has identified as a 1969 ad — and that out of that conversation, the Minister is trying to leave with this House that he has a document to the effect that National Trust….

MR. SPEAKER: You mean the Member?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member? No, no, the Minister is trying to leave the impression with this House that National Trust gave him a document indicating that they were still handling this — then either one of them is either trying to mislead the House or they're confused. Now, we need that document — not verbal conversation. This Minister has a document — that Member has a document. We have seen the Minister's document from National Trust, now we need the document he alleges he has, saying that the Minister's document is not correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. First Member for Victoria prepared to table the document that he has?

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. In my office I have a document from the salesman stating that he gave me that piece of paper in the summer of 1972. And that document is lodged with that gentleman's lawyer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, then let's have it in the House.

MR. MORRISON: That's a document between he and I.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh. No, this matter is now in the House and as far as the matter resting between the salesman and you — on a point of order, Mr. Speaker — if that matter rested between the salesman and the Member for Victoria, then it should have rested there, but the Member for Victoria has now brought it to this House and he has an obligation to put that document in the House now.

MR. SPEAKER: I may point out to the Hon. Members that May at p. 458….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Members that at p. 458 of the 17th edition of May, on citing documents not before the House — the principle is that the House may ask that a document be tabled or filed, but if it is a private document, not one that is a government document, it cannot be required by the House unless it were required by a committee investigating the question. And therefore I cannot require the Hon. First Member for Victoria to table the document, nor can I, or the House require the Member for Columbia River to table the document to which they refer.

I think we can now proceed with question period, unless there is something more.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, before we turn to the question period — in the Press gallery we have Mr. Ron Thompson who records so many of the events surrounding this assembly, and I would like at this time to ask the House to record a welcome to his parents: Captain and Mrs. Thompson, who are in the gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to file the financial statements of the British Columbia Liquor Control Board to the end of March 31, 1972?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A very good year.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA PLANNING

Mr. Morrison moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 184 intituled British Columbia Planning Authority Act 1973.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 184 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.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

[ Page 2637 ]

NEW EQUALIZATION OF
ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the equalization of assessment appeal board been reconstructed?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: We are in question period.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Sit down, would you please? l draw to the attention of Members that we are starting question period. Would you repeat the first question please?

MR. RICHTER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance: has the equalization of assessment appeal board been reconstituted?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental. In light of the reconstitution, what will happen to all those cases that were heard but not adjudicated prior to the reconstitution of the new board?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the cases that were not completed by the past board are now being reviewed by the present board.

MR. RICHTER: A supplementary. Will it require the bringing back of witnesses to be reheard or will the new board take the evidence as recorded by the earlier board?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is my understanding that the parties can work that out. The transcripts are already there and the information is there.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon Members that it is really not up to the Minister in these cases to give a solution to a legal proposition, according to Beauchesne, p. 147.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

TUDOR TAVERN INCIDENT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Attorney General, as the Minister for taverns, if he has had a chance to investigate the incident in the Tudor Tavern?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I have instituted the inquiries, and the matter raised by the Hon. Member seems a little more serious than it did at first blush when he asked the question, so the inquiries will take another day or two. But I hope to look into the matter pretty thoroughly.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Could I leave it then that the Minister will himself report back to the House or should I keep asking questions?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll do my best to inform the Member concerned before the end of this session and possibly he might be so good as to speak to me about it in my office within two days, say, at the outside.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members that when a question is asked and it is taken as notice, the Minister then stands up and replies during question period when he has the answer, without the need for pressing him day by day?

The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

VANCOUVER MURDER RING

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Attorney General. Has the Attorney General been advised by the Chief of Police in Vancouver that a murder enforcement ring exists in Vancouver and has the Attorney General undertaken independent investigation at the provincial level with respect to this reported situation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I haven't been, Mr. Speaker, asked to take any action. I have read the report of Chief Constable Fisk's submission to the Vancouver City Council, or Police Commission. Naturally I am interested in the matter, and I think I should see a copy of the representations that he made to the City of Vancouver.

MR. PHILLIPS: As the Attorney General knows, this is a very serious matter. Could the Attorney General advise the House whether or not the province would be prepared to accept financial responsibility for the nine-man organized crime squad which the City of Vancouver has had recommended to it, which will cost $65,903 and the recommendation that approximately $300,000 cut from the police budget be restored?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I understand everybody concerned in the City of Vancouver understands this is a municipal responsibility and they are arranging their own municipal budget for the forthcoming year.

[ Page 2638 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Attorney General not agree that the operation of a major crime syndicate in British Columbia's major city is grounds for action by the provincial government forthwith?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the question is rhetorical. The other aspect of it is that it's in the jurisdiction of the Police Commission primarily.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't mind saying that I've sent for a copy of the report even though it is not directly my concern at this moment. I am still interested in it and I should be interested in it.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Attorney General any information that this crime syndicate operating in the City of Vancouver is from eastern Canada?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm waiting for the report.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

SAFETY STUDY FOR
OCEAN FALLS DAM

MR. D.E. SMITH:(North Peace River): Thank you. My question is addressed to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Did the provincial government have an independent consulting firm examine the safety of the dam structure in Ocean Falls prior to making their arrangements with Crown Zellerbach concerning Ocean Falls?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): There was a review by the water resources service staff.

MR. SMITH: A supplementary question to the Minister. There was a review by the water resources staff. They did not employ any independent engineering consultant or have a professional engineer check that project over before completing your negotiations with Crown Zellerbach?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am not aware of any. I might add that some B.C. Hydro staff were involved also.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

PURCHASE OF AIRCRAFT

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Highways if he has any information he can give the House about the pending purchase of aircraft for the twin purposes of government personnel and air ambulance service?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I read Jack Wasserman's column with interest, too.

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

INQUIRY INTO UCS
OPERATIONS

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

Would he advise the House if his department is making an inquiry into the financial and administrative operations of United Community Services — UCS?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): An investigation — I didn't quite get the question.

MR. WILLIAMS: The one in Vancouver.

HON. MR. LEVI: They made a submission to us about two months ago and I wrote and asked them if they would explain specifically the central operation funding. We are waiting to get a reply. They have assured us that we will be getting one.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary Similkameen.

REMOVAL OF HEAVY METALS
FROM HAT CREEK DEPOSIT

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a question to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in his capacity as a director of Hydro. Has the government any intentions of opening up the Hat Creek coal deposit to be used for the removal of heavy metals?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There is no programme at the moment. A small research grant has been provided the staff of the University of British Columbia to see the effectiveness of the coal with respect to this problem. Apparently their experiments are proving most productive and rather encouraging at this stage.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

[ Page 2639 ]

FORT NELSON-FORT SIMPSON
HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to direct a small question to the Minister of Highways. Would the Minister of Highways please advise the House if he has advised the Department of Northern Affairs in Ottawa with regard to his intentions to construct the Fort Nelson-Fort Simpson highway, that portion which lies in British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I have advised them that we are proceeding and I have contacted them urging them to proceed immediately with their section of the work.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister advise me as to the date of his correspondence with Ottawa? Because I have correspondence with Ottawa this morning saying that they are not aware of what is going on. I just received word this morning that Ottawa really doesn't know what is going on down there and they say that British Columbia isn't building their portion, so would the Minister advise me what date he had correspondence with Ottawa?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have also read the letter which was sent to you by the Member of Parliament for the constituency. He says that his information is that British Columbia had not done certain things. I think the wording was that "British Columbia was showing no interest" which, as you know, is completely wrong. I've already told you during the estimates that we are going to go ahead. So anyway, I'll check up and see just where that mail got lost in Ottawa.

MR. PHILLIPS: Fine, thank you very much. A supplementary question. Will you be answering to the MP for Prince George-Peace River? Will you be advising him?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. To the best of my knowledge I haven't received a copy of the letter, but it was one of our Members for a northern area who received a copy and showed it to me a half-hour ago.

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you answer the letter, Mr. Minister of Highways? Will you answer the letter to the MP? I'd be happy to give you my copy.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right.

MR. SPEAKER: Will you settle all the details later? No further questions.

Orders of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 174, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PARK ACT

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Bill 174, Mr. Speaker, is An Act to Amend the Park Act, and there are a range of amendments to the Park statute that might in some respects be considered housekeeping amendments.

Most of the amendments relate to recreation areas which were a category of multi-use recreational areas established by the former government. No policies, however, were established by the former government with respect to recreation areas, and this amendment to the statute should clarify questions in that regard.

The more critical aspects of the bill probably relate to the right of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to amend park boundaries in the province.

Heretofore, the cabinet could change the boundaries of provincial parks of British Columbia.

It is the view of this government that the parks of British Columbia are too important to be allowed to be dealt with in that manner. Rather, they should be dealt with by the entire Legislature, so that if these great wilderness heritages of ours are going to be disturbed, then it's only with the approval of the Legislature that they shall be disturbed or amended.

The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council does have the power to expand the parks and that we deem reasonable.

Other important parts of this statute as well are schedules A and B which list the various provincial parks as part of this statute. This covers a wide range from Wells Gray Park to many of the new ones established by this statute. Schedule B deals with the new parks of British Columbia, established by this government at this time.

There are some new parks where boundary changes or some further studies on an interdepartmental basis are still needed before the boundaries can be firmly established by the House. I expect that those parks will come before the next session of the Legislature.

The pamphlet that was distributed to the House earlier upon first reading, Mr. Speaker, covers a range of the new parks of British Columbia as proposed, and what we call a new era in parks in British Columbia. The range is from Elk Lake in the Rockies to the Atlin Lakes near the Yukon frontier, to the

[ Page 2640 ]

Tlell Estuary in the Queen Charlottes, to Desolation Sound in the northern part of the gulf, to Carp Lake near Prince George, probably outside of the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island, the most important urbanizing area in the province and an area that did not have firm recreational reservations within day-use distance of that major city. There are changes in Assiniboine Park, changes in the north-west as well — Tatlatui and Kwadacha Wilderness.

Some 1.6 million acres are involved in these schedules of new parks, Mr. Speaker, and I suspect that when I look back on my career in this particular portfolio, that my proudest moment, on reflection, might be the preservation of this amount of parkland at this time, through this statute.

I believe that many of these parks that we're preserving through this statute are of national and continental significance. We're lucky in British Columbia to have such a rich mix in terms of landscape, in terms of a land base with so few people, in fact, on the landscape.

It seems to me that generations before us did a far better job than we've done in this generation, in terms of preserving the wilderness landscape of British Columbia. When you look at the early parks that were established decades ago by former Legislatures, and relate that to the population of the province in that day, then they look as pretty bold moves for an almost frontier province.

Unfortunately we can't say the same of the last 20 years. We lost some 2 million acres of parkland during the last 20 years in a time when our own population increased tremendously.

Just in case a change in government occurs again, it's this statute that may prevent some future administration from making the same kinds of mistakes that the former administration did, with respect to the preservation of wilderness land.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Just a couple of questions regarding not the designation of existing park areas, but the proposed new park areas, particularly those in north-eastern British Columbia, of which we have two — the Tatlatui park area and a wilderness area described as the Kwadacha wilderness area.

Within the wilderness area which will be set up along the headwaters of the Muskwa River into the Muskwa River area and the Tuchodi River area, this park, as closely as I can tell from looking at the map, superimposes boundaries over a number of big game guiding territories that have been established for years. It is a tremendous wilderness area, I agree with the Minister.

There are also probably some of the largest game herds left in British Columbia — the most extensive, as far as species is concerned, in this area. A number of big game guides have made a living by guiding hunters into this area. Now, if we designate this as a wilderness park, will the big game guides be permitted to hunt in the area, or will their licences be revoked or cancelled? Would the Minister, when he closes debate on this bill, give an indication to the House what his intentions are, particularly with respect to the Kwadacha wilderness park area?

I notice that the Tatlatui area is a park. I'd also like to know if, in that park, big game guiding will be allowed to continue. I know that guiding goes on in some park areas, but would the Minister just indicate to the House the position of these big game guides? Because certainly a number of them may have their livelihood affected detrimentally by the enclosure and superimposing of park boundaries upon territories which they have held and guided into for years and years. I would like the Minister to comment on that when he closes debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, we strongly support this bill and appreciate the awareness that the Minister has always shown, both in opposition and in government, on behalf of parks.

I would just like to ask one question regarding Desolation Sound. The Minister was good enough to answer a question regarding Prideaux Haven, which is in the Desolation Sound area. This was a very beautiful part of the coastline which was up for sale. I wonder if, in closing the debate, the Minister would just tell us if that was purchased or what kind of a deal we made on the whole question of Prideaux Haven, which was in danger of falling into the hands of foreign ownership, I believe. In asking for these details I would commend the Minister for the foresight he took in dealing with this particular part of the coastline.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, we too support this new breath of fresh air into the park system in the Province of British Columbia.

What the Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) has said about the use of some of our wilderness areas is interesting. May I ask the Minister if, in addition to considering the matter of big game operations in these areas, he would indicate whether the resource use permit that is provided for in this legislation may, in fact, encourage the use of these wilderness areas by guided tours, and whether or not, under the Parks

[ Page 2641 ]

Branch, we may see a programme of the government, or sponsored by the government, which will encourage greater camera safaris into some of our wilderness areas? In this country we seem to overlook that many of the wild game species which occupy our wilderness areas are themselves in danger of extinction.

I think that we can learn a lesson from what has happened in Kenya, for example. Kenya took sizable steps many years ago to preserve animal species which were in danger of extinction and has set aside thousands upon thousands of square miles of that country as a game park reserve. Yet, having made that reservation, they have recognized the opportunity that is presented by such a reservation to encourage people from all over the world to travel to Kenya for the purpose of viewing, sometimes at rather close hand, these animals in their natural habitat.

It seems to me that as well as preserving the species, as well as maintaining as wilderness areas large tracts of this province, we can, under a carefully controlled programme, ensure that people are attracted to come and see in British Columbia what may not be available to be seen anywhere else in the world.

I'm certain that this is the kind of new commercial opportunity which must commend itself to this Minister and to this government — a commercial opportunity which can have great benefits for British Columbia, and great benefits for people around the world and great benefits for the animals themselves.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to add my voice to the support of this bill. However, I followed all of these arrows and I was looking for some green spots in the South Peace River area — I thought that there might be something where it might have stopped around the Monkman area and around Sukunka Falls. I kept following all these red lines and, lo and behold, they all ended up somewhere else.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the Minister would just give me some assurance that on the next map that comes out, if I follow all the red lines, one of them will stop in that great area that must be preserved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very happy, of course, with the Desolation Sound Park particularly, since it's in my constituency. I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that I have many, many areas in my constituency that have been alienated from the public forever. Literally thousands of acres have gone into the hands of private or foreign owners, some of the like of which we will never have again in this province. This is one of the reasons I'm so pleased to see that this area of Desolation Sound was able to be preserved. I'm proud to be a Member of the government that has preserved this area for future generations. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A quick question to the Minister. First, as was stated by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), we definitely approve of this policy of increasing the size of parks in the province. We approve of this bill.

The Minister has made much of the fact that park acreage did decline during the previous administration. He's perfectly correct there and we, like his party, objected strenuously to that during the election campaign. Perhaps he'll give us some information, though, as to whether the increase which he is putting in — something around 20 per cent — in actual fact brings us back to where we were in 1951 or 1952. 1 don't think it does, from my rough, mathematical calculations on a per capita basis, bring us back to where we were then.

Perhaps he'd like to indicate whether or not this is very much an interim step and when we can expect another few million acres or perhaps less, perhaps more, in the future so that we can get back to the situation that we were in before.

This is particularly true in terms of wilderness areas which I think should be areas…or parks, if you'd like to call them that. But I would say "wilderness areas" because I mean areas which are not considered to be parks for people but parks or areas for wildlife to be preserved as a bit of a sanctuary. That is probably the type of area which is most in need of protection at this time due to the inroads of logging roads, four-wheel drive vehicles, Honda motorcycles which can take on just about any mountain track.

I just wonder whether you'd like to comment on this, particularly in terms of protecting large areas from the type of people-park use and also in terms of parks generally, getting the area back to where it was or perhaps even improving the situation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Dealing with some of the points covered by the Hon. Members, the question of the big game guiding areas is, I think, a matter for some discussion between the department and the people and their rights. I think that there will be ongoing discussions in relation to that. There's no intent to take precipitate action in

[ Page 2642 ]

that regard.

Desolation Sound and Prideaux Haven: I'm afraid I'm not up to date on the latest information. Negotiations were going on and I haven't had any advice from the department yet as to whether some satisfactory arrangement has been made. But I certainly hope so. We hope to accelerate programmes in the Gulf generally. This is one of the areas that has been neglected in the past and an area in which we've got to catch up considerably. The Ruckle farm on Saltspring is just the first, I hope, of several steps that might even be taken on an international scale in the Gulf and San Juan Islands near Victoria here.

The question of guided tours and camera safaris may have some appeal. I think there's a need generally for a wider view of recreation in the province and by the department. I'm sure that will be so.

Monkman Pass. I think we indicated on a question on the order paper that the intent was to establish a park at Monkman Pass. But we wanted to be sure we did exactly the right thing and carried out detailed surveys. They'll be carried on throughout this summer. I expect that there will be a proposal before the next session of the Legislature to designate by statute the Monkman Pass Provincial Park.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It seems to run through a few things, I don't know.

Desolation Sound is also an interesting situation because it's the first time the provincial Crown has declared a salt-water area as a provincial park. We did that by order-in-council. We plan on discussions with the federal government in that regard. It will probably be the first step in establishing salt-water or ocean areas as actual park areas within the Province of British Columbia.

The question of the increase in acreage that this brings about and whether it brings us back to 1952 — remember 1952. Well, unfortunately it doesn't. We thought that we might be able to make that great leap, but our various studies have indicated that we need to carry out more analysis with respect to other proposals. We hope to get back to 1952 in 1973 sometime.

It isn't a matter of just sacred precincts, though It's a matter of integrated resource management and a more sophisticated approach to preserving recreation areas and other assets of the province in the time that we have.

I think that covers the main points raised in the debate, Mr. Speaker. I move that the question now be put.

Motion approved; second reading of Bill No. 174

Bill 174 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Second reading of Bill No. 175, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE MUNICIPAL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In moving second reading of this bill, I would point out that the sections basically deal with a variety of subjects. I would suggest that it might be more easily dealt with in committee stage.

I would point out and I apologize to the House that through — I think the term is "inadvertence" — some amendments have been necessary due to the fact that in the original bill the Court of Revision dates were not moved back along with the rest of them. There's an appeal section and I've put in some more amendments today to cover the two appeal sections on the Court of Revision dates. I apologize to the House for not attending to this at the time.

I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the Minister that it's probably better done in third reading, section by section, but I have a few observations to make.

We generally approve of the amendments. I was wondering where the idea came from to put the municipalities in business. I think that most of the municipalities now have got their hands full financing what they were originally set up to do. In fact, they appear to be behind. I'd like to read an article that I saw today on this subject. It's from the Vancouver Province:

"On the surface, anyone who believes Municipal Affairs Minister Lorimer's. Municipal Act amendments are going to send some B.C. cities rushing into the retail gasoline business or the operation of food markets must be imagining things.

"In the first place most lower mainland mayors are cool to the idea of exercising the amendment giving municipalities 'full power to engage in any commercial, industrial or business undertaking.'

"They point out municipal treasuries haven't surplus funds for business ventures and most of them are opposed to the idea of competing with private businesses that are already paying municipal taxes.

"On top of this, municipal borrowing power is

[ Page 2643 ]

limited by the size of the tax assessment base in each area and all borrowing must be approved by the provincial inspector of municipalities. Also there has to be a referendum on such spending, which would give the public veto power over what is considered unwise investments.

"Mr. Lorimer admits that there has been no demand for widening municipal powers in this way but says he has done it to overcome some simple hindrances preventing municipalities from establishing such things as trailer parks.

"It certainly seems one must be imagining things to interpret the amendments in a different way.

"But let's keep on imagining.

"The amendments also provide for election of all or some aldermen on a ward basis, if the cabinet approves. Since the cabinet is sponsoring the legislation it's unlikely it would ever disapprove.

"Division of some municipalities into wards would give the NDP an opportunity to elect party adherents on a scale that the election-at-large system has always denied them. Last December's Vancouver civic election is an illustration of the NDP's failure.

"In some centres the ward system might even give the party a council majority. In other words, the present election-at-large councils whose spokesmen are today rejecting the idea of involving municipal taxpayers in private business enterprises might be replaced by those whose political faith convinces them it is a good idea.

"Then, of course, there's the problem of money. But what's to prevent a council budgeting for a surplus and then deciding to use the surplus to get into what is presumed to be a profitable enterprise?

"The same week the amendments were aired Vancouver city council discovered a $1.2 million windfall in its budget. What would prevent an NDP-dominated council from deciding to use the money for ‘any commercial, industrial or business undertakings' it thought advisable?

"Is this just imagining things?"

There's one other thing I'd like to comment on, Mr. Speaker, on these amendments. As I understand it, if an alderman or a mayor wants to represent a municipal council on a regional board he must indicate so when he runs at the elected level. First of all, I think that we're creating here a fourth level of government. I'm not sure why this is all necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I would review for you and the House the way this has been happening in the province. I refer to regional directors from municipal councils. First of all, they all go through the process — the aldermen and the mayor involved — the process of the ballot box to get onto the municipal council

Then a motion is passed by the mayor and the aldermen that they send one of their members who has been duly elected to be their regional representative on the regional board and I can't see how….

I'm wondering if the other thing could happen here. Could you have an alderman run for alderman and regional director and win on the regional director ticket and lose on the aldermanic ticket? If this was to happen there would be no liaison whatsoever with the existing elected council of that municipality. I certainly want to ask more, probably at third reading, but maybe the Minister could comment.

I would also like to tell the House what Mayor Phillips of Vancouver had to say about this. He agrees and thinks it is a good idea. I might say that I completely disagree with his observations because I don't think he knows what he is talking about:

"He noted the changes introduced Monday in the Legislature by Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Lorimer would not directly apply to the city because it has its own charter." — We're quite aware of that. — "However, Lorimer made it clear he hoped Vancouver would look at the proposed amendments with a view to making similar changes to its charter. 'A separate election would confuse people at first because right now they don't know what the Greater Vancouver Regional District is,' Mayor Phillips said. He said, 'The separate election for regional board members is desirable because it would force people to get to know what the GVRD is and that's going to be important as time goes by.'"

Well, I don't believe in forcing any people and I can't understand the esteemed Mayor of the City of Vancouver suggesting that the best part of this is that it would force people to know what the GVRD is. I think they know all right, and for that reason I don't agree in any way with the remarks of the Mayor of Vancouver on that subject. They can't even get a good percentage out at the polls when the elections do take place.

I'll have further things to say at third reading.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to join in the comments made by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) and to support many of the things that he says, and in the course of which propose some questions which the Minister may wish to answer when closing the debate.

With regard to this election of regional board members, would the Minister please indicate whether or not he is approaching a fourth level of government for British Columbia? Heretofore the regional boards have been appointed from the member municipalities and clearly occupied a position whereby the regional

[ Page 2644 ]

board could not claim direct representation from citizens. Therefore its allegiance and its whole purpose was complementary to that of the existing municipalities. I would be concerned that once regional board directors become elected to that position there will be the tendency to view a regional board as a separate level of government.

While this may have its advantages in some of the rural regional districts, nonetheless, I think for the metropolitan areas it could have serious disadvantages. If we are going to approach metropolitanism in urban government then I think it should be done straight on and not by any slow process whereby suddenly we find that metropolitan government is upon us.

There seem to be some anomalies with regard to the current proposals for the elections of regional board members. The opportunity is to be afforded the municipalities to have elections every two years, at which time a person standing for election could offer himself and be chosen as the regional board representative. But the regional board directors, Mr. Minister, only serve one year terms. That's the situation now. I would like you to indicate whether you propose in your amendments to overcome this difficulty so that if a municipality does move to elections every two years, the membership on a board on a one-year basis is not going to require some in-between election.

It's difficult enough now and becoming increasingly difficult in the larger municipalities to control the size of the ballot at regular elections and to control the rising cost of holding elections, by-elections, plebiscites, referenda and so on. I would think that any change in the legislation which would encourage multiplicity of elections should be resisted.

It should also be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that all people who seek election to municipal councils may not be able within the time available to them to serve as a regional director. I wonder what the situation would be if none of the candidates for municipal election offered themselves for service on a regional board.

The experience to date is that in most cases mayors of municipalities have themselves been appointed by their own council to the regional board and there is perhaps good reason to question the wisdom of this system. But nonetheless, it is a decision made by the municipal council and often the mayor of the municipality, having taken on that senior position, is the best able to commit himself virtually full-time to the responsibilities that fall on him in local government. If he doesn't want to assume a regional responsibility then perhaps he should consider whether perhaps he should be the mayor.

If you take the District of North Vancouver as an example, the mayor has been the chairman and has served on the regional district for a number of years. But out of the six aldermen on that municipal council only one besides the mayor would have been able to afford the time and have the opportunity to attend the meetings of the regional district. As the Minister knows, those meetings are increasing in frequency and increasing in duration. The regional district is taking on bigger and bigger responsibilities and therefore more and more time and attention is required by the regional board.

Men and women who offer themselves in local government are to be congratulated for taking on that responsibility. They shouldn't be put in the position of doing that and then finding that because they go on the regional board they are obliged to spend full time in their job.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I hope your remarks will be limited on this because we have to go through all this again in the committee stage.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I make my remarks now then perhaps I won't have to make them in committee. If I make them now then perhaps the Minister would be good enough to make a note, bring in amendments and then I won't have to make them again. That's the purpose of doing them now. If I wait until committee the Minister may not have the time to amend the statute. But I'll be very brief. I thank you for that admonition, Mr. Speaker. I have just two more simple comments.

Would the Minister indicate whether his department has taken into consideration in the selection of the election dates the continuing problem of the lame-duck council?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: You haven't read the bill. The section dealing with shifting the dates on which the elections are to be held. By pushing it farther back than the end of the fiscal year, you only extend that period when…

HON. MR. HALL: …the section now or is it just general principles?

MR. WILLIAMS: Just general principles. I am asking whether his department is considering the problem of the lame-duck council by reason of the time when the elections are held.

And lastly, would the Minister indicate specifically the need to authorize local governments to go into private business? Under the Municipal Act today there are opportunities for the municipal council to pass bylaws permitting them to go into businesses which may be conducive to the public interest of the community — operation of marinas and things of that

[ Page 2645 ]

nature. Why are they being given the right and therefore the encouragement to go into other private commercial operations?

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

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, some Members of the government seem a little twitchy about discussing parts of this bill. It's difficult to discuss it….

AN HON. MEMBER: Not me.

MR. CURTIS: I agree, Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible indicates that he is not too upset. The House Leader (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is certainly twitchy. We had many hours of debate on other bills in second reading. I'll attempt to keep my remarks to the principle of the bill to the best of my ability — and I won't be up for four hours.

The question of regional district representation is one which I know is of concern to the Minister and obviously has been of concern to members of his department and to Members of the government for quite some time, and my inclination is that the change proposed here is a good one.

I think, though, the Minister would recognize the danger of falling into what might be called the "metro trap, " — metro Toronto and other metropolitan areas — where one finds a growing and continuing debate between those who have been elected at large to serve on a regional board or a metro board and those who remain in the city proper. I think the metro Toronto example over the years has shown the fallacy of this approach. Indeed, so much time has been spent debating who should be doing what and who might be gaining a point on the other that very little government business — that is metro or city government business — has been accomplished from time to time.

There is an oddity here, I would think, in the move to provide for the election of regional district directors by the electorate at the time of the civic or municipal elections. This is a multi-purpose board as we know, and yet councils presumably would continue to appoint at their first meeting of the year — the statutory meeting — various representatives to single-purpose boards such as the library board, a water board in certain instances, an inter-municipal committee and so on.

These bodies in some very definite instances are committing public funds. So I am a little confused at the determination of the government to provide for the election at large of regional district directors on the same ballot as municipal directors, and yet their apparent willingness to permit the other point to carry on on water boards or library boards or cemetery boards — whatever it might be.

I join with the previous speakers for the Social Credit and Liberal Parties with respect to the concern felt in the community at large, I would think, on the subject of municipalities entering into business. I would hope that the Minister would take as much time as is necessary in closing the debate, Mr. Speaker, to spell out in some detail exactly what he and the government may have in mind. May we have some particular examples?

The comments in the House and outside have not been sufficiently detailed to indicate to municipalities, to local property owners, to taxpayers, to tenants, to those who are concerned about civic and municipal government as to precisely what this may lead to. I would hope that the Minister will not brush aside these requests from three Members in the last few minutes and that he will give us as much detail as he possibly can on that subject.

I think I'll refrain from further remarks until we get to committee stage.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no need for the Member of the Liberal Party to leave when I start speaking. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a few words on this particular bill, my interest in municipal affairs having gone up since my brother was elected alderman.

The first thing I would like to comment upon is the lack of information from the Minister when he introduced this bill on a number of matters which I thought would be matters of principle. First of all, this entry into the commercial area — or at least into the municipality to do business. I thought that matter would be something dealing with the principle on which the Minister might like to comment. I am disappointed that he has not done so.

The second point I'd like to congratulate the Minister on is the acceptance of the principle of the heritage building and heritage land concept. I'd like to congratulate him on this because this was started off years ago in Britain — if I may briefly digress — and the National Trust in Britain is now the third largest land-owner in the country after the Crown and the National Forestry Commission, I believe. So it's something which can do a great deal to preserve not only buildings but land. I might add that it's an entirely voluntary thing in Britain and we don't have the compulsion that exists in some British Columbia statutes yet to be enacted.

The fact is that Victoria is one of the oldest — next to New Westminster, of course. The Minister was about to make that comment I am sure — communities in British Columbia. There is a large number of buildings which would qualify for the type of

[ Page 2646 ]

protection that this particular Act envisages. I think that's great.

We have the Belmont Building nearby being redone — not a terribly old building but nevertheless a very attractive one with historic significance and in which the Minister's neighbour, the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) is of course renting most of the space. There's the Emily Carr House and a large number of buildings in this area which should be protected. There are many that have gone to the wrecker because they weren't protected and we didn't have adequate public attitudes, I guess, as well as legislation dealing with them in the past.

It's a great pity that so much has been destroyed. I commend the Minister, especially on behalf of Victorians, for having put in this type of principle in a bill which will allow more to be done in the future.

The regional board again worries me. Whit happens if the elected member of a particular community which makes up the regional area who is elected at large disagrees with his own council? Presumably he can do so because he's elected at large and is not elected or put forward by his own council. There's a problem there that may crop up and that I think is worthy of note.

My own personal views are actually similar to those of the Mayor of Victoria (Mr. P. Pollen) as far as our own local area is concerned. I think we could go more in terms of a larger city and less in terms of a fourth layer of government; in other words, improving the municipal structure rather than moving into a fourth level of government. But that again perhaps is too broad a subject to be debated at this time.

I trust the Minister will indicate at least two things. First of all, the question of the municipalities going into businesses — what really does he have in mind? How is it going to be limited? Things of that nature.

Secondly, will he deal for the first time with the problem of the regional board members? It's not clear to me how well it will work. I think that some statement by him is certainly in order at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Fort George.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to compliment the Minister for his progressive movements, the first one permitting municipalities to go into some commercial activities as they see fit.

I would like to point out that our municipality has actually been engaged to a certain extent in this type of activity. In the past 10 years we have had about 2,350 fully-serviced lots on 1,500 acres developed by the city, an industrial site developed by the city, and they are also involved in lease arrangements and so forth

I gather that this has been permitted to a certain extent in the past and they are going to expand from this. We note that the new development corporation does also have provisions to permit municipalities and regional districts to get involved in this type of commercial enterprise.

I think it's very noteworthy to start the ward system for municipalities so that you don't have the entire city being run from one particular street or from one particular part of downtown or uptown area; so you do get a much better cross-section of representation.

The joint facilities permitted for recreational facilities with schools is a very good step forward so that recreational facilities are going to become really and truly a community-oriented activity rather than each individual civic group deciding that it belongs to them when in fact it does belong to the community and it should be utilized as such.

We also have a much better proposal here for advising the public of public hearings. When you see that municipalities now will be required to mail notices to people in the area that is to be rezoned, I think that is a very good idea. In the past years where you have had a public notice in the paper with a particular legal description, people were just not able to determine whether or not their property was adjacent to a particular legal description. I think that this is going to be a very good service to the general public.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Minister for this and I would appreciate a further explanation on the form of election that one of the Members has mentioned.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of brief questions. We will be asking more questions in third reading about a number of the specific instances.

There are some good changes contained in these amendments. But I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister might comment on the possibility of having alternates — maybe the second highest person in the election could be named as an alternate. I see a situation where the seat on the regional district may be vacant for some time and the area may not get its representation. I'll let you answer when you get up, Mr. Minister.

I was going to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, who asked for these changes with regard to the municipalities entering into commercial ventures? I guess it must have been the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) from the sound of it. It certainly wasn't the UBCM or anybody like that.

I'd also like to ask the Minister if he'll tell us if he's prepared to guarantee to bail out any municipality that goes bankrupt because of imprudent

[ Page 2647 ]

investments. I see a very, real danger in that, Mr. Speaker. The municipalities really — and the Minister knows this — have their backs up against the wall as far as financing goes. They don't have any alternate methods of financing.

If they do get into some form of investment which proves to be costly and not profitable, then where's the money going to come from for that municipality to reimburse its taxpayers? They certainly don't have the means to do it themselves. So the question is: will the Minister guarantee that the provincial government will bail out any bankrupt municipalities?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To start with, I might point out that the reason I didn't go into any lengthy detail on opening was that since I've been in this House, there has never been debate on second reading on this particular bill, due to the fact that we're dealing with probably 25 different subjects. However, it wasn't because I was trying to avoid the responsibility of discussing the items with the House.

The purpose of the bill generally is to give the local governments more responsibility. I for one believe that those people who are elected at the local government level are just as capable and responsible as those elected in the provincial or federal House. I'm not worried one bit about some council going out and spending a lot of money on some haywire operation. There are other safeguards in any event.

The question of who asked for the rights to go into business: there were a number of municipalities that did. The areas concerned by and large are the question of mobile home parks, industrial sites, marinas and things of that sort — some area which might give some service to a local situation. Instead of reciting everything down, I have enough faith in local governments to appreciate the fact that they will be doing whatever they may want to do for the good of the community which they serve.

The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) read out an interesting story. I missed it in the paper myself. In any event, they went onto the ward system. Apparently, if there's a ward system, the government is going to interfere and put in all New Democratic Party members in council.

Well, I might point out to you that that would be a fine idea. But the authority here is with the local council as to whether or not — it's all optional — they're going to have a ward system. It's my belief that if a local council wants to have a ward system or wants to have an election every two years, why shouldn't they make that decision? Why should that decision be barred to them? I don't think it makes sense. I think they should have the right to determine their own methods of electing their people.

I think the next question was how the election would take place or why elections should be held for the municipal representatives on the regional boards. There are a number of reasons. One of the basic reasons is that the whole purpose of democracy is that those who represent the people should be elected by the people. At the present time, in the rural areas they do vote for their representatives but in the urban areas they don't. They vote for a group of people and the representative is appointed, generally by the mayor, although it is presumably by the council. That's the way it operates. The situation is that the people who are being affected by decisions of the regional districts by and large don't know who their representative is. There's no way of avoiding that.

As to how the operation works, there's a separate ballot for the regional district representative. If you want to run for council and regional district, your name, appears on both ballots. If you don't want to run for regional district, your name doesn't appear on the second ballot. It only appears on the council ballot. To qualify as a regional district representative, you first must be elected onto the council. There's no one elected onto the regional district that isn't elected onto council.

You might say that none of those who ran for regional district won a council seat, or something of that sort. What would happen then is that there would be a by-election. It's the same as if no one ran for council or there was one vacancy on the council ticket — there would be a by-election. It's the same in this case. That's the way the operation will run.

The lame-duck council — I think that's a valid question whether there will be a lame-duck council. It's an extra two or three weeks. We'll have to look at that and watch that.

I now move that the question be put.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 175 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading of Bill No. 176, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING
AND VALIDATING ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, this bill is quite short and simple and non-controversial. I made it only 1½ pages long so you'll all be able to read it before we debate it, which will be a bit of a change.

[ Page 2648 ]

(Laughter).

Some may say there's no principle in it but there are principles in it. In moving second reading of the bill, I'd like to take a little time and explain the situation as it has occurred.

First of all, in December I announced the decision the government had made in regard to an amalgamation of the areas and extension of boundaries in the Kelowna area. At that time I also announced that there would have to be additional legislation brought in at the next session before the amalgamations could take place. This is the legislation that I suggested at that time.

I think we might deal with the history of the Kamloops area first of all. Kamloops is a fastgrowing centre and areas of population have grown up around it. As a result, certain pockets of areas requested that they be incorporated as a municipality. A vote took place in each area. A vote took place in Valleyview. But the vote didn't take place in the region. Kamloops was just as involved as Valleyview in the future of that district.

A vote was held in Valleyview and it was created as a municipality. Likewise Dufferin and likewise Brocklehurst. I suggest that what we're doing here is basically bringing back the situation to where it was and where it should have been — that those municipalities never should have been incorporated, sitting on the borders of a major town.

It seems to me that what the government is doing here is taking some responsibility in seeing that an area has come to the stage where it is absolutely essential for the government to step in and correct an obvious ill in an area. The result of this is that the community will be planned as one unit. The same applies in Kelowna.

In Kelowna the situation was a little different in that there have been no municipalities developed. The City of Kelowna was strangled by the growth of urban areas outside the city limits, across the street. Facilities in Kelowna city were being used by the outside areas, as in the Kamloops area. I suggest that the future of Kelowna was threatened because of lack of planning in the area. I think that Kelowna is one of the most beautiful cities in the province. In the Rutland area and some of the areas surrounding Kelowna, the lack of planning is a little too bad.

The requests of Kelowna for extension of boundaries were not granted. As a result, the city has been strangled and the industrial and commercial areas have been built to a great extent outside the present City of Kelowna.

The question is simple. As I see it, the question is whether or not the provincial government should accept its responsibilities in dealing with these matters as it sees fit. Or should the matter be carried on and on in an unfair situation which presently exists? I suggest that the government has a responsibility to react positively in situations of this kind.

I have put these amendments into an enabling and validating Act for the sole reason that if there are future requirements of this nature they will have to be brought before the House to be debated. If we had done it through the Municipal Act, it would have then been simple afterwards to put through any amalgamation of this type that may be required. Under this method, before amalgamation of this nature can take place it will have to be brought before the House for debate.

I now move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to speak at length because I too am in favour of enlarging boundaries of municipalities.

In the Okanagan we have three main cities — Kelowna, Vernon and Penticton. Penticton chose, when it became incorporated, to include a lot of the benches and the farmland. Kelowna didn't. Naturally problems developed in both cities.

Great problems developed in Penticton because of the responsibility they had for this agricultural land and the irrigation districts and so forth. I'm not minimizing that at all, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister. But I am saying this, that the whole history of municipalities in this province is one where local people have had something to say about it.

I think it's like any marriage. When you're joining people together in groups, whether it's man and wife or whether it's larger groups in municipalities, you do it by the right of choice. Then the marriage has a great chance of being successful, as yours has, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister's and mine and many, many others. But it would not have been successful, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, if it had been a shotgun marriage.

That's what's happening in Kelowna. This is a shotgun marriage.

I think too, when you gave these people the vote — I don't think one little area should be able to stay out of it, just because that little area voted against coming in. But I would think that in a large area like the proposed new City of Kelowna — which is the finest city not only in British Columbia but in Canada and any place else. Everybody knows that. I'm not boasting. Everybody knows that. Penticton's a good suburb of Kelowna and a very fine place to go. There are great peaches there.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a good place to come from.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right. It's a good

[ Page 2649 ]

place to come from. I chose to live in Kelowna, having been born in New Brunswick. As a young man I went to Alberta and there spent 10 delightful years. There I met a school teacher who was born on Vancouver Island but teaching in Edmonton. That was not a shotgun wedding — it was one by mutual consent and I will say that it's been a happy one. But within two or three years she had me come to her native Province of British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, no. It's getting better every day. That's the reason why I feel younger every day — because of my good wife. That's right.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If these lawyers would keep out of some of these marriages, things would be happier, perhaps. (Laughter). If these lawyers would keep out of some of these Acts of the Legislature, things would be happier too — and people would be able to understand them better.

There's a place for lawyers, but I'm not going to say where that place should be. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BENNETT: So under the influence of that happy "marriage by consent," she not only brought me to British Columbia but in the few years she got me to be Premier of this province and kept me here longer than any person else. I'm having some difficulty in retiring, but retire I will. There's a time and a place for everything, although I'm not making an announcement of the definite day today.

What I am saying is that in Kelowna, where I know the people so well, where I know the people in Rutland so well and the other areas so well, I would strongly suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister would take a second look there. Don't force them into a shotgun marriage. Don't demand any 60 per cent vote either — 50 per cent plus one. Let the whole district decide — the whole new city.

If you can't get 50 per cent plus one to vote for it, then you're off to a bad start, Mr. Minister. There will be difficulties and instead of the marriage working well, friction will develop. I don't want to see that happen in that wonderful area in which live.

I think that if you gave the vote you then would go up there and tell them about the adjustments that would take place. Tell them about the period of adjustment that will take place between the rural areas and the city and that there will be these adjustment grants for them to work into the city, rather than giving them a forced marriage like that. Then I think it would be acceptable.

Mr. Minister, I am not opposing it in principle; all I am opposing is a principle that says we will do it by a shotgun marriage while I am in favour of giving the people a choice.

In the long period that I have been in public life — 32 years, Mr. Speaker — it has been proven to me that you can trust the people in victory and in defeat. Being elected in that one area with large majorities 11 consecutive times is something that I will always appreciate and for which I will always thank the people of that area.

People can be trusted in the Kelowna area — not only Kelowna city but Rutland and all these areas. These people can be trusted. You don't need to put a shotgun at their heads, Mr. Minister. If you go up and explain it properly — 50 per cent plus one — most likely they'll accept it. But if you don't, friction will develop and that's not good; that is bad.

Trust the people. Don't say that the Minister and the government know best. Trust the local people. Every person in this province has one vote. We trust them at election time. They generally choose correctly, Yes. I think we were in long enough. I think there is a time for a pause. Yes, I'm not afraid to say that. There's a time for a pause.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The trouble there is it's taken them long enough already.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I didn't say that, my friend. But many of the people of the province are saying that.

I appeal again: our whole society is built on the right of choice — so give the people in this large area a chance to vote in the whole area, with no little district allowed to stay out. If 50 per cent plus one passes, go up and explain it.

That is the only appeal that I'll make, Mr. Speaker. I'm not speaking at length and I'm not speaking with any heat. I'm speaking in a reasonable way as I would want to be spoken to if I sat in the seat of the Minister there.

When I was Premier we took many second looks. Take a second look here.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that we have often raised in this House and indeed outside it as well. The first is the original question, the original decision of the Minister coming, I believe, nine days after his party campaigned in municipal elections on the slogan of "Neighbourhood Government." We then get "Big Brother" in Victoria in the person of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) making decisions affecting municipalities in the interior which he claims he had

[ Page 2650 ]

to make because he couldn't trust them to come up with a sensible decision.

Apart from the political irony of having had an NDP "Neighbourhood Government" campaign in other parts of the province followed up by the centralist decision from Victoria of this Minister — apart from that, which I think would make it well worth commenting upon, there are other principles involved that I want to discuss at this time.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) has a thin skin. He feels that this may be hitting close to home.

But what a violation of NDP principle as enunciated by your candidates. What a violation of the idea of having local people making as many local decisions as possible. It was really supreme irony and it's been followed up, of course, by a series of centralist and socialist decisions and bits of legislation which goes' again to show that sometimes some of the people who have been supporting you and who have even run for you have been pretty seriously misled.

With regard to this story of the amalgamation of these two communities, we've always said that you should make every effort to get your point of view across.

If you think, Mr. Minister that your point of view is the right one, as you apparently do, you should make every effort to get it across and then perhaps, as is required apparently by statute, according to the judicial system of this province, you should then call for a vote.

Now under those circumstances, if you try hard and it's a good policy and you have a vote, the chances are I'm sure that the good people of Kamloops and Kelowna and any other community you're interested in would probably agree. If they don't well you can go back to the drawing board. You can try and persuade them. If you can't persuade people what's good for them, something is probably wrong with your eloquence.

The second thing I would like to raise at this time is how you ever drew those boundaries. There are enormous areas in there and I've discussed this with people in the municipal councils of both communities. I was up on the weekend in the riding of the Hon. former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and I discussed it then with elected municipal officials.

They really don't know how you came up with those boundaries that take in some 10,000 acres of prime agricultural land. I just didn't seem to make a great deal of sense. You might want to answer that because that is one of the real problems they worry about. Here you have decisions made in Victoria about boundaries which the people who have been involved with this and concerned with it and close to it on a day-to-day basis simply didn't find rational or realistic at all.

We then get onto the question of the law. Oh sorry, before that I should have mentioned the advisory group that you've got set up in Kelowna. They've been asked to advise, they've been asked to negotiate and yet there is no way that they can finish that by the end of this month. I asked you, Mr. Minister, a couple of questions in the House, through you Mr. Speaker, a short time ago about what will happen if the matters which they've been given to work out by the end of this month are still pending at that time. What provision will be made for continuing these negotiations following the disbanding of the advisory committee?

You didn't answer me at the time and perhaps this is the time. Deal realistically with that problem because, let's face it, you've got a proper problem and it's on the ground up there in Kelowna and you haven't made any effort to answer that question up to now.

If we're into the area where we're dealing with retroactive legislation to wipe out the decisions of the courts. I think you should make some effort to deal with that.

Now on this question of the legislation, I also asked you, Mr. Minister, not so long ago about the decisions made by people in good faith on the basis of the existing law. People have made decisions which have cost them money. Not only money, of course, but their time and effort and a great deal of concern as well.

These people have made decisions and they've acted in good faith on the basis of what the law is. I asked you the other day what you would do with this bill if the interest bill passes; what you do in terms of compensating them? What would you do in terms of helping them out? And you again just simply didn't answer. Now that surely is an area that you should be answering at this time. We don't like retroactive legislation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You had better check the records.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I asked you to give me some names and you couldn't give me any.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I'll get you the names. You just would not say — and it was ruled out of order, as you'll remember, on the grounds of being a hypothetical question. But at this time it's no longer a hypothetical question.

I want to know your attitude toward claims which will result coming out of retroactive legislation such

[ Page 2651 ]

as you are asking us to pass at this time — or at least to approve in principle at this time. You haven't answered that question, Mr. Minister, go back and check the record. You'll find that you haven't answered it.

In any event, we come to the question of retroactive legislation. I would have thought, under the circumstances, where you had a clear decision of the courts dealing with this question telling you that you had to go back and arrange for a vote, that you would have done so. There is no reason given yet by you or anyone else in your department or any Member of the government which indicates why it is necessary to follow this course of the retroactive legislation, rather than following the court ruling and going ahead with a vote.

Now as I said, you could do all the educating you wanted before the vote. You could have had the boundaries of the areas concerned drawn much on the basis of your amalgamation schemes. You could have had that done. You could have arranged a vote, and you could have allowed local democratic processes to work in that area.

You've chosen not to do that. You've chosen what we think is a bill which is bad in principle, mainly because you don't like the decision of the courts to wipe it out — to wipe it out by way of legislation. Obviously, we can do that. This House can pass retroactive legislation. But let's not forget the other night when dealing with the matter of zoning, and a matter of compensation, how the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) railed away against the former government because they passed retroactive legislation when dealing with the Deas Tunnel property.

How he poured scorn on the heads of Social Credit because in an area which is not dissimilar to this they passed such retroactive legislation to get around the decision of the courts. Well if there was money involved, if you were trying to save the government money, we might not approve of it at all, but at least we'd know that there was a reason there — and I was thinking in terms of money that was involved in the case of the tunnel.

In this area, we really have seen no justification for retroactive legislation except your own self-confessed inability to persuade people in the area that what you're doing is good for them. If that's the case, if there is no real reason, if there's no need for such legislation, if there's no good reason for ignoring the decision — in fact not ignoring the decision of the courts, but by retroactive legislation wiping out the whole judicial process as it has taken place on this issue — then I think you should not be passing this type of legislation.

If you have a good reason, put it forward. But up to now, Mr. Minister, you haven't and, until you do, I don't see how a bill of this nature can be approved in principle by this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill is rather an unfortunate one I feel because of the many principles that it raises. First one of course, is that the Minister bungled the situation he was trying to deal with, whatever the merits of that situation, in that he exceeded the jurisdiction provided in the Municipal Act. This always, of course, lowers the confidence that the opposition must have in the decisions of that Minister. So regardless of whether the amalgamation of these two particular areas is good or bad, the manner in which the matter has been handled has been most unfortunate.

The other point that we feel very strongly about is the whole question of freedom of choice and the rights of citizens to chart their own destiny. The Minister has said earlier this afternoon that the reason the municipalities can now go into business is that he places great faith in municipally-elected individuals, and I think he's right. But here again we have this contradiction in Bill 176 that, on the one hand, the Minister is accepting the responsible attitude of the vast majority of municipal office holders and, on the other hand, he's telling them what's good for them in two particular parts of the province. We think this is rather contradictory.

The situation also, as I understand it — and we can go into this more in section discussion in committee — but the two examples that are involved here, Kelowna and Kamloops, are not similar. Maybe the principle of amalgamation is similar but there are points, we feel, which make the situation not comparable between the two cities.

The whole question of amalgamation of course has developed from the modern problem of people settling in peripheral areas around towns and cities where, by either being unorganized or being in a small municipality which can sponge off a larger municipality, you have the smaller areas carrying an unfair share of taxation. Some smaller municipalities, in fact, have an excellent tax base but are being serviced from neighbouring municipalities in various ways. Or if they're not being serviced, there is great disharmony in the whole area because of the question of the use of fire and ambulance and so on.

At that point, Mr. Speaker, I'd say I'm not unsympathetic to the Minister's wish to create a better-integrated and perhaps a more just and fair distribution of services in these two areas.

We would certainly agree with the Leader of the Official Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett) that this action of the Minister represented a very serious precedent. It opens the door, in the opinion of this party, to Ministers — making unfair use of their authority in this. I'm not only referring to those

[ Page 2652 ]

measures which exceed their jurisdiction, but even within the Act, or if this action had been within the Act, we still feel that it negates a basic principle — that municipally, provincially and federally each citizen of this province has one vote and that collectively all these citizens have the right to choose the path that they will follow in terms of their local government.

Sometimes, through referendums, this can be a very frustrating experience, if only by virtue of the fact that such a small percentage of people turn out for referendum votes and you find that 10 per cent of the total population is deciding for the other 90 per cent.

You can rationalize and theorize and complain all you wish, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is that if one particular level of government or if the municipal level of government loses its choice to decide, however poor the turnout at the polls, on a matter as important as its organization of its own local government, this, we feel, is a very serious precedent, as has been said by the Minister in regard to these two areas.

In summation, I would say that we sympathize with the kind of goal that the Minister was trying to reach — a better and fairer distribution of services in these areas. But, set against that well-motivated goal, we have to question not only the fact that he exceeded his jurisdiction, but the fact that it sets a very serious precedent which could be extended to the detriment of citizens in all municipalities, Therefore, on that very basic and fundamental principle, we have to vote against this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of the bill, within the bill two specific areas of population are set out. I think the main concern I have is the principle that is set by the bill.

In dealing with the two particular areas, I find that this is not quite so much a matter of a division of unorganized territory between two other organized territories. In the valleys, particularly the Okanagan Valley and the southern end of the Okanagan Valley, I can see some peculiar problems developing, where there are two municipalities with an area of unorganized territory in between, of setting the particular boundary. I must corroborate and agree with the suggestion of the leader of the official opposition in this respect, that by giving a vote to an area they can get a more amicable agreement as to which community they are going to want to join up with. I agree that for better planning, better management and better administration, this would distinctly be to their advantage.

I can see this principle applying to a number of other areas within the constituency that I represent all the way from the Princeton area through to Christina Lake. We are going to have more and more amalgamation required for their own good and development and so on.

In speaking to this principle that we are going to set in this bill, I would hope that the Minister will — and I am sure he will — take to heart the suggestion made by the Hon. leader of the official opposition. I'm sure that he gives these areas this opportunity first to place their confidence in a vote, and I agree with the 50 per cent plus one procedure, then if they turn it down on that basis we have the further legislation in which we can go along and bring about an amalgamation. I would be very happy to support the bill on that particular basis.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In dealing with the principle of this bill maybe I can categorize it as being unprincipled. We have a government in which the opening speech in this session promises a bill of rights. It is government which has talked about the right of the citizen to sue the Crown. Yet here we have an instance where a Minister of the government, having taken an action by order-in-council and having been thwarted because a citizen was able to get him before the courts of this province, is now coming before this Legislature and saying: "I don't care what the courts have decided. It doesn't matter that I acted outside of the law. I want you to remedy what the courts have done and to confirm the decision that I made in the first instance."

I am afraid that this doesn't bode well for the long-awaited bill of rights and the rights of the citizen to sue the Crown. As a matter of fact, it is probably an extension of what we have seen in other legislation before us this session. The right to access to the Courts has been denied. Here we have a case where, when there is access to the courts available, the Minister brings this bill in in order that he can have his way. I think, based upon that alone, that the bill should be refused second reading.

As a matter of fact, in the previous bill which we debated a few moments ago the Minister in his response talked about the democratic procedures and the democratic processes and why we should give powers to municipal councils. After all, they were democratically elected and could be expected to fulfil their roles responsibly. Yet here in this particular bill we have evidence that he is not prepared to allow democratic processes to apply when dealing with the amalgamation of groups of municipalities.

It is a complete contradiction of the position he took in this chamber within the last half hour. Why?

[ Page 2653 ]

What is the reason for this precipitous action on the part of the Minister? He thinks best — that's right. Elected to office we now have a Minister who for reasons best known to him and to his staff says: "This is what is going to happen and we are going to make it so, regardless of what the law may be. If the law is against us, we'll change the law." That's really "big stick" government against local government — the kind of thing we used to see so often under the previous administration, and which the Hon. Minister, when he was in opposition, used to criticize.

I would hate to see you establish any more commissions in this province, but because of the government penchant for establishing commissions and having them give advice to the government, I would have thought that the Minister this year would have been bringing in amendments to the Municipal Act to provide for the creation of a municipal boundaries commission.

We do have some serious problems in regard to the size and number of local government areas. We have the same thing in school districts. The Minister has serious problems with regard to the expansion of existing municipalities, without even any thought of amalgamation. I would have felt better if the Minister had said we will establish a commission composed of people who will go into these various regions of the province and report back on the changes that should be made, in order that we have municipal areas of proper efficient size. We would have the same thing with school districts. So we would have a basis upon which decisions of this kind can be made.

That commission would also adopt some of the changes that were brought into this House by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) in Bill No. 42, where once having made a study of the problem and determined what if any changes in boundaries there should be, we would hold public hearings in the region to ensure that the citizens were fully informed of the commission's view and of the desirability of change.

Then they would have an opportunity of discussing the matter rationally on the basis of well-founded opinion and information rather than, as is the case now, largely on emotion and local parochial interest. That would be a logical and reasonable approach to the problem which the Minister apparently has with these two groups of municipal areas, and one which the Members of this House could support.

What we have here is only a continuation of existing and completely unsatisfactory techniques for making efficient the areas of local government. Until the Minister sees fit to offer some positive explanation as to why these amalgamations have been chosen and why he has not taken the step to consult with people who are involved and get an expression of their opinion, then we will continue to oppose this bill.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I would very much like to endorse the remarks of the last speaker, Mr. Speaker. You know, John F. Kennedy felt that he had a socialistic missile crisis in Cuba. I'll tell you what we have in B.C. — we have a socialistic mentality crisis.

You are treating the democratic principle of the rule of law as though it had rabies. You are consistently denying the rights of citizens to one of the greatest and most noble freedoms for which men and women for centuries have laid down their lives.

That is the freedom of having ready access to an independent, non-political, dispassionate, objective, fair-minded, justice-producing and equity-producing forum, one that is quite beyond the might of political power, and beyond the might of political pressure and it's called a court, c-o-u-r-t. Courts are found in free societies, and conceivably we are considered to be a free society. They are supposed to be used in a free society, and they have an irreplaceable function in a free society. They have a function that I say is best weighed in philosophical, moral and ethical values, and even considered by some in spiritual values.

Yet in British Columbia, which is proudly called British Columbia because the forefathers of this province in their wisdom, over 100 years ago by proclamation, brought to B.C. the common law of England, and it has a history of checks and balances running way back to Runnymede and 1066 and all that.

But with this bill you are not only ignoring and not only treating with disdain access to the courts, but even worse than that, you are absolutely denying people the right and the heretofore sanctity of the court's decision. I put this to the government, Mr. Speaker: where can there be any certainty in the law hereafter? How can any person have assurance that the legal process will not be avoided by an Act of the Legislature?

You know, even the former administration in their worst days…and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) illustrated this point during a debate earlier in this session about when they brought in Bill 77 in the late Sixties. They went ahead and overrode a court order, and provided an award below that which was determined by an arbitration and confirmed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, by a judgment that was not appealed. The former administration saw fit to bring in a bill awarding a lesser amount, and a considerably lesser amount, in a Highways expropriation case.

But even the former government had the good

[ Page 2654 ]

grace to withdraw that bill and not put it through to final reading. The fact that convinced them to do that was in the face of the very principle of what I am talking about today. How strange it is to me to find that the opposition has cowed under to principle here today.

Either you go ahead and believe in the system of justice and jurisprudence that has developed over the past 900 years or you don't. You don't go ahead and suddenly say, by the snap of a political finger, "we are overriding the courts." This is a terribly dangerous principle, Mr. Speaker, and I would certainly ask the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) — which, regretfully, I appreciate he will not do — I would ask him to withdraw this bill.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

I think good sense was made by all of the other speakers. I am certainly in favour of a 51 per cent vote. I am certainly in favour of permitting these people to exercise their democratic right. It's their democratic right. You're not exercising a democratic right here in forcing it onto them. It's their democratic right to make that decision.

Dealing with the remarks of the Member for South Okanagan, the Hon. Leader of the Loyal Opposition, I agreed with him in the 51 per cent. Sure that was a good idea, but I marvelled at his inconsistency when he so strenuously supported something well in excess of 51 per cent for fluoridation. So it would be a nice thing if we had had some consistency from him on that point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I was moved by the brief tour of English common law given by the Second Member for Point Grey. I would like to remind him of one principle he failed to mention that is running through the web and fabric of English common law — that the first, most unbreakable, inviolable and enshrined principle is that parliament is supreme.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just don't understand what this government has against the vote, democracy. There isn't anything wrong with allowing people to exercise those democratic rights, as has been said by previous speakers. The votes have been taken before in this matter in areas — North Shore I think had a vote — but the people weren't ready at that time for amalgamation.

However, in other areas such as Mission and the Abbotsford-Sumas area the people were ready for it, and it was presented in such a manner by the people who were in support of amalgamation that the vote went through successfully.

I think we should let the people decide, and certainly I agree that the Minister should take a second look and bring the bill back, and let the people decide. Let them have their vote even now.

The court is supreme, Madam Speaker, and I don't understand how a court order can be wiped out so easily, just with a brush of the pen. Madam Speaker, I think when a person makes a mistake, even if he is a Minister of the Crown, he should accept that he made a mistake and admit that he made a mistake, and then do something about it — not pass legislation to erase that mistake, by all means.

The courts have said that the Minister made a mistake. He knows that he has made a mistake. People in the area have said that he made a mistake, Even though that mistake is legally wiped out, Madam Speaker, the mistake is still there, and there is nothing that you can do that will alter that.

Madam Speaker, on the one hand just a few moments ago, in this House, the Minister said that he wanted to give local elected representatives more responsibility. On the other hand, about 15 or 20 minutes later…I am not drawing your attention to the clock, by any means; I was just referring to the Minister's comments. It doesn't do any good to draw your attention to the clock any more in this House anyway.

Madam Speaker, just a few minutes later he takes away the responsibility of the locally-elected officials, and the people as well. I just don't understand how this Minister can stand for democracy in one bill and stand against democracy in another bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Kamloops.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I have been waiting very patiently for several days for this debate to come up as I knew it would. I was quite interested in some of the remarks that have been made so far. I'll do like the Member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and stay with my own region. I agree with him it's a beautiful city; we are planning to take it in on our next boundary expansion.

I agree with my colleague from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) when he says that through the fabric of the law comes the idea that parliament is supreme.

Someone in the Kamloops area had to make a decision that was obvious over the years could not be made on a regional basis. Whether the decision would be rational or irrational doesn't matter; the decision would never have been made.

I have been living in the Brocklehurst area for 16 years, and I wasn't given a vote on the amalgamation

[ Page 2655 ]

of Valleyview. With a nice little residential area and a very nice commercial area and a nice industrial base, of course they would want to stay separate. They didn't have a choice in the corporation vote of Brocklehurst where I live — which is a bedroom community containing only one industry which the provincial government was keeping for themselves, the oil refinery.

Then when the vote came up for the incorporation of Dufferin, which I understand was covered fairly well in this House in years past, we had a situation where 761 people were incorporated on 7,000 acres, which is more land than the cattle get in that dry country, where feed isn't very good.

We had quite a few problems. In these surrounding areas we were known as parasites for a long time. I couldn't understand how the people in any of these surrounding areas, incorporated or not…because there are other areas.

Westside is now over the 5,000 population and sitting within view of the other four incorporated areas which are within touching distance of each other. I bought the land in Brocklehurst to live on because Kamloops had none left, and after Valleyview and Dufferin were incorporated on either side and Brocklehurst to the north, there was nowhere that Kamloops could expand for either industry or residential use.

Many attempts were made through the regional district, through group meetings of mayors and councils, to try to come to some common decision on such things as water and sewers and other things that were needed to put them on a basis that every area could afford. Thousands of dollars were spent in studies. All had to shelved because one of the communities would opt out.

Once again the cries of "parasite" and various types of disturbers were flying. I couldn't understand how we in the outer areas could be parasites when all the shopping and all the offices at that time for insurance and services of all kinds were in Kamloops and all of us were spending all our money in that city.

The only way that I can feel that we were in any way using the facilities of Kamloops without proper payment was in recreation. We didn't have recreation facilities and Kamloops did, and we and our children made use of them over the years.

The boundaries of the city are going to be, I understand, just slightly under the acreage of Surrey in size. But it gives control and planning now for this: area that they've never had before.

I wish I'd kept the old papers because they covered these meetings of the various areas quite well when they had combined meetings. Almost every one of them ended in a fight and name-calling. The Mayor of Kamloops, I believe, has been referred to as a "bulldozer;" the mayor of my area, who I think is a very nice person, has been classed as a "fence-sitter;" the Mayor of Valleyview and some of the councillors have been called "isolationists."

If the time had ever come around when they had got together to agree on possibly having a vote, the small percentage of those who, for their own particular political or other reasons, wanted no part of this would have done such a good job over the two or three months in selling the whole idea of amalgamation down the river — the Thompson in this case, which I understand is getting polluted with other things — that there would have been no hope of the people in that area coming to a rational decision.

Kamloops has a dual taxation system. The story would have gone around, as it always has, about the domination of the downtown core of Kamloops. There would have been the usual stories of the rise in taxes.

What happens on this amalgamation of the area — which is a true amalgamation and not a boundary expansion of the City of Kamloops — is that we now have an industrial base; we now have land which can be used in future for industry; we have an advisory committee of 15 people drawn from all the councils — and they nominated their people and regional district representatives. Perhaps we can get some sanity into the area, These people have done a tremendous job. I wouldn't want to say that they were all in favour of amalgamation; there were some who definitely were not. But they realized it had to come, just as I realized it had to come at two ratepayers' association meetings in Brocklehurst before Brocklehurst incorporated.

The main reasons brought forth by all speakers at that incorporation was that one day this whole area would be one city. When this happens we want an organized council to stick up for the rights and the needs of the people in the Brocklehurst area. This I agreed with and I supported the incorporation of the area on the day we voted.

If we were to go to some system now that decided that we would be another four or five years as separate areas, it would mean that we couldn't refuse incorporation to Westsyde with over 5,000 people, where people are hauling water in their cars for three or four months a year for their use — we couldn't have reasonably refused incorporation to the Dallas and Bamhardvale area, where there are three private water systems — one water improvement district and 60 families without water. This is the type of madness that has been going on in that area and I believe the only way to correct it was by legislation from this House, where all of these matters could come out in the open and be discussed.

A vote in that area perhaps would work well; but in the last municipal elections in Brocklehurst, 11 per cent of the population turned out to vote. I know that if a vote were held there would have to be a one

[ Page 2656 ]

or two-month period which would give the people that I consider professional saboteurs the chance to wreak their havoc, to talk about the dual tax system of Kamloops, the domination, "your taxes are all going to go up" — every excuse that they could possibly put into the reasons why they felt that amalgamation should not go through; at the same time concealing in many cases their real reasons.

The people of the area would not know what they were voting on. It would be impossible for them to understand once these people had finished sowing their seeds of distrust — and there's enough distrust there now.

We're now in a position where there is a population of 52,000 and two separate surveys are within 5 per cent of each other saying that we will have a population of 100,000 people in 10 years' time. An expansion like this has got to be planned for from one central area, services have got to be planned for, commercial and industrial areas have got to be properly laid out. Even though I'm one of the "parasites" from the outlying area, I am looking forward, Madam Speaker, to the day of amalgamation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaking to this bill on the amalgamation of Kamloops and Kelowna areas, I'd like first of all to point out to the House that there's a great principle involved here in municipal government, and that is that always in the( past in this Province of British Columbia people gathered together and came and requested amalgamations or incorporations and then a vote was given. In this case the Minister has seen fit that he knows better than the local people in both these areas and he has ordered a forced amalgamation and boundary extension in the other case.

I take strong exception to this. I don't think this is the way for municipalities to operate. I think it's a bad base to start from and it will cause trouble for a long time to come.

I might say that I certainly am in favour of the overall aim but not the method that is being attained here in this bill. By that I mean that possibly some time in the future this should happen, but only when the people affected have their democratic right given to them — and that is by vote.

Now there are two different problems here, as mentioned earlier by another speaker. I'll deal first with my version of Kamloops where we are getting three incorporations into the City of Kamloops. This is quite a bit different from the Kelowna situation.

Under the present Municipal Act and I don't think, Madam Speaker, too many Members realize this — when you are dealing with amalgamation of three or more municipalities, 50 per cent is all you require of an overall vote. It's not 60 per cent. It's 50 per cent. If the City of Kamloops, being the core city, can't get a 50 per cent vote in this area, possibly they don't deserve it.

I think that a lot of times the municipal councils are very poor salesmen. This is the reason that these votes fail. I have had personal experience on several boundary extensions and I have seen them go both ways and been able to analyze them firsthand.

The other thing in speaking to the principle of this bill, Madam Speaker, is, as I have outlined, that there's a distinct different direction here. I am wondering who's next. Is the next the North Shore, for instance, which I would think is probably a far more urgent case than Kamloops or Kelowna? There are a lot more people involved. Or is it Prince George or Nanaimo? Are they coming next?

The Minister said when he spoke, as I understand it, that from now on he's going to bring it to this Legislature. Well, I suggest that's what he should have done with this one long before now, after it's broken all the laws of the province and been verified by all the different levels of lawmakers. First of all, I don't think the UBCM, the provincial body of the municipalities, ever suggested this should happen to these two cities and their adjoining areas. The supreme court found it illegal, the appeal court upheld the supreme court and now, Madam Speaker, we have the Government of Canada saying the same thing.

I'd like to read to you an article that appeared in the Vancouver Province of April 12 about what the Minister of Indian Affairs has got to say about this:

"Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chretien has protested B.C.'s plans to include a large part of the Kamloops Indian Reserve in the proposed new City of Kamloops. Kamloops-Cariboo MP Len Marchand, Executive-Assistant to Chretien, said in a telephone interview from Ottawa Wednesday that a telegram was sent to the B.C., Municipal Affairs Minister James Lorimer.

"'Both myself and the Minister are opposed to any inclusion of any Indian lands in a municipality without a vote by the Indian people,' Marchand said. 'It is illegal.' He said, 'Any such move is bound to generate hard feelings and an air of mistrust by the Indian people.'

"The portion of the reserve at issue contains an industrial subdivision with more than 30 business operations. These firms currently pay provincial taxes that would be redirected to the new city after May 1.

"In Victoria Lorimer said the decision may well create some bad feelings among Indian people on the reserve but he said the province has the authority to collect taxes for non-Indian use of reserve land. Additionally, the province has the Power to transfer its responsibilities to municipal

[ Page 2657 ]

governments and this is what is happening in Kamloops."

Well, Madam Speaker, I think that even if this bill is passed, it will again be found illegal as far as the Indian lands are concerned. We're dealing with a senior government there. I don't think they have to go along with this bill at all. They are the senior government.

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) of a remark he made when I spoke in this Legislature on February 3 on the throne speech. In his reply he said that I was advocating civil disobedience in this province. I wonder what he says now. I'd like to hear from him now in view of what has happened through the courts and to see who was right and who was wrong, when I said at that time that it was an illegal act on the part of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He broke every law in the province in this forced amalgamation.

Madam Speaker, I can't understand what the Minister and the people who are in favour of the forced amalgamation of these two areas are afraid of. If they have advantages — and I think they probably do — why don't they get off their backsides and go out and sell this? In the case of Kamloo vs they only have to sell it to 50 per cent of the citizens involved. In the case of Kelowna….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. FRASER: Right. You could amend the Act here and make it 50 per cent for Kelowna.

I'd like to make another observation, Madam Speaker. I don't think we should get carried away on this. What is so efficient about bigness and greatness? That's what will happen here. You'll build up within five years a bureaucracy twice as big as you have in all the jurisdictions now put together. That invariably happens.

I note that the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) never mentioned this, but there was a boundary extension of the City of Kamloops just a few years ago to take in the Town of North Kamloops. I recall that administration quite well. It had a lower tax level than the City of Kamloops. They did it by vote. They were voted in and told that their taxes wouldn't go up.

In fact, their taxes have practically doubled from the old Town of North Kamloops being part of the City of Kamloops. I don't think that they are as efficient an administration as you would be led to believe. With their getting more responsibilities with this forced amalgamation, no doubt the taxes will continue to spiral in that area.

The whole bill is completely unsatisfactory. Certainly we request, Madam Speaker, that this bill be withdrawn. Give these people their democratic right, which is the right to vote for their own destiny.

Just in conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would say that this is a black day in British Columbia for the municipalities.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Before I carry on I would ask the Minister, through you, if he had listened to the debate and taken other matters under consideration and is going to give the people the right to a vote in that area. If that is so, then I won't make a speech. I wonder if the Minister is prepared to give us a commitment.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I don't mind why he decides to change his mind, just as long as he changes his mind, Mr. Minister. I take it from the smile on his face that he isn't going to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you almost persuaded? (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: I listened to the debate and most of it has been on the principles that are being violated in this bill. I concur fully but I won't repeat it. I also listened to the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who is a lawyer, and how he dissected the English law and talked about the web and fabric of the law and then ended up by saying that parliament is supreme.

I would just advise that Member that parliament is for people, not to prove who's supreme. People are supreme, Mr. Member. That's where these two sides divide. You believe parliament is supreme. The Social Credit and the other opposition Members believe that people are supreme and that we're here to serve the people and not the parliament.

I can see why the Minister is in trouble when the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) gets up and condemns the people that he represents. I just wonder how he could be of so little faith, Madam Speaker. He won't trust the people to a vote and yet they elected him. That's probably more truth than fiction, when he has a reason for that decision.

Why don't the government and the Minister and that Member trust the people? To hear that Member talk about the very people that he represents in the specific context of his constituency and many of the people who voted for him, and call them professional saboteurs because they want a vote and their democratic rights, is astonishing. To me it smacks of tsarism. This bill, in its democratic erosion, smacks of tsarism.

[ Page 2658 ]

When we listen to those Members talk, we wonder who, in fact, are the professional saboteurs. Who is he, as a Member of parliament, to judge whether one individual is a professional saboteur or a very sincere person who wants the right to exercise his democratic rights? It brings cause for serious concern, Madam Speaker, as to why this bill is before the House with its sweeping erosions of principles.

The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) talked about the inclusion of Indian lands without a vote and without consultation. We wonder if the Minister has spoken to those Indian bands concerned. If not, why not? If the little carrot that was drawn across this legislative floor the other day giving the Indians a retroactive homeowner grant was what they got in return for the erosion of their rights and their right to consultation — if this is so, it is just typical of the type of carrot that this government is drawing across the floor in order to gain more and more power.

The Minister said that Kelowna was strangled by the growth around it. I would suggest that the area around the new Kelowna, Madam Speaker, is going to be strangled by this administration and by the demands of this administration for the future of Kelowna.

As the Hon. Member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) said, shotgun marriages don't work at the best of times. But when the partners for the shotgun marriage are chosen as well, than it has little hope of being successful.

I want to talk more in specifics in relation to part of the area that I represent. Not only have they not had a vote on this situation and have had no explanation, but they have not even had representation on the committee that the Minister forced into a position of having to make recommendations to him.

I brought up some of these points before, Madam Chairman, and I won't repeat them. But I think there are some points that should be read into the record and should be brought to the Minister's attention again and again and again, if necessary.

He should note that the incorporation of the boundaries that were originally suggested by the provincial government and by the Minister himself covered a considerably smaller area than those that were set down by the Minister himself on March 22 and in a letter dated at that time. Mr. Minister, through you Madam Speaker, when you advised them of the original boundaries as a suggested boundary, this was more acceptable than the final boundary that you yourself imposed on the people without advice.

Madam Speaker, this is fact. Let me quote to you, Mr. Minister.

"It should be specifically noted that the boundaries that were fixed by the Minister, with the exception of the Winfield industrial park, were considered by the incorporation advisory committee of the new City of Kelowna as working boundaries only."

Those boundaries didn't even include the Indian reserve and the Winfield industrial park.

When there was some suggestion to the Minister as to whether it would be advisable or not to even look at the inclusion of the Winfield area — and the extraction of a tooth out of Zone A as a possible boundary, there were stringent recommendations to go with it, should it be accepted. Other than that, it was made clear to the Minister by the committee that they would not recommend it.

The Minister chose to ignore their recommendation, to ignore the demands that must go with the area if it was included and then included the area, even after the setting of the boundaries himself. Mr. Minister, I'd like to advise you that the committee felt that boundaries which could be used for making calculations for services that might be needed in the area — and those were the working boundaries suggested by the Minister.

HON. MR. LORIMER: You're way off.

MRS. JORDAN: It was not the intention of the committee, Mr. Minister, and you should note that it's not.

HON. MR. LORIMER: You're way off base.

MRS. JORDAN: It's in a brief submitted to you, Mr. Minister, which I would challenge you to quote in this House. It was submitted to you on February 19, to have the working boundaries fixed as the boundaries of the new municipality. February 19 was when the committee made their position very clear to this Minister and his department.

It should be noted that the brief suggests the working boundaries be contingent upon receipt of firm commitments from the provincial government for immediate and upon receipt of firm commitments from the provincial government for immediate and outline of that brief.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs replied to that brief on March 15. And what did he say? I quote:

"I have now had the opportunity of reviewing in detail the brief of the advisory committee. Those aspects that touch on the area of responsibility of other departments have been discussed with my colleagues. While specific responses at this time cannot be made to all of the requests put forward, those items not being dealt with now will be responded to as soon as possible."

That Minister…

HON. MR. LORIMER: Wrong again.

[ Page 2659 ]

MRS. JORDAN: …nor from other departments. This Minister is asking these people to take a blank cheque in the boundary extension and particularly for those that are included against their will in the Ellison-Winfield area.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Rubbish!

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Minister says he's made a commitment. Let's have a look at it.

Highways: the committee suggests that they make concessions and grants in this area. And the Minister says,

"The province is prepared to enlarge upon the maintenance and construction programme considerations set forth in the principles of incorporation and recognition of the responsibility that the new municipality will be assuming in this area. The Minister of Highways has assured me that an on-going programme of maintenance and construction will be continued in the new municipality under the following arrangements:

"For the area of the new city which at present is under provincial jurisdiction, the province will continue to be responsible for maintenance and construction of roads and associated services for a period of three years, commencing with the date of the incorporation of the new municipality."

Now isn't that a big deal? One area is 9,000 acres of agricultural land which is under provincial jurisdiction now, which has all its roads maintained and built by the province; and the big deal for them being included is that they'll get three years more of maintenance.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Wrong again.

MRS. JORDAN: Now I ask you, Madam Speaker. You talk about a blank cheque. This is certainly one.

What else does he say?

"This programme will be followed by an on-going programme of continuing provincial responsibility for road construction, maintenance and associated services for such period of time as is necessary in the defined rural area of the municipality."

Big deal. Not one concrete commitment. If there's going to be a defined rural area in a municipality, why not leave it a rural area as is, and allow them to have the same benefits and responsibilities that they have now?

What the Minister is saying in effect is, "We are taking you, we are constricting you into the city, even though you're an agricultural area. We're going to increase your taxes, and we'll be real big and continue our road service for three more years or perhaps a little longer."

You know, Madam Speaker, I would just challenge the Minister to stand up in this House and say if he lived in that area that he would accept this sort of nonsensical proposal — and without a vote.

What does he do? He talks about community planning. This area has a regional district. They now have a good planner and they have had the misfortune to have hired a bad planner before. The tsar of this legislation should be the first to acknowledge that there are bad planners, just as any other industry or any other profession has its bad apples. But you don't throw out the whole industry and the whole profession.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Bad oranges, not bad apples.

MRS. JORDAN: "In the community plan the Department of Municipal Affairs will assist with its staff and otherwise in the development of a community plan. We are presently examining the committee's request for the development of a base mapping programme."

What's to happen to their own regional district planning department that is now really getting on its feet? Why should they have to accept a municipal plan designed in Victoria without consultation with themselves and without their right to vote?

In speaking of the Ellison and Winfield areas, which are being forced in without a vote and without representation, if the Minister's reason for incorporating them — and he has yet to give a decent reason — is that lie wants a rural, agricultural area planned, why does he have to include them in the city? Why not allow them to lease the planning service under the regional district auspices and to pay for it that way? It's questionable that they need a plan, as I'll point out later on.

It goes on, Madam Speaker, to new highway construction.

"The highway construction proposals set forth in the brief are being given favourable consideration, but at this time I cannot announce the specific projects that will be undertaken, as the estimates of the Department of Highways are still before the House. My question to the Minister is: The Minister of Highways' estimates have now passed;

Has the Minister advised the committee and the people of this area what in fact their commitments are going to be in relation to highways? The matter of highway development in the Okanagan is an extremely sensitive issue. We have a $2 million study going on in relation to our resources and environment. Is the Minister prepared to hold public hearings and let the people have an input, or is he going to blast the highway through the Okanagan where the two cities want — the one that I represent, Vernon — and Kelowna — which would blast the highway right through the middle of this rural and agricultural…?

[ Page 2660 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member. I think you're trespassing into the department of another Minister, i.e. Highways. Would you confine your remarks to this bill, please?

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I didn't intend to do it. I brought it up because it is part of this Minister's letter to the advisory committee. However, I think I made my point that what consideration are these people going to have for their rights. They're a rural area. They're being incorporated into the city. Is the Minister going to do as the two major conflicting cities want — blast the highway through the middle — or will he give us a commitment to hold public hearings and to point out the alternate routes in cooperation with his colleague so that the smaller group of people will have a say?

I would support him on that. Because although I have the honour to represent Vernon, they would just love to dominate this little area — not unkindly, but in the natural course of their supposed responsibilities of council.

Public Works; a matter that had to be discussed, Madam Speaker. What did they get to their answer for the suggestions of what would be fair and equitable under this forced amalgamation for public work services? He says, and I quote: "It is recognized that as the new municipality assumes a greater responsibility for highway maintenance" — a greater responsibility for highway maintenance; they're going to have' to pay for it — "that it will need improved public works yard facilities."

Does he offer to help with these? No. He says "However, as these facilities are traditionally a local government responsibility, I'm not prepared to commit the province to a specific grant structure as proposed by the committee." Every question they ask in carrying out the responsibilities that they were charged to do by this Minister has not been answered.

What he does say about public works facilities is lovely: "The government has introduced amendments to the Municipal Finance Authority Act at the current session of the Legislature which will materially assist in the financing of these facilities." What that means is that they can impose a greater tax load on themselves while they assume the responsibility for roads that the government should have and pay over 8 per cent interest for it. That's a big benefit for a forced amalgamation without a vote.

Then it goes on to administration and justice and again, very little in the way of a concrete answer. But what about the area of Winfield? That zone that's got the tooth taken out of it now. What about the administration of their justice? Is the new City of Kelowna going to pay that? Are they going to have their own police centre? Or are they going to be forgotten? The Minister doesn't answer any of these questions.

It goes on to welfare, and welfare is the one area where they got half an answer from the other Minister. Sewage treatment, the same thing. Is the Minister aware that Hiram Walker — and I don't beat any specific drum for Hiram Walker, whom he is forcing into the City of Kelowna and taking right out of the community of Winfield — has its own sewage treatment plant, its own pollution control programme and a highly acceptable programme to the Province of British Columbia's Pollution Control Board, and that that will have been a facility that could have been used by the community of Winfield, should it have chosen to form a municipality.

He goes on about administration facilities, again recognizing that there will be a need for expanded civic facilities. "However as these facilities are traditionally a local government responsibility, I am not prepared to commit."

Fire protection: he says, "While it is recognized that there will be a need for expenditure of funds to expand the present fire-fighting services available to the municipality, I am not prepared to commit the province to a specific grant structure." What about the fire service for the rural area that is being taken into the new City of Kelowna? The cost of that is going to be incredible, and yet the Minister will not give any commitment of assistance. And what about the fire service for the municipality or to the area of Winfield and Okanagan Centre? The Minister is taking their tax base away from them. How are they ever going to be able to provide this service for themselves without the benefit of the tax base of their industrial site?

Taxation:

"The recommendation of the committee that the assessment of farmland remain static is not acceptable. It is the announced intention of the government to review and revise present farm assessment and taxation policies. The improvements that result from new policy will be a substantial benefit to farmers and orchardists." And yet he's taking in approximately 9,000 acres in one lump area of nothing but rural land, and they are going to have to pay an increased tax assessment. And it goes on and on, Madam Speaker.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Wrong again!

MRS. JORDAN: Well if I'm wrong, so are all the people out there and so is the advisory committee, because no one knows what's going on. The advisory committee just cannot answer their questions, because this government will not answer the advisory committee's questions. You're forcing an amalgamation without a vote. You're not letting them know one little bit of what's going on — what are going to be the benefits and what are going to be the

[ Page 2661 ]

responsibilities.

But the area of Winfield and Ellison I must go into more specifically, because they are the group that are taken in without representation. After the Minister made his announcement of the amalgamation and sent out his working boundaries, which didn't include this area, one of his department went to the area and advised them that they would be having to form their own municipality.

This was a shock to the people, but this is fair enough. If it's deemed proper that this should be looked at, very well and good. The people gave the Minister a commitment, I gave the Minister the commitment that if they wished them to look at forming a municipality, they would do so. They would find out the pros and cons, they would set up their committee and they would investigate the benefits and the responsibilities and take it to the people. But while this is hanging over their heads, Madam Speaker, this whole section, their vital tax base, has been whipped right out of what would be a major portion of their municipality, and right out of their regional zone.

On February 25, Mr. John McCoubrey, who was the regional district representative — the Minister says, "Oh," in a most contemptuous manner. This man was elected by the people to be their regional district representative and he, if the Minister was going to include any of this zone in the boundary extension, should have been included in that committee. He happens to have the respect of the people, Mr. Minister, and he happens to be concerned about the rights of the people in this area.

He says, in writing to the Incorporation Advisory Committee:

"As much concern is being expressed by many residents of Zone A about the suggested inclusion of the area, or any portion thereof, within the proposed boundaries of the new City of Kelowna, I felt it to be my responsibility to submit an objection on their behalf.

"The boundaries, as first proposed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Hon. James Lorimer, did not include Zone A, as I previously pointed out to the Minister.

"The Members of the Advisory Committee are all representatives of the various areas that were included. It is felt that it would be outside of the committee's terms of reference to consider any extension beyond the original proposal.

"A representative of the Municipal Affairs Department, Mr. C. Woodward, stated at a meeting held to consider the suggested inclusion of Zone A that to do so would create a city that would be very unwieldy. The distance from the Okanagan Bridge to the north boundary would be over 25 miles. In Zone A there are 129.6 square miles, 82,944 acres, most of the usable land being agricultural, Zone A is fifteen-and-a-half times larger than the present City of Kelowna.

"Mr. Woodward also stated that he could foresee forming a separate municipality in the future. There has been a suggestion that only the industrial section be taken into the new boundaries, If this were done, it could remove for all time the formation of a municipality in this area."

That was on February 25. The Minister knows that the committee did not advise the inclusion of this area. On March 22, the Minister received a letter saying:

"Sir:

"In a radio news broadcast at noon today it was stated that you had announced the boundaries for the new City of Kelowna, and included therein was the industrial site located in Winfield, which is part of Zone A of the Regional District of Central Okanagan. When you set up the Incorporation Advisory Committee to advise you about the boundaries, you appointed the representatives for each of the areas to be affected to participate in discussions.

"As the elected director of Zone A, which was not represented on the committee, I feel obliged to protest as strongly as possible to the inclusion of any portion of Winfield in the new city. By reducing the tax base of Zone A by approximately 50 per cent, you have removed the possibility of forming a municipality here, as was suggested by Mr. Woodward, for many years to come. There will be over a five mile gap between the city's north boundary and that portion of Winfield that you have taken.

"I submitted a brief to the incorporation committee expressing the concern of the residents of this area when this possibility was first mentioned. Do people affected not have the right to be heard?

This was March 22, and it's my understanding that Mr. McCoubrey was on his way to Victoria the day that the Minister announced the boundary extensions including this area, and that he was aware that Mr. McCoubrey was on his way.

On March 30, after not having received any answer from the Minister or his department, a wire was sent to the Hon. James Lorimer, Minister of Municipal Affairs. It says:

"There is still confusion as to who is responsible for the suggestion that the industrial park in Winfield be included in the boundaries of the city of Kelowna. At the incorporation advisory committee meetings held march 27, it was emphatically denied by many members of that committee that any suggestion of including any portion of Winfield was ever

[ Page 2662 ]

made to you and you were to be so informed by telegram.

"I respectfully ask on behalf of zone a of regional district of central Okanagan residents that you make further study before any action is taken.

"An acknowledgement of receipt of this wire will be appreciated."

This is from one of the neighbours and one of the working partners of this appointed committee. That committee denied any recommendation to this Minister of the inclusion of this boundary as it stands and suggests that if any suggestion of an expansion of a boundary was ever made, they were to be tied rigidly to certain concessions from the government — otherwise they were not to be accepted.

Now, the Minister says this is wrong. Is he suggesting that Mr. McCoubrey is not telling the truth, and that his own advisory committee is not telling the truth?

This sort of action pits neighbour against neighbour, Madam Speaker. This is a small community, it's a small valley and the Minister has no right to try to impose his own philosophical idea on these people, to do it without a vote, and to do it in a manner that is pitting neighbour against neighbour.

Mr. McCoubrey wrote again on April 3, 1973 to the secretary of the advisory committee,

"As the elected director for Area A, I object to Area A not having representation on the advisory committee whenever that district was being mentioned at meetings. As a result I was invited to attend a boundary subcommittee at the city hall .on the afternoon of January 30, and I expected to be advised whenever any part of Area A was discussed. On February 25 a brief was presented to this committee so that the record would show our opposition to Area A even being considered. I was informed that a copy of that brief would be forwarded to the Minister.

"On March 22, a news release quoted Hon. J. Lorimer stating the boundaries would include the industrial part of Area A, as recommended by this committee. I wrote to Mr. Lorimer that day outlining our objection to this action being taken without proper representation. On March 27 this committee passed a resolution asking the Minister to state that this board was in no way responsible for the announcement outlining the new boundaries."

Does the Minister deny that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you are continuing to ask the Minister questions.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sorry.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He may not answer at this stage of debate. He can only answer them in third reading. May I suggest that you either stop asking him questions, or do not criticize him when he does not respond to them.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker, my point is that the Minister can answer these questions when he is winding up the debate, and you are right on when you say he can't answer the questions. That's what the concern is all about in this area. The Minister is not answering the people's questions and I thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for bringing it up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am referring to the rules of the House, that in one point in your discussion you said that the Minister won't answer. He cannot answer, may I submit to you.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I don't mind if he answers me, but I hope he will answer the people of that area. But he did wake up and say "What?" So I will repeat.

"On March 22 a news release quoted Hon. J. Lorimer stating the boundaries would include the industrial part of Area A as recommended by this committee. I wrote to Mr. Lorimer that day outlining our objection to this action being taken without proper representation. On March 27, this committee…"

This is the advisory committee.

"…passed a resolution asking the Minister to state that this board was in no way responsible for the announcement outlining the new boundaries at that time I asked that a telegram be sent to him quoting that resolution.

"However, a news release made after March 27 did not sufficiently clarify the situation. On March 30 I sent a telegram to Mr. Lorimer asking for such clarification, and I read that. To date no reply has been received to letter or telegram.

"As I have a map dated February 19 showing the boundaries to be the same as those shown on the map circulated by this committee on March 22, I feel that information was not given to me as soon as it was received, so that our objection would have been submitted before the March 22 announcement.

"Many individuals have sent letters to Mr. Lorimer objecting to the action taken by the government. Although I respect the sincerity of most members of this committee, I cannot help but think the recommendations have come from somewhere."

Mr. Minister, through you Madam Speaker, you've had every opportunity to take a second look, to give these people representation and to have a vote in the area.

[ Page 2663 ]

I'd like to speak on behalf of the people of Ellison which is the 9,000 acres of agricultural land that is between Winfield and the Indian Reserve that's taken into the city and the Rutland area. Let me read you what they have to say because they put it better than anyone else.

This is to the Hon. James Lorimer:

"The original boundaries" — and I won't read the preliminaries — "of the new City of Kelowna as outlined by your department did not include the District of Ellison."

Mr. Minister, you were a winner, through you Madam Speaker.

To begin with, in this sense, why didn't you go back to your original position? Because they accepted your original boundaries. However, they say:

"The Interim Advisory Committee for incorporation of the new City of Kelowna has recently suggested enlarging these boundaries which in part would include the District of Ellison."

The Minister knows that that's not so. But they go on to say:

"We do not wish to be included in the new City of Kelowna for the following reasons:

"1. The District of Ellison is a rural community having a large area of agricultural land and a very small population. We have no residential subdivision, no industry and no commercial enterprises." Isn't it reasonable that they would want to stay in a rural area?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

"2. We have nothing to offer the new city except our farm taxes, and consequently we feel that the new city has nothing to gain by having the Ellison District within its confines. No Member of the Interim Advisory Committee has been able to offer any logical reasons for the inclusion of our district. Only one answer is forthcoming. We want to be able to control the development of as much land as possible."

No wonder the Members of the Interim Advisory Committee can't give them any answers — because they're not getting any answers from the government. If the one answer the Minister is giving these people is that they want to control the land development, then as I suggested before, do it through the Regional District. If it's his intention to disband the Regional District Planning Board, then do it on a lease basis through the new City of Kelowna. But don't take a completely rural area which is on the edge of the boundary into the new City of Kelowna.

"3. We are unable to see any benefit to be derived from being in the city. We do not require sewers, street lights, sidewalks, storm sewers, extra policing. At the same time, we pay our share for garbage disposal, community recreation, hospital service and for schools.

Now really what could be more logical than that question, and the reason for not including them?

"4. They say, we are geographically disjointed from the larger urban areas of Kelowna and Rutland. Thus, we and Ellison do not share the same problems as those two heavily urbanized areas.

"5. The District of Ellison was not included in the metropolitan sewage study …"

Mr. Minister, I hope that I am having your attention because you should know this.

"The District of Ellison was not included in the metropolitan sewage study authorized by the Regional District of Central Okanagan in 1970 because of the relatively high absorption quality of the soil, gravel and coarse grain material and the consequent absence of sanitary sewage disposal problems."

With an area of 9,000 acres and approximately 100 families in a rural, all-farming area, is the Minister going to propose that they have to become part of the Kelowna sewage system? That surely couldn't be any reason for including them in the new City. They go on to say:

"The northern boundaries as you originally set forth are sensible and we feel the new city will have enough to handle in the next few years, without taking in large, sparsely-populated rural areas. We do not feel that this was or is your intent."

You're a winner again, Mr. Minister, if you'll just let your head guide you a little bit, through you Mr. Speaker. I just don't know where this whole inclusion came from. Then they go on to say:

"We attach a map of the Ellison District which describes its land mass and aerial photographs to illustrate our description of the area."

The attached petition is signed only by property owners.

"Mr. Minister, we as owner-residents respectfully request that you give this petition your earnest and favourable consideration and allow the land of the Ellison District to remain outside the boundaries of the City of Kelowna."

And they include a map and it says:

"The land area which is described in this petition is 8,960 acres — approximately 9,000 acres of rural land. Ninety-three per cent of the resident land-owners are in favour of the petition; seven owners could not be contacted; six resident land-owners were not in favour of the petition."

I see the Minister has got up and gone out.

I hope the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan), through you Mr. Speaker, would prevail upon his colleague to go back to his originally-

[ Page 2664 ]

suggested boundary to allow the people of this area — this rural area — to remain rural. If in fact there is a feeling that the area of Winfield should become a municipality, then allow the people to set up a committee and investigate the feasibility of this.

Don't incorporate 9,000 acres of bordering agricultural land in a municipality, under the best of circumstances, and don't do this without a vote and don't do it without representation.

I've asked the Minister to listen to the pleas that have been made before this House by every Member of the Opposition; to trust the people, give them a vote, and to trust the electorate to trust his appointed committee not to take away the tax base.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister to answer these questions. I'd ask him again as nicely, kindly as I can to reconsider his position.

I also would point out to the House, with your leave, Mr. Speaker — that we have some of the members of the advisory committee in the gallery. I won't name them because I can't see them all but I think Alderman Stewart and Alderman Kane and I think Mayor Ross — who come to think of it is not in the gallery right now and the Minister is out of the House. Isn't that interesting, Mr. Speaker?

But I would ask the House to welcome these members to the gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. During this session as a new Member I've watched bill after bill go through this House in second reading, which erodes the public of judicial protection. Here we have a bill — almost the very last bill — in second reading — which had to be backdated to correct a mistake. It was a mistake which had to be taken to the courts by the public for their protection. And now we bypass the courts to prevent the people from having their say.

I believe that this is bad legislation and frankly I wonder what's next.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 174 — and I'll be brief — is a bill to validate an illegal action, a regrettable….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: 176. Pardon me. I accept the Minister's correction. But this is a bill to validate an illegal action, a regrettable one taken in haste by the government. The Minister is now prepared to compound the illegality of this forced merger by using the weight of the government majority to ramrod this bill through the House. Is this the democratic process? Is this the process that the NDP spoke so fondly and so loudly about before they were elected to the office of government?

Never before in municipal affairs have people been forced against their will into an amalgamation without a vote, without the choice put to them by the democratic process. It's a sad commentary on the position of the NDP regarding the municipalities in this province.

Who's next, Mr. Minister? Fort Nelson and Fort St. John? Are you going to amalgamate them the same way? They're only 250 miles apart. Vancouver and Victoria? You might as well start with the big ones first and leave the little ones till later.

It is a principle that we do not subscribe to and we will not support this type of legislation, either in this session or at any other time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs closes the debate.

HON. MR. LORIMER: This has been an interesting debate. I thought the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition were well-taken and constructive; likewise those of the Member for Boundary — Similkameen (Mr. Richter). The rest of the debate I think was mostly nonsense and misrepresentation through ignorance, I think, rather than intention. They were referring to letters that were written two months ago.

One thing I would like to bring out is the question of the court action and the dating of the amalgamation period. As I told you when I introduced the bill for second reading and I have told you many times before, when I announced that the study of amalgamation would take place, I announced the bill would have to be changed in the legislation. This bill we're debating today is exactly the same legislation that would have been brought in whether or not there had ever been a court case. This in no way is trying to circumvent an order of the court.

Now, the backdating has nothing to do with the court action. I promised the areas concerned that because we had discussed the question of amalgamation last year they would get the benefit of the taxes that they would have got had they been amalgamated in October when I first discussed it with them, and they will now get the same tax advantages as they would have had if they had been incorporated in October of 1972 — they'll get the year's tax in cash payment to the new cities.

That little group of Liberals over there: one thing about them, they're always right. You can always be sure of that. They are always right. They can discuss any subject at great length and they know they'll never have to have any responsibility for carrying anything out or performing any function. They are a

[ Page 2665 ]

little band of five people that are slowly but rapidly going down the drain.

It appears in a variety of bills. This is one in which it got a little bit too much as far as I was concerned.

The advisory committees were set up in both areas. There were the local people in the areas involved to make recommendations to myself as to the boundaries and the areas that should be involved, the terms of reference, the type of vote they wanted and so and so forth. This was completely done at the local level. I might say that the committees in both cases worked exceptionally well together. I am not afraid for one minute — because of the cooperation among the various groups the new cities will be very exciting and energetic cities and very successful cities, prepared to assume the new growth that comes about.

The letters patent of course will protect all the farmers. The farmers will be paying no more tax whether they're in the city or out of the city.

The question of what the province will be doing for these new areas — the administrative justice, the highways and so on. What will happen there is that the province will assume the total burden for the three years. They'll continue to assume the total burden except where the cities have developed outward and the present rural or suburban areas have become urban areas. It'll be a slow process of withdrawing from services on the way out to the borders of the cities.

With regard to the question about Winfield, the boundaries to Winfield were recommended by the committee. They were not recommended by myself. The committee recommended them to me. I suggested that when they were going to Winfield they might as well take in Hiram Walker's distillery. They're paying 10 mills now and I don't see any reason why the industrial sections of the valley should pay less tax on a lower mill rate than the citizens of the Kelowna area.

The question, of course, is whether it is right for one area to live off its brother. Is that what we're talking about? Is that democracy to allow that to continue?

The government, when they see that the situation is one where facilities are being applied by a few for the benefit of many, has to make a decision to react to this. The situation is that the government has acted and will act in other cases where the situation so occurs. I have said right from the start that in areas where there are facilities not being supplied in one area but being supplied in the other, and where they are using the ones in the other and not paying for them, action would have to be taken. In areas where this doesn't occur then action does not have to be taken.

I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

NAYS — 15

PAIRED

Bill No. 176 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled Statute Law Amendment Act, 1973 and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, April 12, 1973.

Bill No. 183 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.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

[ Page 2666 ]

MOBILE HOME TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled Mobile Home Tax Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, April 12, 1973.

Bill No. 181 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.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

BRITISH COLUMBIA CELLULOSE
COMPANY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled British Columbia Cellulose Company Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, April 12, 1973.

Bill No. 179 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.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Public Works.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE MINERAL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith amendments to Bill No. 44, intituled An Act to Amend the Mineral Act enclosed herewith and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, April 12, 1973.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 44.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 44.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: I may say that is on behalf of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
DISTRESS AREA ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Distress Area Assistance Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, April 12, 1973.

Bill No. 178 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. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE REVENUE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith amendments to Bill No. 74 intituled An Act to Amend the Revenue Act enclosed herewith and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, April 12, 1973.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the said message and the amendments accompanying the same to be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 74.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 74.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

[ Page 2667 ]

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
CONSTITUTION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Constitution Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, House, April 12, 1973.

Bill No. 180 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. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that that completes the legislative programme of the government for this session with the exception of one further bill dealing with collective bargaining for the civil service. Our intentions regarding that bill will be made clear when the bill is introduced for first reading.

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

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the order paper is getting very crowded: I would ask leave to get a couple off. In view of the assurances of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) I would ask leave to withdraw Bill No. 79 standing in my name in the order paper.

Leave granted.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to withdraw Bill No. 80 for the same reason.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:45 p.m.