[ Page 4341 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Outbreak of little-cherry disease. Mrs. Wallace –– 4341

Alcan route proposals to federal government. MR. Gibson –– 4341

Standing of Church Realty. Hon. Mr. Mair answers –– 4341

Fatal accident on Deas freeway. Mr. Wallace –– 4342

Drug-trafficking business in B.C. Mr. Levi –– 4343

Joint housing committee transcript. Hon. Mr. Curtis answers –– 4343

Employment of Dianne Hartwick. Mrs. Dailly –– 4343

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 70) Second reading.

Mr. Barber –– 4344

Mr. Lockstead –– 4350

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4351

Municipal Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 42) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4352

Mr. Barber –– 4356

Mr. Gibson –– 4362

Mr. Wallace –– 4367

Mr. Lea –– 4370

Mrs. Dailly –– 4374

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I don't very often have the privilege of welcoming from the Cariboo, but today I would like the House to join with me in welcoming Rev. and Mrs. Neil Vant and their family from 100 Mile House in the members' gallery.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Every political party has active workers, and of course the best and the most viable workers for any political party are women. One of the outstanding workers for the NDP is in the gallery today. I would ask the House to welcome Mrs. Edna Carter.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I have constituents and their guests in the gallery today to introduce to the House. First we have Mrs. E. Logan of Sidney - her husband is the well-known and highly respected clerk administrator for the town of Sidney - and Miss Hilary Logan, Mr. and Mrs. Logan's daughter. Visiting from the United Kingdom are: Mr. E.C. Rigby, Mrs. Logan's father; and Mrs. Jacqueline Rigby, Mr. Rigby's granddaughter. They're having a family reunion in British Columbia.

Oral questions.

OUTBREAK OF

LITTLE-CHERRY DISEASE

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture a question regarding the little-cherry disease in the Okanagan. As the minister is aware, the outbreak has affected Naramata and Penticton. Most recently, surveys have indicated a spread to Kaleden and Kelowna. This has been shown up by the new microscopic technique, which has proven some 94 per cent accurate. There are affected, as opposed to five orchards last year, something like 40 this year with up to 300 and possibly 3,000 trees being affected. Previously, Mr. Speaker, there was a programme in place that allowed for one-third participation from each of the BCFGA, the Growers' Pool and the provincial government.

My question is: is the minister prepared to reinstate this programme this year as the growers are requesting?

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): The member for Cowichan-Malahat is correct; approximately 300 trees in the south Okanagan are affected. I've toured the orchards in this area and examined them first hand. There is a proposal which will be coming from BCFGA concerning their approach to the problem. We hope to be assisting in research to try and resolve how little-cherry disease comes about. We've also indicated the possibility of shared cost of removal on those trees that are affected at the present time.

ALCAN ROUTE PROPOSALS

TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. On May 14, the Premier was reported as saying the province had a series of proposals that it wanted to put on the bargaining table with Ottawa if the Alcan pipeline was seriously considered. Could the Premier advise the House as to when and by what means these proposals were transmitted to the federal government?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: I have to ask another supplementary that I've planned because of the Premier's answer. Is the Premier saying that the representations have not as yet been made to the federal government in this regard?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: In view of the fact that the House of Commons has debated the matter and federal cabinet is said to be in the final stages of making up its mind, I would ask the Premier if he would communicate with Ottawa with some urgency. Will he ensure that among the conditions would be a substantial contribution to the paving of the Alaska Highway by the federal government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I appreciate the presumption from the member from North Vancouver-Capilano that the federal government can make up its mind, and I will accept his suggestion.

STANDING OF CHURCH REALTY

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): The second member for Vancouver-Burrard asked me a question a week or 10 days ago concerning Church Realty, and I'd like to answer it now if I may.

This company, Mr. Member, is indeed not in good standing with the companies branch and has been requested by the deputy registrar to report any

[ Page 4342 ]

changes in directorship and to file annual reports for the years 1976 and 1977 immediately. I think, if I may, Mr. Member, I'll just take about a minute. I'll just quote from the memorandum I received from my staff which I think gives you a full explanation. The memorandum is as follows:

"I wish to confirm that this company is not , in good standing, as the last annual report filed was made up to April 12,1975. Therefore, reports for the years 1976 and 1977 are required. I also confirm that there has been no change of directors filed with us since 1974.

"The directors, according to our records, are Charles Grover Dean and William Austin Hodges. Mr. Dean was shown as secretary and Mr. Hodges as the president. With the records on file in our office, and even if the company is in good standing with us, it is not always possible to ascertain who are the owners of a company as shareholders no longer appear in our records. This information would have to be obtained from the records office.

"The records a company must keep in its Records Office are shown in section 186 of the Companies Act. Section 187 indicates which records are available for examination. For your information, when the company is in default, it must be in default for two years or more before proceedings can be started to strike it off under section 278 of the Companies Act. The default does not begin until 13 months after the filing of the last return. It is therefore three years before we can start proceedings to strike a company off for being in default. If no report is filed, proceedings can be started to strike off this particular company on or after April 12,1978.

"Failure to file an annual report does not appear to be an offence of the Act. If there has been a change in the directors and notice of the change has not been filed with us, this is clearly an offence under sections 136 and 155. Under both of these sections the company would be guilty of an offence if not the directors."

MR. BARRETT: Would the minister be prepared to file the memorandum?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the part of the memorandum I read is the part that refers to Church Realty Ltd. I'll be glad to have that extracted and filed to the House.

MR. BARRETT: Is the minister saying that there is information on other companies other than Church Realty on that memo?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I have given the information to the member which I think is appropriate under the circumstances. I will file with the House that portion of the memorandum which I have just read,

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, may I have your ruling as to quoting from a memorandum and then only filing excerpts with the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Rather than take the time during the question period, hon. member, I'll deal with your point following question period when I have had time to discuss it with the Clerks. There is a particular section of May that I wish to refer to.

FATAL ACCIDENT ON

DEAS FREEWAY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, this is to the Minister of Highways with regard to the fatal accident on the Deas freeway last Friday when two men died, in which smog and smoke from a bog fire contributed to the accident. Since three less serious accidents had occurred several days previously, and since Corporal Greg Upton of the Deas highway patrol had contacted the Ministry of Highways on Tuesday requesting assistance with signs or sign trucks to warn motorists of the danger, could the minister tell the House why the Ministry of Highways did not respond to these requests?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Oak Bay, Corporal Upton of the RCMP, as I understand it, made this request to the New Westminster office. That's where the first error was made. It should have been made to the Deas Tower, which is in charge of all traffic control and is manned 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. Because of holidays it was not relayed back to the proper people in time to have the signs up prior to the fatal accident that happened on Friday, August 5. 1 might say that the driver of the vehicle involved has been charged with criminal negligence. Where the fatal accident occurred, the visibility was good.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could tell the House precisely when his ministry was consulted regarding the fact that a fire close to the highway was creating a serious hazard to traffic. When was the ministry first informed?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure of that, but probably a week prior to the fatal accident, and the regional engineer had been dealing with it.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can tell us, since he's outlined the fact that

[ Page 4343 ]

breakdown in communications was the reason for the delay, what steps, if any, his ministry has taken to try and prevent this situation developing in the future.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, we have now instituted patrols starting at 5 a.m. every morning, and they will continue until the threat of smog and that is over. We expect that to be for quite a time. We have also communicated with the RCMP that when they have any further concerns, they should notify the Deas Tower, which is in charge of that whole area.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): The minister said that the first mistake was made when the RCMP reported what they saw as a problem to the New Westminster highways district office. Is the spot where the accident took place not within the New Westminster highways district?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm not too sure of that, but the Highways ministry has always had a working arrangement with the RCMP that any problems on that will be reported to the Deas Tower.

MR. LEA: Even though the RCMP reported the problem as they saw it to the district office, wouldn't it be normal that the district office would look after that and get in touch with the tower?

HON. MR. FRASER: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the district office tried to get back to Corporal Upton, and they weren't able to contact him.

DRUG-TRAFFICKING

BUSINESS IN B.C.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): This question is to the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. Last week, the Justice minister for Quebec released a report on behalf of the Quebecois commission dealing with business and organized crime. In view of the recent statements by the Minister of Health (HON. Mr. McClelland) regarding the $250 million that is made from the heroin business in B.C., has the Attorney-General or anyone in his department looked into the problem related to the laundering of money in respect of this $250 million that is made by the drug-trafficking business in British Columbia?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): In response to the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, that is a matter that is under continuing investigation and consideration by both the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit and the various applicable police forces in the province. Insofar as the report of the Quebec crime commission is concerned, I signed a letter either this morning or on Friday - I've forgotten which - to the Minister of Justice in Quebec for a copy of his report.

MR. LEVI: Could I ask the minister a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? Do the inquiries that the various law enforcement agencies are making involve discussing this problem with the chartered banks in British Columbia?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm not at liberty to discuss or make public the type of inquiry.

JOINT HOUSING COMMITTEE TRANSCRIPT

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last in question period, the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) , who is not in his place at the moment, inquired with respect to the transcripts for the joint housing committee of 1976. 1 indicated I would return with the information at the earliest possible time.

From the list of those who appeared and made submissions, there were, as of last Friday, 11 individuals who had not responded. As I indicated at the time of the question, follow-up letters have been sent to those individuals.

The member went on to ask how many of these are "private" groups - I believe that was his phrase. There is one from the Vernon and district branch of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada (HUDAC) and one from a construction company in Penticton. The balance were from regional district government or local government. Therefore, taken from the above total of 11, there are nine from local government. I trust that is the information the hon. member sought.

EMPLOYMENT OF DIANNE HARTWICK

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. The minister has now tabled an answer showing that the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy's) executive assistant, Dianne Hartwick, appears to work full-time in his ministry while being paid from the Provincial Secretary's vote. The minister stresses her university training and skills related to the specialized work in his department.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is: does the Minister of Human Resources not consider it an abuse of the House and the public to have an annual salary expenditure of $19,500 for his ministry which shows up in another minister's vote? Does he not consider that an abuse of this House?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): No.

[ Page 4344 ]

MRS. DAILLY: If he does not consider that an abuse, does the Minister therefore not consider it an abuse of public funds to pay for a political appointee in legitimate public service positions?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): The Premier's telling him what to say.

MR. BARRETT: Let's hear it from the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you wish to ask that as a supplemental question, I think you should rephrase the question. You're reading into that a supposition on your part which may or may not be correct.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary to the minister: is it not true, concerning the position held by Dianne Hartwick, who is a political appointee as the Provincial Secretary's executive assistant, that the definition of her work done in his department should not be included in public service work and should have gone through public service?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, when Miss Hartwick was given the task to co-ordinate various activities between different ministries there was a great need because certainly many programmes had been left unattended to and there was an urgent need to bring these together. Certainly this is what we set out to do and it has been working very effectively and the province has benefited tremendously.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 70.

STRATA TITLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, the official opposition intends to vote for this bill, but will do so with some misgivings. Our first misgiving is that the bill is improperly titled. Were it a more accurate statement of the facts, the bill would be called the "Howie McDiarmid Thank You Act." Indeed, the proper title of this bill, the Howie McDiarmid Thank You Act - and I'll be moving an amendment later on when we get to that section of committee stage - seems remarkably timed. The Howie McDiarmid Thank You Act was introduced in this House after - conspicuously after - the gentleman in question, a former Social Credit MLA, a developer, a speculator, a landowner in a district municipality in Victoria, had managed to take advantage of the loophole which this bill purports to close.

During question period several weeks ago, I asked the minister whether or not he had received, on February 10, a written communication from a regional district indicating their substantial dissatisfaction with the failure of the government to close the loophole. The minister took the question as notice and has never answered it. We know the question was raised by the regional district at that time because I have a copy of that correspondence. The minister has, in fact, received correspondence pointing out this loophole from both the Capital Regional District and the Sunshine Coast Regional District.

The minister failed conspicuously and miserably to do anything about the loophole until after Howie McDiarmid got his. That's why I think it should be called the Howie McDiarmid Thank You Act.

The minister informs us that in March the government amended by regulation the Real Estate Act and, indeed, allowed portions of that Act to be used to require the publication of a prospectus which would inform municipalities and prospective purchasers of those properties, which through this loophole came onto the market, that something was in the works. The minister, as early as February -because we have the correspondence - knew there was a problem; as early as March, through another agency of government, he had taken some step in order to publicize the event; but it was not until June 24 that he finally, lately, after the fact, the horses all having escaped from that barn, told this House he proposed to close the loophole.

Howie McDiarmid, therefore, Mr. Chairman, is, I'm sure, a most grateful gentleman. Now the fact of that gentleman's membership in a certain political party will, I'm sure, not prejudice the debate in this House. The fact that he's a developer who has contributed to the Social Credit Party will, I'm sure, not add anything to the complexion of the debate in this House. The fact that the minister managed to delay and delay, and delay again, action on this when he could in February have brought such a bill forward, when he could in March have won its approval from this House - and we would have voted for it, as we do hesitatingly now - tells us that the proper title, and the only accurate title, for this bill is the Howie McDiarmid Thank You Act. The minister failed to act until after Howie McDiarmid got what he wanted.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that because of the serious nature of this loophole and the serious nature of the offence against good community planning and the offence against proper municipal management, I believe the official opposition would have been pleased to have given leave for all three readings of such a bill, closing such a loophole, to go through on the day the minister introduced it in the

[ Page 4345 ]

House.

I wasn't even asked. I'm the critic for Municipal Affairs; I've previously been asked by that minister on whether or not we would allow something to go through quickly. Indeed, on every occasion he's asked - two previous occasions come to my mind in last session.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On every occasion?

MR. BARBER: On every occasion that he has asked, we have indeed agreed to that, and it has gone through. This opposition would have been most willing to co-operate with that minister had he been willing to look after the public's business before Howie McDiarmid's business was taken care of. Instead, what happened is that another minister closed a loophole in the Real Estate Act and they delayed until today.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the debate in the last few moments has sunk to one of its lowest points in recent months. I asked that bon. member to withdraw....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I will listen to the bon. minister on a point of order to determine whether it is a point of order or not. I can't determine that in advance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I asked the bon. member for Victoria to withdraw the suggestion that the public's business came after the business of an individual whom he has named several times. I ask him also to say that outside this chamber if he really believes it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Don't come to his defence. He's dug a hole.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd suggest all members of this House listen to the Speaker, not just any one particular member.

Speaking to the point of order, it's a matter that you can be involved in the type of debate which is found offensive to another member of the House. If that happens, it is in order for the member to draw it to the attention of the person who has possession of the floor and ask for a withdrawal of certain statements or remarks. As bon. members, we withdraw those remarks.

Now if the bon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing finds the remarks of the second member for Victoria offensive, would he please state the remarks that are offensive and ask for a withdrawal?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I believe I identified them for you, sir, by paraphrasing. We would have to check the Blues. The suggestion was very clearly made that this government and this ministry took care of the public's business following the business of an individual who has been named several times in the few minutes the bon. member for Victoria has been on his feet. I find that imputation totally, completely, absolutely offensive.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the bon. second member for Victoria withdraw the offensive phrase?

MR. BARBER: Of course, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, bon. member. I accept your withdrawal.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There's a clear line between words that members find offensive and request withdrawal and a sense of argument and debate. I would ask you to refer to earlier Speaker's decisions, that when there's offence on lines of debate, that is usually drawn up at the earliest possible opportunity and there's a return to debate, rather than points of order. I would appreciate your ruling on such exchanges.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there are occasions in this House frequently when members rise to their feet on a point of order to draw the attention of the Speaker to something that they have heard within the debate which they find offensive. The practice of the House has been for the Speaker who has possession of the floor to withdraw the words that are found to be offensive. It's a matter that the Speaker is not the one who determines whether the words are offensive or not, as long as they're parliamentary. However, being parliamentary does not mean that they're always acceptable and provide no offence. If there is an offence and the member draws the Speaker's attention to it and states his reason, the conduct of the House has always been to withdraw the offending phrase and proceed then with further debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, further on the point of order. There's a distinction between a difference of opinion in debate and offensive words. That's the question I'm raising.

MR. SPEAKER: The test has to be between the person who occupies the floor and the one who rises to a point of order and takes offence to the word. If it's words entered in the debate which are found to be offensive by another member in the House, and if the bon. member who has possession of the floor is asked to withdraw those phrases, even though they

[ Page 4346 ]

may not be offensive to him or to some other members of the House, the onus is on the member to withdraw because of the fact that a member finds the words offensive. It's not for the Speaker to determine which words are offensive in every instance and in every circumstance, unless they're clearly unparliamentary words. But we have a tradition in the House that a member does withdraw offensive words and then proceeds to continue as soon as he's recognized again.

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking you to determine between the choice of offensive words and a particular line of debate. That's the point I'm trying to make. On offensive words, of course, I agree completely. But on a line of debate, the tradition has been to respond to that particular debate at the earliest possible opportunity, rather than rising on a point of order on a line of debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if I was to disregard all of the points of order which have been raised on matters of withdrawal in this House and not recognize them at all, then I would be continuously refusing to accept any points of order.

MR. BARBER: This Act, which I expect to amend and have properly re-titled the Howie McDiarmid Thank You Act, has a curious history. I should like to review, just for a moment, Mr. Speaker, the fact that at least as early as February 10, the minister received written correspondence from, I believe, two regional, districts in the province of British Columbia, the Capital Regional District and the Sunshine Coast Regional District, indicating that this loophole existed and that unscrupulous developers were taking advantage of it, And the Cariboo Regional District as well, I understand. As early as February of this year, if not before - and perhaps the minister will tell us when he first became aware of it - he was on notice that crafty, unscrupulous developers were taking advantage of an unfortunate loophole in the Strata Titles Act. Sure enough, Mr. Chairman, we discover that in late March and early April of this year, thanks to the energy of the local press in Victoria, we discover that one Howie McDiarmid, former member of this House for the Social Credit Party and presently a developer, had indeed taken advantage of this very same loophole about which the minister several weeks earlier had been warned. There was a great deal of criticism and conflict and controversy about the loophole and the fact that this minister had failed miserably to amend it when he could have -weeks before - prior to Dr. McDiarmid's good work. Well, indeed, it comes out in the press in late March. The minister informs us that in that month, I believe it was, the Real Estate Act was amended. I'm aware through conversations with civil servants that they have indeed been requiring that prospectuses be filed. We have no quarrel with that at all. However, the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that having learned about it in February, when Mr. McDiarmid was doing his excellent labours, and when it finally comes out in the press in March and early April that this has been going on, the minister brings down through another agent altogether, the Real Estate Act, a small change to take care of it. But it's not until weeks and weeks and weeks go by that, on June 24, this bill is tabled. It is not until further weeks go by - today is now August 8 - that we are finally presented with an opportunity to discuss it in principle on second reading.

Is it not to you, Mr. Speaker, a curious thing that this government, so boastfully efficient in other areas of activity, should have been so grossly negligent and inefficient in this one? Is is not a matter of more than passing curiosity, Mr. Speaker, that a government which prides itself on their inability to get out this year's first quarterly report before the fourth quarterly report of last year is even out - today was the day that that occurred - should be unable to deal with Dr. McDiarmid and the loophole until after he has been able to take advantage of it?

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not retroactive to any date prior to June 24. To the best of my knowledge, that particular developer, and others of whom the minister was aware, are not in any sense going to be restricted in their - to say the least - peculiar activities by the effect of this bill, if and when it is passed.

What I propose is that it is more than passing strange that the government which tells us that they've got dozens and dozens of bills coming in, which presumably has some kind of order to its business and which was notified in writing by three regional districts that this loophole existed, has managed to delay throughout January, February, March, April, May, June, July and now into August, doing anything to close the loophole. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I propose in all seriousness that this bill be properly recalled and retitled the Howie McDiarrnid Thank You Act, because that is just what it is.

If the minister has an excuse for the gross failure of this government to bring the bill forward when it was needed, which was months and months ago, I would like to hear it. It's clear he has no excuse; he merely has sensitivities. If I were him, I would be very sensitive indeed to his failure to do anything to close the loophole when it should have been closed.

I repeat again: had I or any member of my caucus been asked if we would be willing to give three readings for such a bill on the day it was introduced, I promise you our answer would have been "yes." We will vote for this bill. The problem is that it is months and months overdue. The problem is that Howie

[ Page 4347 ]

McDiarmid and others like him have already got what they wanted, and now it's too late.

There are some other problems with the bill, however, and I propose to review them at this time, Mr. Speaker, if I may. It's been clear for some time that there have been some inadequacies with present law regarding strata-title subdivision in the province of British Columbia. These inadequacies result in setting two principle problems before the minister. The first problem is that there is no readily workable method by which the density of strata lots created by strata-title subdivision can be regulated by local government. At the moment there is no readily workable and practicable means whereby a municipal council, a village or a regional district has the opportunity and the instrument presently in its grasp in a really practical, immediate and efficacious way to deal with the problem of strata-title subdivision. This amendment gives them no such instrument either.

The density of strata lots is the number of lots that may be created within an original single property. This has allowed the unfortunate creation of strata lots of such a number in some locations as to render some of the lots unusable because of limits placed on the use of the original property by local bylaws. So we discover, Mr. Speaker, that there are frequently situations in which people, purchasing honourably on the open market a strata-title lot obtained in such a manner, find that they simply cannot use the property for that purpose for which it was intended, because the original covenant, so to speak, on the land itself forbids it.

The municipality made one deal in regard to an original whole parcel which now, because of the Strata Titles Act, this loophole and other problems with it, they find they are unable to take advantage of. It doesn't work for the purchaser, who bought honourably and honestly on the open market; it doesn't work for the developer, because he is not able to keep his word, if he gave it; and it doesn't work for the municipality either, because they have another hornets' nest on their hands.

The second problem, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no requirement on the strata title subdivider to provide access through the property being developed to lands beyond or to adjacent waterfront. The provision of such access is normally considered an essential condition for development, for obvious reasons. Indeed, I am informed, Mr. Speaker, we've occasionally seen in the province illustrations of this problem where municipal councils have had, by fiat, to compel access to be granted through such strata title lots because the strata title itself made no provision for it and because the subdivision of the original property made no allowance for it. Only because a municipal council was enlightened enough to demand it did it happen at all.

These problems become particularly critical when strata title subdivision of land rather than of buildings is the case. These support structures - strata title subdivisions - have been widely viewed as an alternative to conventional land subdivision for certain applications. Although this method does have some merit, it has been rendered over-attractive, so to speak, by the loopholes noted above.

The government has obviously recognized some of these problems and we have on the table two bills -this bill and Strata Titles Amendment Act 1977 (No. 2) . Unfortunately, to discuss the principle ;hat we are dealing with, which is problems in the fair and equitable administration of strata titles throughout the province, it is occasionally necessary, if I may suggest it, Mr. Speaker, to trespass a little on the theme of the other bill. But I will try to avoid that as best I can, and I know you will hold me to it.

The problem of strata titles is much larger than this particular amendment which we are debating today provides for. Reasonably enough, there is another amendment on the table, and we don't quarrel with that. But in discussing the particular principle of strata title administration in the province, I would like to discuss, if I may, other aspects of them, apart from the thank you Act, for which this bill deserves some credit. In order to improve the situation, the government introduced Bill 70, which will require that all support-structure strata title subdivisions receive the approval of the approving officer for conventional - i.e., not strata title -subdivisions before registration. It will also purport to be retroactive to June 24,1977. The problem with this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, as it occurs to us, is that it does not provide a remedy for the noted problems above - those first two problems that I just described - and, indeed, it may create certain additional difficulties. I'm hoping very much for the minister's comments on these.

For instance, it specifically does not remove the first problem, which is the regulation of strata lot density. Although the approving officer must refer to local bylaws when considering subdivision approval, Bill 70 merely states that support-structure strata title s u b divisions shall be deemed to be regular subdivisions for the purposes of the Land Registry Act. This begs the question, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't handle at all the issue and the conflict at hand. It does what the minister said it's going to do, but what he said it's going to do isn't going to deal with the problem that he has enunciated.

Local bylaws are created pursuant to the Municipal Act which does not allow such bylaws to regulate strata title subdivision. There is an interior contradiction, Mr. Speaker. There is a logical flaw in the minister's argument as presented in this bill.

Further, Bill 70 does not resolve the second problem, which is the requirement of needed access

[ Page 4348 ]

through property subdivided into strata lots. This is a very major concern for a number of property owners throughout the province. It's a concern for municipal and regional government. It's a legitimate concern of people committed to the principle of good community planning. It makes no commitment whatever to the solution of that problem, nor, if I may point out, does the other strata title bill presently before us.

Certain sections of the Land Registry Act would be made applicable to strata title subdivisions, but section 86, the crucial section concerning this access, in not one of the sections to be applied. Indeed, it's been conspicuously omitted from any of the minister's comments in legislation or to the press so far as regards the problem in strata title subdivision.

Bill 70 will, - peculiar as it may be to say it -through poor draftsmanship but obviously not over haste to deal with the problem, end most of the usefulness of the support-structure, strata title subdivision concept. This usefulness presently stems from a number of attributes. These attributes include a speedy processing procedure for homeowners and property owners who are dealing honourably with their municipal or regional government; greater flexibility of project design through less rigidly and centrally controlled standards; local control, particularly outside municipalities; and better definition of individual title in group ownership situations.

The present legislation allows those qualities and those merits to come forward. The amendment that we have before us today diminishes or indeed disallows altogether some of those merits. We see no comparable replacement of them. If the minister has yet another bill to come forward, perhaps he could tell us. We would be happy to hold our criticism until we see that bill. But babies with bathwater appear to have been thrown out in this very special instance. There are some circumstances where support-structure, strata title subdivision makes a very limited special sense. Certainly that has not been the case earlier in a couple of other situations I've alluded to, but it is in several others that have been drawn to my attention.

The first three of these merits that the present law has will be eliminated by Bill 70. The probable public reaction to the bill will be a return to syndicate or to corporate ownership of group holdings, which would result in the loss of the last benefit also, which is the present clear statement of actual ownership of the lots.

At the moment the legislation provides for a very clear, straightforward, easily understood statement of who actually owns it. If Bill 70 passes in its present form we will revert to a system of cover-up ownership of many of these strata title lots. They will turn out to be owned by the secretaries and the lawyers who work in the 1700 block Georgia Street. They will not turn out to be owned by any human being whose name and home address we can actually obtain. That's one of the problems with what's happening with Bill 70. It will return to corporate and syndicate ownership. I'm using small "s" in syndicate, of course. I'm not referring to a criminal group but the syndicated ownership among a number of legal identities, be they persons, corporations, personal or public.

In short, by forcing a return to the cumbersome, conventional subdivision approval process, particularly where the approving officer is an official of the Highways ministry, the principal beneficial thrust of the Strata Titles Act for land division will be negated.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to be careful to distinguish between the benefits of strata titles as they apply to the subdivision, so to speak, of buildings. The particular problem here is the subdivision of land. Whatever merit the previous law had in this special regard, loophole and all, is going to be obviated altogether by Bill 70.

The minister, if I may suggest it, in the poor draftsmanship represented by this bill - back to the metaphor of babies in bathwater - has thrown out one of the strengths of the previous legislation. We now lose control, we now lose a statement of the clear and obvious ownership of the land in question. The public loses an opportunity to demand the access to waterfront and recreational opportunities that they should be able to get through an amendment that was properly drafted in the first place.

The most serious problem, however, with this bill, Mr. Chairman, is the following: it is retroactive. The bill was introduced for first reading on June 24, and the minister has indicated in the bill itself and by his own remarks to the press that it is the full intention of his government to allow no persons or corporations to take advantage of the loophole which this bill purports to close after June 24. The problem is, of course, that this bill is not yet law and it is now August 8.

The approving officers and the land registry officers who have been receiving applications under the law as it now stands are in a very difficult position. They are being asked to recognize a law that has not passed this House. They are being asked to tell people to come forward in good conscience, that because on June 24 the minister said: "Don't worry, the bill will pass in its present form, " the present law, therefore, does not stand.

The questionable part of the bill is, of course, its retroactivity. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that had the minister asked for three readings on one day, and had that day been in February and not in June, this opposition, I think, would have been very happy to give it. We did not do that, and here it is in August.

[ Page 4349 ]

Competent developers and administrations at a local level trying to deal with this problem are now forced into a position of committing unlawful acts because the minister has demanded that this bill be considered retroactive until June 24, when the problem is that the other law presently on the books must also be enforced simultaneously. It's a very contradictory situation; it's a very serious problem. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I predict a developer, if he wished it, would have a very strong case in court, demanding that the registry officer fulfil his duty under the law as it presently stands regardless of the minister's intention to make it retroactive to June 24. The legal advice I've received is that, indeed, such a person suing in court for, in effect, a writ of mandamus would succeed in court. What the minister has done is ensure that a number of government officials simply trying to do their jobs are put in a very difficult personal spot because of the failure of this government to bring the bill forward when it should have been brought forward.

This bill is in that special sense then a very questionable legality. The passage of this bill may not be legally anticipated by a land registrar. He must register any support structure plans presented to him which comply with the current law. It is the intent of Bill 70 that such registrations will become invalid on passage of the bill. Fair enough. This is August 8. Between the period June 24 and whatever day this bill finally becomes law, the legal actions that could result when a developer brings a writ of mandamus to force a government official to obey the law as it presently stands would be very expensive indeed.

I should like to know from the minister whether or not he has received legal advice on that problem. If so, what was its nature? If it is possible that government officials - provincial and municipal -who have taken the minister's advice and ignored the law as it presently stands, are liable to civil prosecution in the courts, is the Minister prepared to compensate them personally - or their municipal councils or their regional districts - if, indeed, they should lose at law?

The minister, making it retroactive, has engaged in a principle of government lawmaking that is to say the least, unpopular with many, many people in any area of the British Commonwealth, wherever it's attempted. Retroactive law is not a very common procedure, fortunately enough. In this particular case, the minister has held liable at law in court those officials who are presently required by the Land Registry Act and by the Strata Titles Act to do their jobs as they've been doing them up to date.

So, Mr. Speaker, trying always to draw a positive conclusion from this, I would like to put forward a number of alternative proposals which the minister may well want to consider. There are some other strategies which could and should have been employed in order to deal with this matter. It was not necessary, via the Howie McDiarmid Thank You Act, to do specifically and simply and really rather narrowly what the minister's done. There were many other choices he could have made. I propose to outline to the House some of those alternate choices.

I would suggest that in order to solve some of the current problems while maintaining and preserving the desirable features of the Strata Titles Act as we now know it, Bill 70's literal approach could be abandoned in favour of another approach, which would have within it the following three elements of legislation:

(a) The requirement could be obtained that all strata title subdivisions have the written approval of the Strata Titles Act (not the Land Registry Act) approving officer as a condition of registration. Making such approval conditional in that way would provide the information in a timely way to any locally interested citizen or elected official ' allowing them to deal with this matter as quickly as they can. The fact that such approval would be required, not through the Land Registry Act, but rather the Strata Titles Act, might well provide initially the first statement of information required in the case.

(b) A more desirable legislative strategy could also include the empowering of this officer, who is to speak, the approving officer under the Strata Titles Act, to refuse such approval unless Section 96 of the Land Registry Act and all relevant local bylaws are complied with.

Parenthetically again, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to note that this is theoretically one of the present requirements of the Highways Act. At the moment, the approving officer in the Highways department for subdivisions is supposed to examine local regional and municipal bylaws in order to determine whether or not the application for subdivision, specifically for highway access, shall be granted. There is no present requirement now, Mr. Speaker, for that kind of reporting and that kind of listening or even that kind of overview of municipal bylaws, and that's where the loophole has existed. The minister proposes to close the loophole in a very brutal fashion, yet he overlooks the single merit that still exists in the question of land subdivision under the Strata Titles Act.

A new and alternate legislative strategy could empower local government to pass bylaws regulating strata titles subdivision. In my view, Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of some mystery that municipal government has never been authorized to regulate strata titles subdivision in this way. I don't know why the first government that brought this in under Mr. Campbell, our government under Mr. Lorimer, or the present government under this minister, has seen fit, by omission, to decline to grant the local government that right. There may be some reasons with which I'm

[ Page 4350 ]

not familiar, but those that I've obtained from the minister's own department and from the advisory committee which assists me as critic, tells me that no present logical reason stands against allowing municipal councils to regulate strata title subdivisions. Unfortunately, the Municipal Act does not presently grant them that power. So a third part of this alternate strategy to dealing with the problem surely could also include at least a consideration of granting municipal and regional government that authority.

If I may go on in some detail, there are a number of amendments, Mr. Speaker, which we are prepared to put if the minister is prepared to consider them and I would like his advice. I understand it's the policy of the government, if considering amendments, that they be given notice in writing of those amendments. I would be very happy to provide that notice, Mr. Speaker. But I wonder if the minister in his response later on to this might tell us if that is his personal policy. If so, I would be glad to give him in writing notice of such amendments as they may be considered. Otherwise I'll discuss the principle. . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think you realize that we're discussing the principle of the bill and not amendments. So it's in order to refer to them, but not in detail at this particular stage.

MR. BARBER: My notes allow me to refer to them in detail, and I am prepared to do so, but I realize that our debate does not. That is why I am asking the minister if he would prefer to have, prior to committee stage, the amendments in writing. If he could tell me that now, then I'll have them ready in time; and if he can't, then I'll move them anyway.

To conclude, if I may then, Mr. Speaker, hoping that the minister will reply to that particular request for his advice about entertaining amendments, it seems that local power to regulate strata title subdivision activity not being granted removes a very considerable power of administration and good planning from the hands of municipal councils. It takes from them, as increasingly strata title subdivisions begin to occur in this province, one of the principal accesses to information and levers of authority they need in order to do their job. As this phenomenon grows - and we expect it will, as all the indicators say it might - then surely it's time to consider, obviously not through this bill but through another ' that very specific request that by amendment to the Municipal Act municipal councils be empowered and, by the minister's own action, be encouraged to participate in the regulation of strata title subdivisions within their jurisdiction. They should have that power, they should have that opportunity, they should be given those resources, and the minister hopefully will put on the kinds of workshops and seminars that have been, to date, most helpful in teaching municipal officials how to comply with new laws and how to make them work better and effectively. It seems to me that this particular new law would be at least as desirable as the law we have before us at the moment.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, we will support the bill, with hesitation. I remain extremely critical of the gross neglect of this minister regarding the loophole and his abject failure to introduce this bill and see it through three speedy readings when it should have come through. I think it's shameful that the government has failed in this particular regard. It's a bill that occupies, I believe, about a page - one single page - on the order paper. Obviously it was not a major, lengthy problem of drafting in order to come up with this. The mere fact that the bill itself does so many things harmful to the Strata Titles Act tells us that they didn't pay it quite as much attention as they alleged to have paid anyway. So it didn't take very long to come up with it; it's not as good as it should be when they finally did come up with it; they came up with it too late; and it doesn't solve all the problems that the minister tells us he would like to solve. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with some hesitation we support the bill and with much interest we look forward to the minister's comments, in particular on whether or not he will entertain amendments in writing that give him enough notice to consider them when we get to committee stage of the bill.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the second member from Victoria, seems to have pretty well touched all the bases of this particular amendment but there are one or two questions which I will pose to the minister and, hopefully, the minister will answer when he closes debate on this bill.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that I was the first member of this assembly to raise this whole issue in the House, back in the early part of February of this year, when a number of situations were brought to my attention, particularly some situations within the riding which the minister well knows. I won't discuss this at length because we've been over this before, but the minister well knows the situation in Desolation Sound Park, and the extremely grave situation, in my view, on Savary Island. My first question to the minister then would be: since the strata title plans on both the Savary Island situation and the Desolation Sound situation were filed prior to February 18, the date when the order-in-council came out that the minister had passed at the executive meeting at that time to ban further strata titling until a prospectus had been filed, can the people who now filed these strata titles plans do as, they will in the subdivisions that they have filed? I am really not clear on that answer because they were filed prior to February 18.

[ Page 4351 ]

In the case of Savary Island, I think the minister was there during the committee meetings in 1974, so he is familiar and knows that there are very small lots. There appear to me to be well over 100 such lots -I'm just guessing, because I didn't count them. These are 25-ft. lots on the sandy, barren portion of the island which has no water at all. If the people who filed a subdivision are allowed to sell this property, the buyers will in no way have service to these lots. In fact, in the plan I have before me here I don't even see real road access to these lots. If the present owners will do as they have done before - sell these lots in Calgary, and Edmonton, and across Canada, sight unseen - the buyers, of course, will have been taken for a ride.

My second question would be somewhat along a different line. I have in my possession a letter undated but received in my office on March 30,1977. It's a letter from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to a Mr. Jim Whent, administrator of the Powell River Regional District, in regard to a strata title plan that had been brought to that regional board's attention around February 24, or around that date.

What is important in this document.... I think I should quote, because it is important, Mr. Speaker, this one paragraph of this correspondence. I'd be pleased to send the minister a copy when I have read it.

"I wish to make it abundantly clear that the legislation was both enacted and proclaimed by the previous administration. The so-called loophole to which you make reference did not arise through haste or imperfect legislative draftsmanship. On the contrary, it represented the stated and deliberate policy of that administration" - meaning the NDP - "and its shortcomings are now visible for all to see."

Well, Mr. Speaker, in my view that's an impertinent reply. I don't think any minister of any government, particularly the former NDP government, would purposely build in a loophole into legislation. For a minister of this government to imply that, in my view, is a deliberate misrepresentation of our government's policy to this Legislature and to the people of this province. My question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs is: where did the Minister or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs receive this type of information? Hopefully, it was not from that minister's department.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we all know that it is a function of any government, particularly of any executive council of that government, when loopholes in legislation are found, to close those loopholes. I would point out that very little legislation goes through this House that does not contain some loopholes of some kind. We spend many, many hours debating those loopholes on all types of legislation in this House. That's so-called housekeeping legislation.

I wish to be fair to the minister. When I did approach the minister early in February of this year about this matter privately and by correspondence, action was taken. At least the start of action was taken.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Thank you, Don.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, there was the order-in-council. In any event, Mr. Speaker, those are two or three questions. When the minister is closing debate on this Act, he could answer those questions. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The two speakers have raised matters relative to the whole question of strata titles legislation. I was tempted to rise on a point of Order, but after the earlier difference of opinion between the hon. second member for Victoria and myself, I would have looked to you, sir, to point out that, really, we were straying into another bill, and that is Bill 75. It is the major strata titles amendment legislation which has been in the works for a long time.

I don't think I need apologize on my own behalf nor on behalf of the legal people who advised this ministry or the senior people who carry assigned responsibilities within the ministry for the time which has been required for the other bill. That's all I'm going to say about Bill 75 - the point being that it is extremely complex. Not being legally trained, I have found it frequently confusing and very, very difficult. I don't think anyone can or should pretend to be glib about strata title regulation or legislation. It's 10 years old and, in Bill 70 presently being debated, because of the complexity of the other piece of legislation we extracted that which we wanted to move with, which we knew should be moved on at the earliest possible time.

In opening second reading debate, Mr. Speaker, on Friday morning just before the hour of adjournment, I pointed out that we are in this legislation correcting what is a 1975 oversight. I use the word "oversight" and that will assist the hon. member for Mackenzie whom I find quite reasonable both in this chamber and outside. I suppose that is another indication of the complexity of this type of legislation.

I don't know what was in the mind of the former government with respect to the 1975 changes, but one can assume that they were attempting to follow a

[ Page 4352 ]

certain course of action and to provide good legislation. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt; that's what I assume they were attempting to do. In 1976, following the change of government, we were attempting to do the same. That bill was not proceeded with because it was found to be deficient. Now we have two pieces of legislation relating to this complex, complicated and constantly changing land-use topic.

Therefore, I cannot and will not respond to a number of points made by the first speaker for the official opposition (Mr. Barber) because I think those are matters that can be more appropriately debated with respect to the other bill. I choose quite deliberately to overlook his apparently sincere comments, Mr. Speaker, with respect to an individual who found a loophole, along with others, and abused the strata title legislation as it existed. I make no excuses for the individuals who saw that and proceeded apparently legally but certainly not with any endorsation from this ministry or this government. Those individuals who have abused the existing legislation should, frankly, be ashamed of themselves.

I would like to see the undated letter to which the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) has referred. Mr. Speaker, I again look to you. Apparently it is a letter from another minister in this government, as the member has said. I can't comment on another minister's letter with respect to strata titles except to observe that the law finds itself partially in the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and partially in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I thank the member for those comments which were constructive.

I now move to second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 70, Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON., MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 42, Mr. Speaker,

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. CURTIS: Bill 42 contains the most significant group of Municipal Act changes introduced in many years. It represents an attempt to come to grips with some of the key issues in the land-use planning field. We're very pleased with the public response to this legislation. In the many weeks since it was introduced in the Legislature on April 1, as I recall, the bill has served much like a White Paper to focus attention on significant policy issues. As a result, I have received constructive representations from many communities, local government, regional districts, professional groups, and individuals. The best of these suggestions have been translated into amendments which this assembly will have the opportunity to discuss in both principle and detail later on.

By tradition, Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Amendment Act each year is an omnibus bill gathering together substantive amendments of the greatest policy significance with technical amendments of much lesser consequence and resolutions which have been accepted from the annual conference of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. This year's bill is no exception. I would therefore like to discuss the principles underlying the more routine sections before getting into the major changes. I face the problem which previous Ministers of Municipal Affairs have, I'm sure, faced in the chamber, inasmuch as in some respects this is a committee bill, at least in the first half.

One group of amendments seeks to prevent abuse of the section 80 (a) instant voting provision by placing a three-month residency requirement on the qualification to vote. The new rule will apply to regional districts as well as to municipalities. A significant reduction of the lame-duck interval following council and regional board elections will be accomplished by another group of amendments. The swearing-in period will be reduced by 30 days and the newly elected council will meet and assume office in early December, rather than January. Corresponding changes are made to the legislative requirements for the submission of provisional budgets and the election of regional board chairmen. Elected local governments will be able to function more smoothly on a year-round basis by virtue of these amendments.

In short, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing magic in local government about January 1, or the first Monday following January 1. The amendments to sections 259 and 260 are designed to increase the financial flexibility of municipalities. The investment of the proceeds of debenture sales in guaranteed bank, credit union and trust company securities will now be permitted. In addition, the maximum amount a municipality may borrow for short-term capital purposes has been raised from $25 to $35. These measures are an expression of this government's competence in the maturity and fiscal responsibility of British Columbia's local government jurisdictions.

Some uniformity in the procedures for resolving intermunicipal road disputes will be introduced by the amendment to sections 536 and 536 (a) . In the interest of sound transportation and land planning and use, the Minister of Highways and Public Works will be authorized to arbitrate disputes -about roads which traverse adjoining municipalities or form the boundaries between them.

[ Page 4353 ]

Another group of proposed changes is designed to influence the compositions and duties of boards of variance. Provincial appointments will now be made by the minister, while the cabinet will be responsible f o r their dismissal, and on municipal recommendation, for the chairman's dismissal. Boards of variance will be empowered to hear appeals against municipal regulations dealing with the construction and layout of trailer courts, mobile-home parks and campgrounds, as well as appeals against the enforcement of regulations requiring the provision of water, sewer and drainage facilities in subdivisions in agricultural, rural or industrial zones. The derivative nature of variations is to be confirmed.

From time to time, Mr. Speaker, adjustments in regional district boundaries may become necessary to accommodate new patterns of population growth or economic activity. We've discussed previously this year the fact that regional district government has been here for 10 to I I years and there is need for a change in boundaries now, especially in the less-densely populated areas of the province. Accordingly, the proposed addition of section 766 (d) will provide a simple method of accomplishing such boundary changes. However, I emphasize for you, Mr. Speaker, that this measure is not intended as a device for resolving disputes between the communities within any particular regional district. Such disputes will continue to be handled by the democratically elected directors through the medium of the regional board. The amendment of another section, 778 subsection 2, eliminates the double requirement of voting on regional district regulatory bylaws but maintains the approval level at the former two-thirds of the entitled directors possessing two-thirds of the votes.

Another section of the bill proposes the amendment of 45 Municipal Act clauses. All of these individual amendments are united by a common theme, Mr. Speaker - to relieve the executive council (the cabinet) of the necessity of making minor, non-policy decisions. Each of the clauses listed in column I of the schedule was chosen on that basis. Its approval provision was accordingly transferred from cabinet to ministerial level. As a result, cabinet will no longer be asked to make such essentially administrative decisions as board of variance appointments and water and sewer rate approvals. The extent of this reform, Mr. Speaker, was determined judiciously and I wish to assure the members of the House that important policy decisions in such matters as incorporation of a municipality, amalgamation, boundary extension, acquisition of a new function by a regional district and planning matters will continue to require executive council approval.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin discussing some of the more innovative and far-reaching features of the bill. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that the main importance of this year's Municipal Amendment Act lies in the land-use planning initiatives it introduces. Over the last several years, British Columbians have become increasingly aware of what I shall call, for the purposes of this debate, the dilemma of development. On the one hand, everyone wants urban development if it provides a satisfactory quality and quantity of housing at prices people can afford. On the other hand, no one wants urban development when it disrupts the environment, threatens the character of neighbourhoods or imposes heavy servicing costs on the community already in place. The dilemma of development is a matter of opposed pressures, pressures which make almost every decision about development a very sensitive one.

This government, Mr. Speaker, believes that these decisions should be made at the local level and therefore, the Municipal Act should provide a framework for reconciling the forces of development with the interests of the communities which must accommodate that development. I used the word "reconcile" because I'm convinced the existing development-control mechanisms often create confrontations which need not occur. They will occur in some instances; they need not occur in all. In the long run, every community benefits by development if the quality and the social cost of the development is compatible with the character and resources of the community. To realize this potential, we desperately need the kind of legislative framework that is capable of sorting out questions of quality, quantity and cost in a fair and straightforward fashion. Accordingly-, we are introducing a new development permit policy, a new development-cost charge policy and significant revisions in servicing requirements policy.

Mr. Speaker, in recent years the land-use contract has evolved, unfortunately, into an often confusing, counterproductive roadblock. Its original purpose as a special device for controlling exceptional types of developments has been lost in the shuffle. It is now in general use as a substitute for zoning and as an arbitrary revenue producer. Uncertainty, unnecessary costs and excessive delay are the penalties that it has imposed on the community, consumer and developer alike in many instances.

This bill proposes to phase out the land-use contract and replace it with a development permit system tied to realistic zoning and subdivision controls and fair development cost charges. A paradox of this reform is that although it does away with the land-use contract, it preserves the community's ability to control the characteristics of any exceptional development. We underline "exceptional."

Members will note, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of constructive representations from the local level,

[ Page 4354 ]

we've strengthened this bill's original provision by allowing municipalities to initiate development permits under certain circumstances but, before you call me to order, that is for committee debate.

The key to understanding the development permit concept is its link with zoning and subdivision regulations which, in turn, should be based on longer-range planning principles. A municipality will only be permitted to use development permits in areas where zoning and subdivision bylaws are already in effect and where the zoning bylaw explicitly provides for development permits.

Even then, the development permit will not be mandatory except within development areas established by the council. It will only be issued where projects need variation or supplementation or some of the provisions of the zoning or subdivision bylaws. In other words, the development permit will add just enough flexibility to zoning and subdivision controls to accommodate the exceptional case. If a council wishes to take the additional step of establishing a development area to enable itself to initiate development permits, it may only do so after a public hearing and after a two-thirds affirmative vote.

I stress, Mr. Speaker, that this step must be taken only where justified by clear and exceptional planning needs. The point to remember is that the development permit will not be a carte blanche for either the developer or the municipality. The characteristics which a development permit may regulate are very clearly set out in the bill. The enumerated powers are confined to the qualitative aspects of development. No development permit could be used to tamper with the basic land uses or densities permitted under the zoning bylaw.

The development permit represents much more than a response against the land-use contract. Its introduction will accomplish several important reforms. First, it defines and confirms the municipality's right to control the qualitative aspects of the exceptional development, as I indicated. Secondly, by clarifying the respective powers and responsibilities of both municipality and developer, it should simplify the development approval process to the benefit of both. Finally, by encouraging higher standards in and greater reliance on zoning and subdivision controls, it should place community planning on a more systematic basis.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most telling accusation directed against the land-use contract was that it functioned frequently as an under-the-table tax on development. In this capacity it was from time to time associated with impost fees and other similar ad hoc charges. No other source of municipal revenue has been so arbitrary or confused. We are not, through this legislation, denying the right of municipalities to recover a fair portion of the costs imposed on them by development; quite the contrary. The ministry believes that reasonable cost recovery must occur and that it must be given a clear and equitable basis in law. That's the reasoning behind the introduction of the development-cost charge.

If I may again emphasize, in abolishing the land-use contract we have not simply left a void. We recognize that the capital cost burden arising from a development should be shared between the development and the existing community. This new development cost charge legislation will permit municipalities to accomplish that sharing in an open and a fair way according to statutory criteria. The legislative framework provides that the capital costs of sewer, water, drainage, highway facilities and public open space can be shared through the use of development -cost charges. It also stipulates the circumstances under which the charges may vary. Within that framework the municipality may establish the level of its development cost charges provided they are neither discriminatory nor exclusionary.

As with the development permit, we're convinced that the development-cost charge concept represents a substantial improvement over the land-use contract and its companion methods of cost recovery. This new legislation clearly identifies the categories of cost which may be recovered and requires open deliberation and publication of those charges. The imposition of development-cost charges will be uniform rather than negotiable, depending on the mood of the counsel of the day, and the use of the proceeds will be tied to municipal capital programmes.

In basic terms, the twin advantages of this reform are first, that the developer's liability will be fairly identified in advance; and second, that the municipality will have a detailed statutory basis for capital cost recovery.

As members will know, Mr. Speaker, a large proportion of residential development is currently being accomplished by subdivision. This bill therefore introduces improvements to the subdivision regulatory powers of the Act. One of the themes underlying these improvements is unification and clarification. The present Act specifies different servicing requirements for sewer and water and contains no provision for drainage of land other than highways. These weaknesses are to be remedied by amendments permitting municipalities to require subdividers to provide water, sewer and drainage systems and connections conforming to bylaw standards.

Another group of improvements will encourage preservicing and will prevent double taxation. Where land is preserviced by a developer, charges levied to pay for similar facilities provided to others by the

[ Page 4355 ]

municipality may be waived or lessened. The Act will also authorize a municipality to share in the cost of the sizing for future needs of services provided by a developer. In such a case, the municipality could eventually recover its contribution from subsequent developers who benefited from the earlier oversizing.

A final area of change in subdivision requirements is the new land dedication provision. Under this provision, up to 5 per cent of the land in a new subdivision may be required for public use. Realistic exemptions will prevent this requirement from being onerous, and special emphasis will be placed on land dedication adjacent to water bodies.

The development permit and the development-cost charge represent, as indicated earlier, major innovations in development legislation, Their introduction expresses this government's faith in the ability of our municipalities to accommodate and regulate development within their boundaries. Another expression of this faith is the group of planning reforms that I would like to describe now, Mr. Speaker.

One of the most persistent complaints that we've encountered since this government assumed office is that the land-use planning approval process is just too cumbersome. There have been too many cooks, too many second guesses. We are therefore pleased to introduce a substantial reduction in the amount of provincial involvement in community and regional planning.

The reforms proposed in this bill have two main thrusts. The first is to express the provincial interest in planning through statutory criteria rather than administrative intervention, to set the guidelines in advance. The second is to take the province out of land-use bylaw approvals where satisfactory, comprehensive plans exist. While neither of these principles is being implemented with single-minded fervour, their combined effect should be to cut a lot of red tape out of planning. Planning, after all, Mr. Speaker, is primarily concerned with charting the future direction of our settlements, and it must not become a self-serving bureaucratic exercise in imposing more and more finicky controls over land use.

The planning measures contemplated in this bill will affect both municipalities and regional districts. In both cases criteria are set out regarding the preparation and contents of comprehensive plans called "official community plans" in municipalities and "official settlement plans" in regional districts. What differentiates the two is that regional district settlement plans will require ministerial approval; official community plans will not. For municipalities this means virtually complete planning autonomy, provided their plans observe statutory criteria and are deposited with the inspector of the municipality.

0 f great practical significance to both municipalities and regional districts is the proposed waiver of bylaw approval hitherto required under the Controlled Access Highways Act. Once the Minister of Highways and Public Works has approved a regional district official settlement plan or municipal official community plan, it will no longer be necessary to submit land-use control bylaws to his officials except for the site plans of major industrial and commercial developments.

Now it may be asked if this proposal reduces the provincial voice in planning below acceptable levels. We believe that it does not. In the first place, the required planning criteria are most comprehensive. In the second, the ministerial approval required for regional district settlement plans and for the Controlled Access Highways Act waiver will be conducted with great care. Finally, there is a legislative requirement that land-use control bylaws must be consistent with comprehensive plants. The provincial interest is therefore built into the basic planning documents and will be expressed throughout. The only thing being sacrificed here that is desirable is administrative delay.

I Before departing entirely from the topic of development and planning, I would like to make an unequivocal statement about the intent of this legislation. The provisions of this bill confer a great deal of power and autonomy on municipalities. We expect these responsibilities and privileges to be exercised similarily with great care.

When these new planning and developing initiatives were being designed, the government frankly faced a choice between two options. We could incorporate significant provincial powers of approval and intervention into the legislation, or we could rely on broad legislative guidelines, the implementation of which would require the positive co-operation and the good will of every municipality and regional district. So we choose elements of both options. In doing so, we recognize that the spirit of this legislation is as important as its substance, and that the municipalities and regional districts supplying it must adhere as much to the spirit as to the letter of the legislation. However, we also recognize that exceptional situations might place local regulations in clear conflict with broader provincial interest, and that municipalities might be tempted to impose occasionally discriminatory or punitive development cost charges. Accordingly, we've made provision for provincial approval of development-cost charges and provincial revision of land-use regulations conflicting with the provincial interest.

In the latter case, the new legislation will entitle the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to request changes in conflicting local land-use controls. Should that request be refused, the minister would have the power to order the appropriate changes,

[ Page 4356 ]

subject to a built-in appeal to the executive council. I anticipate, Mr. Speaker, that much of the questioning on this bill will focus on one proposed section, section 879. Unlike many other provinces, where the provincial power of review and intervention is woven into the basic fabric of land-use legislation, we have isolated our powers of retroactive intervention in this single clause. The significance and intent of this arrangement is clear. We intend to use the new section only in exceptional circumstances and only when all other remedies have been exhausted. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this has been the subject of closest possible consultation and discussion with the Union of B.C. Municipalities since the bill was introduced.

Aside from assuring this assembly that the new section will be used infrequently, I can also offer the assurance that its powers are amply precedented. In Ontario, for instance, the minister can step in at any time through the process and exercise a municipal council's zoning and subdivision powers for them. In Manitoba the municipal board can intervene to alter a zoning bylaw to suit its own specifications prior to adoption. In Saskatchewan the minister can establish a special planning area in any municipality and then proceed to exercise all of the municipalities! land-use control powers. The Saskatchewan government has already used these powers of intervention six times.

In the light of these examples across the country, I repeat the assurance that section 879 will be used sparingly, if at all. I can say confidently so because I expect continued responsible performance by local governments. Mr. Speaker, responsibility and good judgment will indeed be the keys to the successful application of this year's Municipal Amendment Act. I do take the opportunity, however, to caution local governments to be as judicious in the use of their new powers as we will be in the use of ours. In particular, we want to advise local government that the use of the development permit must be confined to exceptional circumstances. We realize that the development approval system of many municipalities relies almost exclusively on the land-use contract. For these communities, a reasonable transition time obviously is required to bring the subdivision and zoning bylaws up to a standard. Beyond that time, however, the abuse of the development permit will jeopardize its future.

I also urge restraint in the use of development cost charges and performance bonds. Their introduction is not the signal for a new gold rush. Their purpose is to accomplish a fair sharing of the risks and costs of development and nothing more.

This year's Municipal Amendment Act is characterized by innovation. Perhaps its most novel initiative is the local community concept introduced in another new section. Many residents of unorganized areas in regional districts are opposed to the idea of municipal incorporation, even if they inhabit relatively large and logically sized communities. The attractions of the statutory mill rate and the high level of provincial services are apparently too great. This proposal therefore seeks to provide an intermediate type of community status which falls short of typical standard municipal incorporation.

The geographic and population characteristics of a local community are clearly described in the legislation. Operationally speaking, the local community would function within the regional district context. The regional district would provide up to three services and tax the local community as a specified area up to 15 mills. The administration of these services would be directed by a locally elected community commission of three members.

I'd like to place special emphasis on two crucial aspects of the local community concept, Mr. Speaker. First, there will be absolutely no compulsion involved in the formation of any of these local communities. Elector assent or sufficient petition will be required, along with the following endorsation of the regional district. Secondly, I repeat the proposition that the local community represents a compromise between unorganized and municipal status - a stepping stone, if you will. Should the population or servicing needs of a local community come to exceed legislated limits, it would find itself face to face with the logic of incorporation.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time for quite a complex piece of legislation. The reforms contained in this bill first took shape upon my appointment as Minister of Municipal Affairs in 1976. They have changed shape as new information has come and new experiences have been introduced with a great deal of discussion within the ministry. I think the reforms contained in the bill have significance for every community in British Columbia. I am pleased with the Act and I therefore move second reading.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designated speaker for the official opposition on this bill. I'd like to congratulate the real author of the principal sections of this bill: the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) . Indeed, we see very clearly that there is a lineage connecting the report of the now infamous and discredited Bawlf committee to the equally infamous and hopefully to be discredited section 28, among others, of the bill presently before us.

I'd like to comment before starting, Mr. Speaker, that it seems to me the fact that we have to deal with a bill of such complexity on the floor in this form and that the minister has on two previous occasions admitted that the Municipal Act needs a wholesale rewriting, it is about time to call, once again, for a royal commission to examine in its totality municipal

[ Page 4357 ]

government in the province of British Columbia and, having done so, to draft for the benefit of this House a model Municipal Act. The fact is that year after year after year the Ministers of Municipal Affairs have come forward with, once again, another body of 30, 40, 50 or 60 revisions of a minor or sometimes major sort and, once again, they apologize to us and tell us: "Yes, we really do need a Municipal Act that is part and parcel of the 20th century and may take us into the 2 1 st." Once again, this minister, as his predecessor, unfortunately, and his predecessor, just as unfortunately, have failed to deliver the goods. We need a royal commission on local government which will look into the Municipal Act as a corpus and bring forward a model Municipal Act that may serve us a great deal more adequately than the present one does.

All the same, we see that the primary initiatives, at least those that favour developers, come straight from the words and the activities of the now discredited Bawlf committee on housing. Specifically, we're concerned, Mr. Speaker, as the minister quite properly anticipated, with one particular section of this bill. During committee stage, we propose to discuss in considerable detail a number of the amendments that the minister has brought forward. We propose to discuss the content and the strategy of a development permit and what will be lost when a system of land-use contracts is also lost.

However, it seems to this opposition, Mr. Speaker, that the most important principle at stake here is the principle of local self-government. The principle that is being attacked by section 28 of this bill is the principle of local self-government.

It has occurred to us that occasionally - from time to time - a government will bring forward a bill of genuine philosophic significance that marks a profound shift from the past and that makes a very radical statement about the government's intentions for the future. Occasionally, a bill will come along which is not technical or mechanical in any form. Section 28 of this bill is such an act. The philosophical direction that this government proposes to take is absolutely new to the province of British Columbia.

The minister's reassurances not withstanding, it is absolutely new to the people of Canada. The minister tells us that in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan - it's strange he would select two New Democratic Party-governed provinces - indeed, roughly the same powers are in the hands of their respective Ministers of Municipal Affairs. In my view, that's a wholly inaccurate statement. That's simply not correct. The minister, if telling the House somewhat more correctly, would have told the House about the role of the Municipal Boards in the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba and would have told us about the role of the municipal appeals authorities that have been created in the province of Saskatchewan. The minister has not informed us correctly and I hope that he will be prepared to correct his statement because at the moment I find it personally unacceptable.

Occasionally a bill comes along which marks a radical and extreme departure from tradition in this province. In our view, section 28 does just that. Section 28 provides that the Minister of Municipal Affairs personally may rewrite any municipal or regional bylaw in the province. The only appeal from his personal decision is to the cabinet, of which he is a member. Nowhere in this bill do we see any requirement for a public hearing. Nowhere in this bill is there a requirement that the decision of the minister be gazetted in the British Columbia Gazette, nowhere is there a requirement that the minister provide in writing or in any other way, the reasons he has employed for determining that in the public interest as he sees it. Section 28 of Bill 42 - or, if it passes, new section 879 of the Municipal Act - shall empower him to make those changes.

This bill is a radical departure from the traditions of local self-government in this province. Prior to this, the only authority that had power within the province of British Columbia to quash municipal and regional bylaws was the Supreme Court of the Province of British Columbia. Specifically, in sections 237 through 243 of the Municipal Act, the Supreme Court alone had the power to rewrite law or to quash bylaws which were deemed improper or unconstitutional. Prior to the introduction of this bill in the history of the province, only persons whose political interests are above reproach, only persons whose partisan interests are zero - and I'm referring to the Supreme Court itself - had the authority that the minister himself now wants to exercise.

I'd like to point out as well, Mr. Speaker, that article 28 of Bill 42 amends nothing that was there before. It creates a brand new section in the Municipal Act, section 879. The Act as it presently is written simply ends at section 878. Amending section 28 amends nothing that is presently on the books. It is a radical, extremist departure from the traditions of local government and autonomy in this province. In our view, this is a dangerous new power. No residual power has been amended. No present piece of legislation has been altered. No amendment is here. Amending section 28 creates a brand new power; it was not there before.

Now if I may, let me quote the minister himself when he was introducing the bill because he was well aware that it would meet, as he put it, "mixed reaction." As reported in the Sun of April 2, the minister said:

"Curtis had earlier predicted there would be a controversy over the bill but said it was a trade-off. 'We're giving more responsibility to municipalities and regional districts in some

[ Page 4358 ]

areas, while giving the minister authority to make changes when provincial public interest is concerned. There will be howls from some but we will use the powers sparingly and with great care and discretion.' "

Indeed, from another source, if I may quote the minister again, the UBCM newsletter, number 91 of April, 1977, reports as follows:

"Under section 28 of the bill, the minister may overrule a municipal or regional district bylaw under community planning if he considers it contrary to public interest in the province. An appeal from his action in this respect lies with the cabinet. The minister agreed with the executive (of the UBCM) that this section might cause great controversy from councils and boards but said its provisions would not be used frivolously."

Just this afternoon, the minister reminded us that he intended to use great caution and great discretion in his employ of the major new power created by Bill 42. Well, we find that very touching stuff, Mr. Speaker. We find it very touching and very sentimental and very appealing that the minister stands up with a straight face that he will use "discretion" as if he personally is going to be in office forever and as if his government is going to hold that office forever too. The last time this minister used discretion, three MLAs almost lost their seats.

In our view, no minister in this province should want or hold such power as this minister is demanding for himself. We're not in the least interested in his protestations of discretion and care; they mean nothing in law. His comments today have no standing in law whatever. What does stand in law is the bill before us if, by mistake, it should pass. What does stand in law is the fact that any Minister of Municipal Affairs, until the Act is again amended, from now on may rewrite personally any regional or municipal bylaw in the province. Previously, only the Supreme Court of British Columbia had that power; now the Minister of Municipal Affairs has it personally. Let me point out again, there is no requirement to gazette his decision. There is no requirement to give any reasons in writing or in any other form for his decision. There is no statement in this bill nor from the minister of what shall constitute the public interest. A definition of the public interest appears nowhere in the definition section of this or any other bill which I'm aware of. What we see is an attempt by one minister to exercise a personal power, the like of which has never been exercised in this province. It introduces a brand new principle and amends nothing that was there before.

Prior to this minister coming to office, as I mentioned before, only division 5, sections 237 to 243 of the Municipal Act allowed any other authority to quash a municipal bylaw. Specifically, that authority was the Supreme Court. Apart from division 5, which itself is couched in very careful, very mannered language, the only other reference in the present Municipal Act is division 6, sections 244 to 246, but they very specifically apply to money bylaws. They have nothing at all to do with the intent of this amendment.

What we see, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister has created a brand new power. He has a-mended nothing that existed previously in legislation. Now the minister tells us, and the Act provides for it, that there is an appeal to the executive council. Once again, we find this very touching stuff. This particular minister, who has belonged to three political parties in his career - the last one, this one and the next one - tell us that some interested authority may appeal to the cabinet. Oh, ho, ho, ho! Big deal. There is no public hearing; there is no public meeting; there is no agreement that the documents that the cabinet receives will ever be made public. There is no reason for us to believe for a moment that any cabinet would do no more than simply endorse the position that its Minister of Municipal Affairs took. There is no reason to believe for any instant that this so-called appeal procedure means anything more than the political gibberish that it obviously is. An appeal to that cabinet means you go back to that minister and the minister reinforces his personal decision. It was personal and arbitrary to begin with; it will be political and arbitrary when it is appealed; and it will end up the very same at the end of the appeal.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has the nerve to ask us to trust him with this power, to trust him with his great discretion and to trust him with his conservative impulse to restrain himself from doing damage to the people of British Columbia. Once again, we find that very touching stuff. I wonder if the minister would trust a New Democratic Minister of Municipal Affairs with the same power. Would the minister trust a New Democratic Party government with the same authority? Of course not. He would never do such a thing. Were he still in opposition -hopefully, one day he'll be back here - he would be the first to stand up and denounce a New Democratic minister who had the gall and the nerve to command for himself such powers. Neither this minister nor any member of that group over there would trust any New Democrat minister with this authority. He asks us to trust him.

I would like to advise this House, Mr. Speaker, that properly enough the people of British Columbia wouldn't trust either party with the power. No minister, regardless of his political complexion or the number of political parties with which he is personally familiar, should be trusted with this kind of power. I don't care how many membership cards this minister has held. I don't care how broad his political background in this province is. The fact is

[ Page 4359 ]

that neither he nor any other minister has the right to assume that kind of authority. He wouldn't trust us; we don't trust him; the public trusts neither of us. He shouldn't do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak for yourself.

MR. BARBER: I speak for a lot more people than ourselves. I know how you would vote if you were in opposition and we put forward such a bill. You'd attack it for hours and hours. He tells us that he intends to use it in exceptional cases only. What a joke!

What we'd like to ask is something about the nature of this allegedly legitimate appeal to the coalition cabinet now in power. We'd like to know who would have the authority to make these appeals. We'd like to know whether or not there is any subsequent intention to publish the contents or the decisions of those appeals other than by simply upholding what the minister himself is doing, and we would like to point out to the minister that there is no present provision in the Act that that has to be done.

This section is clearly an attack on the integrity and the autonomy of municipal and regional government in British Columbia. It's a section whose attack on that local autonomy can allegedly be appealed to a cabinet of which the minister himself is a member. It is an unprecedented grab for personal power by that minister, the like of which this province has never seen before.

Now I wonder if the minister might be interested in telling us why he feels it necessary to introduce such a section at this present time. The minister tells us that it's part of a trade-off. This is interesting stuff. Whose goods are being traded? I'd like to take a look at this particular section from another point of view. It seems to me that it is unlikely in the extreme that a municipal council would appeal to cabinet one of its own bylaws. It is unlikely in the extreme that a regional district would go to cabinet and say: "Would you mind taking a look at this? We think our own bylaw isn't very good and we'd like you to overturn it." It seems very unlikely that any mayor or chairman of a regional district would go to the minister and say: "I was able to push this through but I think you should really take a look at it and perhaps you want to squash it with the awesome power you now personally exercise under proposed section 879 of the Municipal Act." The fact is that no municipal council or regional district would go forward and make such a bizarre request.

Who stands to benefit from this power, Mr. Speaker? Conspicuously the minister failed to tell us anything about that. When we can logically conclude that no municipal or regional government would stand to benefit from it - to the contrary, they'd only stand to lose - then it's equally logical to ask who stands to obtain rewards. Well, thinking through logically, one reads the section to read: "Socred developers only need apply."

Nowhere here do we see any statement of what the public interest shall constitute. Nowhere here in this debate this afternoon have we heard the minister say anything other than that if some party is dissatisfied with a municipal or regional bylaw, all they need do is grab the ear of the minister, persuade him it's in the public interest and he'll rewrite it for them.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I just perhaps interrupt long enough to give you a word of guidance with respect to the debate on this particular bill? While I recognize that it's composed of amendments to a number of different sections of the Municipal Act, and therefore it becomes difficult to debate it in second reading without referring to the sections, it is incumbent upon the Speaker to try to keep the debate to more than just one particular section of the bill. So while I have no objection to your referring to the particular sections of the bill in passing in second reading, the detailed debate which you seem to be engaging in would be more proper in the committee stage. So please take that as a word of caution that in referring to the bill you may refer to the sections but not in great detail, as you would do if we were in committee state.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate your advice, Mr. Speaker. As you and I are both aware, however, this particular bill, which consists of a variety of amendments, has no single principle. That's the difficulty that we find in opposition when debating it and that's the difficulty that the minister found as well when discussing it. There is no single principle incorporate in this bill to which we can address ourselves. What I've chosen to do is, if I may, address one particular principle, which in our view threatens the autonomy and the integrity of municipal government in British Columbia. I believe that's a....

MR. SPEAKER: I'm quite aware of the problem, hon. member. I'm just trying to retain the debate within some limits.

MR. BARBER: I respect your advice. In my view, going back to the theme of this attack in principle on the integrity of local government, there is only one group in this province that stands to benefit from this bill - developers who have the ear of the minister.

Now I'd like to talk for a minute about the reaction of the public as expressed in three different ways to this particular grab for personal power made by the minister in this bill. If I may quote from The Vancouver Sun of April 11,1977, in an editorial on

[ Page 4360 ]

page 4 entitled "Theory and Practice, " the editorial states:

"It will also be interesting to see whether the wide discretionary power given to the minister to alter municipal and regional district bylaws when he considers them to be contrary to the public interest of the province will be used properly. Mr. Curtis has explained that this is part of a trade-off in which municipal councils and regional district boards are being given more autonomy in planning land use and will resolve situations in which local regulations are in clear conflict with broader provincial powers. 'We will be using the powers sparingly and with great care and discretion.' Fair enough, but can Mr. Curtis guarantee that a future minister in another government will do the same? Of course not.

"What is needed in addition to the provision in the bill for an appeal to the cabinet against a ministerial order altering a bylaw is a requirement that such measures be referred to the Legislature for approval. The minister should be required to give the Legislature his reasons for such an order and justify them if called upon to do so. Similarly, cabinet decisions on appeal should also be placed before the House. It is the Legislature, and not an individual minister or the cabinet, that should be the judge of what is in the public interest of the province and what is not."

Now that was one of the milder responses to this grab for power that the minister has made. Let me read another one. It appeared in The Daily Colonist, April 2,1977. It's an interview with the chairman of the Capital Regional District, Mr. Jim Campbell. Referring to some reaction of regional politicians to this assault on the integrity and the autonomy of local government in British Columbia, the article reads:

-They were most apprehensive about a section of the legislation which would give the minister a veto over any zoning and planning decisions by municipal councils or regional boards. Capital regional board chairman James Campbell said what the minister was in effect saying was municipalities and regional boards could do their own thing as long as he agreed. 'It is this kind of massive conceit that is a danger to democracy.'

" 'This proposal, ' he went on, 'was beautifully inconsistent with the minister's past attitude toward local government.' "

Even Alderman Robert Wright of the city of Victoria was moved to criticize it and said:

"Alderman Robert Wright, chairman of Victoria city council's planning and zoning committee, was very critical of the minister's proposed veto power in municipal zoning matters. 'I can only hope the minister will use this power sparingly.' "

Next, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read into the record the reaction of the municipal council in Prince George. On the front page of the Prince George Citizen, dated May 3,1977, there's an article entitled: "Aldermen Fear Planning Chaos, " subtitled "Changes in Act."

If I may refer to the remarks of the mayor and another alderman, aldermen were outraged also by sections of the proposed Act which give the Municipal Affairs minister a 90-day veto power over city development decisions. " 'That goes too far', said Alderman Art Stauble. 'He can do this whenever he wants?' he asked rhetorically. The mayor replied: 'It's real fascism. You've got just 90 days. I think you should at least go to court about it."'

Well, that's one review of public reaction to this bill, Mr. Speaker. We have The Vancouver Sun telling the minister that no minister, present or future, should be entrusted with this power and that only the Legislature itself should have the final opportunity to determine whether or not municipal or regional bylaws affecting zoning and planning matters should be overturned.

We have the chairman of the Capital Regional District calling this bill a danger to democracy and a massive conceit on the part of that minister who personally appears to have the subtlety, the sensitivity and the knowledge to decide what the public interest constitutes and what it does not, and who will personally make those decisions, the only appeal being to the coalition cabinet, of which he is a member.

Then we have, Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Prince George, hardly a political supporter of my own party, I might point out - hardly a New Democrat in disguise or anything else - describing this bill as "real fascism".

The only group that stands to gain from the minister's power to personally rewrite municipal and regional law is that group in the province whom we describe somewhat charitably as Socred developers. Only the people with the car of the minister have a chance of getting in his door and having the bylaws rewritten. Only developers who have failed to persuade local government to do their bidding will benefit from a new law where the Minister of Municipal Affairs can do it for them.

I suppose it shouldn't surprise anyone at all that these amendments, Mr. Speaker, derive from the notorious and discredited Bawlf committee, itself headed by a former developer. It was a committee that met in secret; that was improperly constituted in the first place; that until scandal hit it, refused to publish its transcripts, and indeed over and over again has been the subject of enormous criticism

[ Page 4361 ]

throughout this province for the way in which it chose, quite happily, to meet with developers, land speculators and others of that like, and refused to meet in public with any representatives of the public, such as tenants' associations, ratepayers' groups, community planning groups and the rest. It's no surprise at all that legislation which clearly appeals to developers in such a generous way should itself derive from that particular report.

Now who stands to benefit from this legislation? I'd like to talk about a company, Mr. Speaker, that stands to benefit from this legislation. Shall we call it Blue Eyes Development? That's the name of the company. It's a holding company.

Now what has the minister done on behalf of Blue Eyes Development over the last little while, Mr. Speaker? Well, you may recall that last year he gave Blue Eyes a vote. Last year a company called Blue Eyes Development, shall we say, had the opportunity to vote as if it were a human being in municipal elections in this province. This year the minister granted to Blue Eyes the opportunity to council for development permits if they found they couldn't obtain their way and have anyone else do their bidding any other way other than by planning for a development permit. This year as well, of course, it gets a very friendly minister who, if he is so moved, can rule on their behalf and overrule municipal or regional government wherever it wishes.

So what's happened to old Blue Eyes, Mr. Speaker? They get a vote. They get the ear of a minister who is famous for his friendliness to developers. They get development permits. And now they get Section 28. If it should appear that the solitary vote which they got last year isn't enough to overturn a municipal election - if it appears that the merit of their argument is so thin and the weight of it so light that they can't persuade a municipal council to do their bidding - they can now go to a Minister of Municipal Affairs and get him to do their bidding for them.

If the development permit is refused by a municipal council, once again old Blue Eyes can go to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and get him to do their dirty work for them. If they can't even come to an agreement on the development permit, he can rewrite a bylaw wholesale.

This is a most generous minister. Some of my colleagues have been critical in the past of this minister for being cheap with municipal government. Indeed, I suppose there are some grounds for being critical in that regard. But what he's done for the Blue Eyes Development Corporation of this province is really quite remarkable. It's a gift! It's a huge, generous Christmas present, day in and day out, year after year. That's what he's given them, and he asks us to trust him. How sweet and touching he is! He asks us to trust him. Would the minister himself trust a New Democrat minister with that power? Never. Not on your life. Even if the minister should change parties for the fourth time and ask to join us, I don't think we'd have him all the same, I'm sure, even then. We wouldn't trust that particular minister nor any other I can think of with that sort of authority.

We are totally opposed to this section, Mr. Speaker. We find no grounds whatever other than political ones for supporting this bill, and that kind of politics we abhor. Only developers with the ear of the minister stand to benefit from this power. No one else does. No municipal government does; no regional government does - only Socred developers who know how to get into the office of H. Curtis stand to benefit from this provision.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

We can see no other merit in it. He asks us to trust him and he knows full well he wouldn't trust any other minister himself. It may be suggested by unkind persons that this particular minister....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we do not refer to members of this House by their names. I would ask you to refer to the hon. member as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

MR. BARBER: Will do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Some uncharitable people might suggest that this particular minister is even more open than most Socred ministers to the imploring preachments of developers. Some people would suggest that the minister himself likes to hear from these guys, and some would even go so far as to suggest that these developers actually contributed to the Social Credit Party in the last election. Indeed, in their own ranks they have a few of those people. However, I wouldn't suggest that at all. If indeed it is possible, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is not unusually susceptible to the blandishments of Socred developers, then one wonders why else he might find it necessary to bring in such an Act. The minister tells us he'll use discretion but he confesses that there is no appeal, save to the cabinet of which he is a member. There is no public hearing, there is no requirement even to publish the results in The British Columbia Gazette.

I'd like to quote, if I may, briefly from a remarkable book called "The Conservative Mind." It's an anthology of some of the principal critical examination of conservative thinking, from Burke to Santayana. I've been spending some time recently looking at this book and I'd like to talk, if I may, Mr. Speaker, about the principle of this bill as stated by John Adams who, in the 18th century, had a remarkably prescient analysis to offer of what happens when ministers like this demand power like this. He's talking about the danger of any man, no

[ Page 4362 ]

matter how well intentioned, attempting to obtain for himself personal power that cannot be controverted by the legislative process, save in a general election booting him out of office. John Adams, in the 18th century, had this to say about such a minister, Mr. Speaker:

"It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power. The passions are all unlimited. Nature has left them so. If they could be bounded, they would be extinct. There is no doubt they are of indispensable importance in the present system. They certainly increase too, by exercise, like the body."

What John Adams has pointed out to us, Mr. Speaker, is that the more any human being exercises this particular muscle - that of power and authority that cannot be challenged - regardless of their wickedness, their weakness shall prevail

"It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power."

The minister is asking of this House unlimited power, with appeal only to the cabinet of which he is a member. The minister is asking us for something which, were he in opposition, he would never have stood for, even for a moment. The minister is asking us to overlook his own weakness, and that of any other holder of public office, in a radical and dangerous departure from the traditions of local self-government in this province.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, it will lead to deals, it will lead to allegations of scandal and corruption, and it will lead to charges of malfeasance in office. It will lead to a situation where developers may meet in private with a minister to make their case. It will lead to a situation where in private, to the cabinet, they may make their case again. It will lead to situations where developers will indeed, on occasion, I predict, be able to do through the minister what they couldn't do through their local government. Why does the minister want to get himself into this kind of trouble?

The minister is not a wicked or a corrupt man, and no one has ever alleged it. The minister, personally, pecuniarily, will not gain from this. Who will gain? The interests that his party represents will gain, and they alone gain from this legislation. That is a risk he is apparently willing to take. It will lead to charges of scandal and corruption because, in private, developers will ask this minister to do their bidding when they couldn't get a municipal council to do it for them. That is precisely what it will do. It is legislation which, in our view, Mr. Chairman, does not belong in the province of British Columbia. It is legislation that should not be supported by any honourable member of this House who has any respect whatever for the parliamentary traditions that limits and restrictions shall be placed on the power of ministers. I believe honestly, Mr. Speaker, that were you personally in opposition and we had brought in such a foolish bill, you would have voted against it. I hope you have the guts to do it when this bill comes forward for a vote. No minister - ours or theirs - should be trusted with this power. No minister, except for wrongful purposes, should ever use it. No minister should have it. I promise, should our government get back into power, this section will be rescinded instantly. We have no need for such power on this side of the House. That minister shouldn't have any need for it either.

This is a bill that will take us down the road to tyranny. It is a bill that will take us down the road to a kind of tyranny where one man purports and presumes to have the personal knowledge of the public interest. On the basis of that wholly personal and arbitrary definition of the public interest, he will be conceited enough to think that that justifies him overruling any municipal or regional government. There is no municipal board in this province to check that minister's power. There is no appeal in this province, unlike in others, to halt or impede the flow of his personal decisions. There is no requirement in this province, under this Act, unlike some other provinces, to publish the decisions, to gazette them, and to hold public hearings.

The minister will tell us that others are doing it; I presume he's looking that up right now. The minister's reply will not stand. No other province is doing it like this minister hopes to do it. This province shouldn't do it either. It leads down the road to unchecked power in the hands of one man. It leads to a very peculiar and special kind of tyranny in the field of local government. We reject it absolutely.

MR. GIBSON: You know, I would like to vote for this bill in many ways. It has a lot of desirable features which I will go through and enumerate. I want to say I have a lot of faith in the minister. I think he's been managing his department in a way which has been consultative and sensitive to the public interest. Certainly the way he's been dealing with municipalities in my constituency has been very fair. So for those two reasons, because the bill has many desirable features and because of the minister, I'd like to vote for it.

MR. WALLACE: Let's have the bad news, Gordon.

MR. GIBSON: Well, I'm not going to vote for it. I don't know if the government considers that bad news because I think they're going to win the vote anyway.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Let us know when you're going to vote for one.

[ Page 4363 ]

MR. GIBSON: We try and be evenhanded in these things. I vote for the good ones and against the bad ones. When are you going to get that straight? She loves me, she loves me not. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm overwhelmed by a couple of very adverse factors in this bill. As far as the personality of the minister is concerned, he won't be there forever. So let me say that unfortunately even my faith in him and friendship for him is not going to be sufficient for me to vote for this particular bill.

Now let me just go through the bill, giving a few comments on what I see as the more important areas.

The idea of three months of registration for voters in a municipality I think is proper - a good amendment.

The idea of early inauguration of councils and mayors I think is a definite step forward. There may be some cases where this hasn't given the new incumbent time enough to learn the ropes or something like that but I think that, as the minister says, it will be back to where it used to be. It worked acceptably well in those days. You get rid of that extra period of being a lame duck. I know some of the people in my own party who ran as candidates last time - and one I can think of in particular: Bas Studer up in Houston - was in the position of being a mayor-elect with a rather different policy on an important thing to his local community. He sat there for over a month while the new council was doing things that he as the mayor wanted to have some input into and couldn't. Fortunately, there was the one-month reconsideration clause that he was able to use when he came in, but that was really only by the grace of God. So I think this is an improvement.

The sections giving greater investment and finance flexibility to the municipalities are good. A definite advance.

The increased encouragement to municipalities to develop and register community plans I think is a good thing. I would like to see even more encouragement, and I think one of the briefs from the builders' associations advanced exactly such a proposition. All of this is relatively non-controversial stuff. It's when we get to the development sections of the bill that we get into the parts that are important.

Section 13 of the bill - and I'll try not to be in too great a detail at second reading on this, Mr. Speaker - is what abolishes the land-use contract and brings in the development permit system. Now the minister alluded in passing to the amendment that he has filed, to section 13, or rather the series of amendments, and I'd be glad if he would elaborate on this on closing second reading.

It seems to me that the amendment that he has brought in to enable the municipalities to, on their own, initiate a development permit area rather than simply allowing the developer to do that has swung the principle of this section around quite considerably. It happens to be a swing with which I agree. But the minister in his remarks stated that it was his intention that municipal use of this power would be in exceptional circumstances only. I can't see anything in the bill which in any way guarantees that. It would seem to me - and I won't read the wording of the amendment at this time or I guess I'd really be out of order - that the municipalities are going to have ample power to declare entire areas to be special permit areas.

The minister for example is familiar with the lower Lonsdale area of the city of North Vancouver, that being the northern terminal of the Sea-Bus. Just as a case in point, could the city of North Vancouver under this power describe the lower Lonsdale area, let's say, within half a mile of the Sea-Bus terminal as being a special development area where development permits would be required, thus exercising the municipal initiative that would be provided for under this Act? It seems to me that in particular areas like this there could be some merit in it, but I'd just like to have the minister's guidance on exactly how he sees this developing. If he really means exceptional cases - which means, what? One out of a hundred? One out of a thousand? I don't know - then I don't think that it will satisfy the municipalities as well as they thought they were satisfied after they got that power put back into the bill.

The statement that the minister made that the development permit function, whether requested by the municipality or the developer, could not be used to tamper with zoning and density is one that I would ask for some elaboration on. It seems to me, in fact, that once one gets into the development permit stage you are back to the land-use contract, really. You can say you can't vary the density or the zoning, but in fact the municipality can come along and look at any of these items between (a) and (k) in terms of the very many things that they are allowed to regulate -the dimensions and sitings of buildings, the sitings of off-street parking and loading facilities, landscaping, screening, underground wiring, transit service facilities. It would be possible for the municipalities to use these powers in such a way that eventually the developer would say: "Okay, you've twisted my arm far enough. I will slacken off the density a little bit." It seems to me you really are back to the land-use contract once you get into this permit situation.

If there's some safeguard in this legislation against that that I haven't seen, I will be very glad to have it pointed out. But the simple existence of the words, saying that the municipality can't change these things, I think will turn out not to be correct in practice.

Just closing my remarks on the development permit side, I think the way it's set up here is a worthwhile experiment and one that I hope will lead to more flexibility and quicker approval. Let's watch

[ Page 4364 ]

it over the next couple of years and see how it works. It's a road that personally I am willing to support for the time being.

The hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , who is very concerned with these things, says: "How do you reverse the damage?" Hopefully, with the concerned councils there will still be enough power that there won't be serious damage. Hopefully, too, some imaginative things will have happened in that period, and in particular, hopefully, there will have come onto the market a sufficient amount of housing that the price of housing will at least be kept down. It's not going to be reversed at this point, but greater supply of housing units is the answer, in my opinion, in keeping the price of housing under control. That's what has been so seriously hurting so many small, young families in the last few years. I am hopeful that this more flexible and somewhat more rapid system of development permits might have a congenial effect on that particular problem.

The next essential section of the bill relates to impost fees. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, these impost fees have been used in a very erratic way around the province in recent years. Surrey, I think, is the most famous utilizer of the fees, with some of the charges going up in excess of $2,000 a unit in terms of apartments and condominiums, and some of the single-family applications are running to a $1,500 impost fee.

One of the difficulties with these inpost fees has been that during the time they came on and really started to bite in the early to mid-70s, it was just the time when we were in a real sellers' market in terms of housing. Therefore, when you put an impost fee on, you increase the price of the marginal housing stock. If that happens in a sellers' market, you thereby increase the price of all of the housing stock. If your additional housing stock that was coming on stream each year was costing 2 or 3 per cent more than it need have done had it been financed in other ways because of impost fees, then anybody buying an older home was going to have to pay that premium as well, even though there was no impost fee related to it. Because it was a sellers' market, the marginal price determined the price that everybody was paying.

In a buyers' market, it won't have that effect. Impost fees have a different effect in a buyers' market. In a buyers' market, impost fees do not set the price; they set the cost. They increase the cost. The price doesn't vary and therefore the developers' profit tends to decline.

So you have here what you might call an automatic destabilizer working in terms of the construction industry. At the time of a buyers' market, it makes it even less profitable or less incentive for a developer to go into the market and say: "I'm going to bring new housing units on stream." You tend to lower your supply at the low periods, raise it at the high periods, and make your cycles just that much worse in terms of peaks and troughs. These are both arguments against any use of impost fees at all, as far as I'm concerned.

To me, the better way to proceed is a general debt related to the area, at least in terms of large subdivisions. A general debt related to the area, backed by the community, gives the residents of those new homes the lower interest rate and better credit rating that a community has, as opposed to paying for those things in the mortgage. The payments which have to be made, whether you make them through the mortgage or whether your tax, can be handled by a special assessment. You get a better interest rate that way and you get, at least in times of a sellers' market, less of an upward pressure on the price of the housing stock generally in the community. At times of a so-called buyers' market you get less of a destabilizing impact on the economics of the construction industry.

In this section of impost fees as well, I'm surprised that there's no section with respect to recovery of oversizing charges. That is handled in a later section, but not here. It would seem to me that some of the things that are covered by impost fees might be the kinds of things that would be oversized as a requirement of the municipality, and there's no recovery requirement put in.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, all of that said, all of those arguments about impost fees said, this section makes the situation better than it was before this Act. At the moment, impost fees are being assessed without let or hindrance by any municipality with no restriction, control, similarity of standardization, and this section - particularly with some of the very careful controls that are built into it - requiring the relating of impost charges very definitely to cost related to the particular project, will make a quantum improvement in terms of the situation as it exists now.

The next principle to which I want to relate my remarks, and ask a question of the minister, relates to the power of boards of variance. As I would read the bill, in combination with the amendment that has been filed to section 18, for the first time we see the word "minor". The board is only allowed to authorize such "minor" variance from the applicable provisions of the bylaw.

This seems to me a considerable restriction in the flexibility of the board of variance. My understanding is that it was written into the law as a result of municipal representations after a rather celebrated North Vancouver case in which the actions of the board of variance were upheld and it was believed they had gone considerably beyond the powers they ought to have exercised. I would be very glad if in closing second reading ...

[ Page 4365 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: You're right.

MR. GIBSON: ... the minister could in passing comment on that, or else we can deal with it at the committee stage. It doesn't really matter.

The next comment I have relates to the ability of municipal governments to require oversizing services with regard to new subdivisions, and then it provides that they may reduce municipal charges ordinarily made in respect of those kinds of services as a result of the developer having put them in.

Mr. Speaker, again perhaps this is more a question for committee than for second reading, but I wonder why that word "may" isn't "shall." It seems to me that if the cost has been borne by the new subdivision - the cost of the capital works - then they ought not to bear ongoing service charges, or taxes that are akin to service charges, when they've already paid for those things.

Now we come to a principle of the bill that rather concerns me, Mr. Speaker, and this is the power that's conferred by this bill on the minister to change regional district boundaries, subdividing them or consolidating them after consultation with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) in respect of harmonization with regional hospital districts. I'm bothered with this because I have searched the present Municipal Act and, as nearly as I can tell, the minister's powers to vary the boundaries of regional districts require in each case that he should, in the first instance, receive an application from one or more of the regional districts in question to change their boundaries. This section, it appears to me, allows the minister to act on his own initiative, or on the initiative of the Minister of Health.

I personally am a strong supporter of the regional district form of government. I do not by any means say that their boundaries are sacred, but the reasonable territorial integrity of the boundaries of regional districts over time is important if there's to be a continuity of philosophy and administration and proper responsibility to the public. Therefore I am concerned about any principle which gives the minister a right to change those boundaries without application and, in effect, without the blessing of at least one of the regional districts concerned, if not all. In my view it should be all, or else there should be a dispute resolution mechanism which is of a public nature.

The section relating to local community plans I think is a good one. I think the bringing in of one-shot ministerial approval insofar as the approving powers of the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is a very progressive step forward. I note that this power is still withheld where developments in excess, I think, of 4,500 square metres are concerned. I would be glad if the minister in closing the debate on second reading could explain why he found it necessary to retain that exception.

After that, we come to what to me is the most vexatious principle of the bill - the one that the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) devoted the majority of his talk to. This is the section which would allow the minister not just to cancel or suspend or annul but to vary in any way that he sees fit land-use bylaws or community planning bylaws passed by any municipality in the province without any appeal except an appeal to the executive council.

Now as a matter of realism, Mr. Speaker, the appeal to the executive council is not a meaningful thing. First of all, in theory I suppose, any executive act of any minister can be appealed to the executive council, in the sense you can write to the Premier and say: "Would you please have another look at this?" But writing it into law and making it formal I don't think really does much more than add a bit of window-dressing. The fact of the matter is that a cabinet is not likely to overrule a minister. If it does, the minister should resign.

I'm aware there is one particular instance in the life of this current government, and that relates to the action of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) in spraying budworms, or rather his plan to spray budworms, which was revised by the cabinet substantially. But that is a very unusual anomaly, and to look on that as a routine sort of process for the dispassionate review of decisions of a lower court, so to speak, I think would not be too useful. To me this is not an appeal process that guarantees any kind of genuine appeal.

The ability of the minister to exercise these powers to me is just completely unacceptable. It's too great a power. I don't see how the minister could justify it on any routine basis. Indeed, in his remarks discussing this power, he stated that it would be used but very, very rarely.

If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the route he should follow is the same route that this Legislature has generally chosen to follow in terms of labour disputes. We do not have a law in this province saying the Minister of Labour can decide labour disputes by fiat or that he can take any contract that comes to him and vary it in any way and impose it. Rather, in the very exceptional cases when that kind of thing needs to be done, we have always said: "This is the case for the Legislature. Bring that very exceptional question to that Legislature and let us deal with it there and make a decision on it at that time in the circumstances of the day." It seems to me that the same approach ought to be taken in respect to the power of the minister to vary local bylaws relating to land use. This is such an important component of municipal independence that there ought not to be provision for having it overridden by the executive branch.

[ Page 4366 ]

If the government does take this power, Mr. Speaker, I suspect it may be sorry that it has done so because in such cases as the minister might find it necessary to overrule the local council, he may become a very unpopular man in that area. This is far stronger than, say, the federal disallowance power, as you know, under our British North America Act. The federal government in theory has the right to disallow any of the laws that we pass in this Legislature. In fact, it has chosen not to exercise this function for many, many years. With the most recent constitutional proposals of the federal government on this particular matter, which were at the conference held here in Victoria in 1971 among first ministers, the federal government proposed to relieve itself of that power. But this power is even stronger than the disallowance power. This power is analogous, if we want to take the same example, to having the federal government able to say: "We not only don't like that law but here is the law you're going to have."

That goes too far. That's too much power to put in the executive branch. If we have any respect for local control and local responsibility, it's too much power in this law to say to the minister: "If there's a bylaw of any given local government that you think is not in the public interest for some reason or another, you can change it and impose what you think is the right bylaw." I think that's very unhealthy. I don't say that our society and our tradition of local government is going to decay next month if we do pass this law, because there are some checks and balances built in. Local people won't take kindly to the exercise of this kind of authority. But even in theory it shouldn't be there.

The hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) said that if this proposal were being made by an NDP government, the hon. members opposite in the government would be opposed to it and would be evincing great concern about it. I want to remind them that while it is not something which I would approve of, someday there may be an NDP government in this province again.

One of the aldermen on the Burnaby council, speaking of the proposed Chevron Standard refinery development, stated that had this law been in effect, the then provincial government - I believe at least some of its members disapproved of that development; I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but that is my recollection - would have had the power to stop that development. The alderman in Burnaby who was raising it was using that as a case example as to why this law should not be on the books. That was a question that related to the proper responsibility of Burnaby and beyond that to the Greater Vancouver Regional District. It was not a question that was a proper one for Victoria intervention. Yet that conceivably might have happened, had the government of that day been so unwise as to have this particular law on the books, because the pressures on them to act in that direction would have been very great.

That, again, is one of the reasons, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, why I think in due course you may wish that you did not have this authority if, indeed, this House confers it upon you. You are going to find yourself in receipt of all kinds of representations from people who disagree with council actions, for whatever reason, to use your power and reverse those council actions and cast them into a different form. I think you may find that uncomfortable.

If this power were to be used routinely, it will be even worse than if it was used exceptionally, because then we would have a true subversion of local government. If it is not to be used routinely, in fact, but merely to be used routinely as a bargaining threat, then we have the same problem as if it is used in fact if it becomes possible for the minister or his officials to go around to municipalities and say: "Look, we will use section 879 if we have to and therefore why don't you be reasonable and modify your proposal in this particular way or else we will use it?"

Of course, that becomes a very difficult thing for any council that wants to get along with the provincial government, because they are dependent on it in many ways, and then learns from the minister or his department that no matter what they do, this is the bylaw that is going to come out the other end of the tube. So they will have every incentive to just be quiet about the whole thing, to do what the ministry wants and to pass on to other business. That kind of power, that kind of improper influence, is made possible by the law we are being asked to pass today.

Let me make it very specific. I do not for one moment suggest that this particular minister would use that kind of tactic. In fact, I opened my remarks by stating a considerable degree of faith in him. But one of these days, it may be used. I think that precedent is no answer. The minister referred to the actions of the Ontario Municipal Board and I think a couple of precedents in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I lived in Ontario for a few years and I was absolutely appalled by the powers that the Ontario Municipal Board, which is an appointed body, exercises over the general level of local government in that province. I hope that we won't often find appeals to the validation of Acts in this province by citing the example of the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr. Speaker, I think that section is a very serious one and that alone would be enough to cause me to oppose the bill. The bill has some other problems; it doesn't go far enough. We all want to see a complete overhaul of the Municipal Act. But even in development terms, while it makes some progress, it does not, in my view, go far enough to ensure a

[ Page 4367 ]

supply of serviced land in order to keep residential land prices within reasonable limits. In particular, I see no structure yet in the minister's department or in the Municipal Act or anywhere else to measure and plan the question of overall growth in settlement plans in British Columbia.

In a sense, we have been lucky in the last couple of years, Mr. Speaker. I think we've only grown about 1 per cent in each of the last couple of years, but we can assume, now that economic conditions are becoming more buoyant, we will, in due course, revert to our 3 per cent growth trend line, which puts us up in the category of 60,000 to 70,000 new British Columbians a year. That puts us into the 30,000 to 40,000 new housing units per year required when replacement for ageing housing stock being retired is taken into account. Where are these new people to live? What kind of accommodation are they to live in? Where are the jobs to be for those who need jobs? What fraction of those new British Columbians are going to be seniors who will want to be in retirement areas? Where are the proper retirement areas of our province? And so on.

This isn't the proper debate to go extensively into the general question of planning for growth. I mention it only long enough to say that this bill does not make any progress in that particular direction. Nor does it make progress in what was perhaps the most controversial recommendation of the so-called Bawlf report, which was the allocation of growth within regional municipalities around the province, both as between regional districts and, I suppose, most immediately within districts, particularly within the Greater Vancouver Regional District,

That difficult subject is not tackled here. In a sense, I don't blame the minister, because it's a tremendously difficult subject and it hasn't, as far as I have been able to see, emerged with a consensus, even within the GVRD, which has been studying very extensively over the years as to how this should be done.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's tough to get a consensus.

MR. GIBSON: It is tough to get a consensus in the GVRD on anything perhaps, but this is an unusually vexatious problem. I mention it not to say to the minister that I am going to vote against this bill because it's not in there - I'm voting against it for other reasons - but to say that I hope and know that this is a problem that is on his mind and I hope it will be the subject of a government initiative, not necessarily legislation but perhaps budgetary, within the next few months. Those few words said, Mr. Speaker, I'll have more to say in detail in committee stage. But as I said at the beginning of my remarks, somewhat reluctantly but nonetheless determinedly, because of that section 28, 1 must vote against this particular bill.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, many comments have been made by former members so I will try to stress only the issues and principles which I think are important. As the Liberal leader pointed out, this bill has good news and bad news. I don't propose to go over every single principle, so I just have chosen four, three of which I think are reasonably good news and the fourth one is really bad news.

I'd like to touch very briefly on the land-use contract principle. The purpose of the original land-use contract, Mr. Speaker, was to provide some kind of authority and control by the municipalities by the larger or more complicated or unusual types of development. I understand the problem that's arisen is that councils have tended to use it far too often for purposes that were not intended. I wonder, if in moving second reading or winding up the debate, the minister could tell us to what degree he has received any substantial number of complaints by developers on that specific point, namely that councils are abusing the land-use contract and, as the minister himself has said publicly, were using it as some kind of blackmail to extract more and more concessions from the developers. I have no reason to doubt the minister when he says that that has happened, but one of the things that often bothers me about the debates we have in this House is that we bring in legislation to cover a whole range of people when the problem seems to be created by a relative few. I may be wrong on that point in relation to land-use contracts, because I reread the Bawlf report as recently as this morning, and there is no question that it makes the point very clearly that more and more developers have to find their way through a maze of hearings and committees and advisory committees and all kinds of rules and regulations. So I accept that there has been a problem here, and I wonder what the dimension of the problem has been and whether the solution offered in this bill is the best one.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that in Oak Bay the land-use contract was found to be a very useful way of controlling the design and quality of development. The council in Oak Bay have the conviction that particularly sensitive sites often don't lend themselves to development according to a uniform set of zoning regulations; they require some measure of special treatment. According to the mayor, if I could quote him, he says that in the past, developers would try to design a building literally on the zoning bylaw and it came out looking like a shoe box, to use the mayor's phrase. I think that we can all sympathize with conscientious and responsible members of Oak Bay council or any other councillors who feel that perhaps the development of a community should require somewhat higher standards. But at the same time, how do we prevent

[ Page 4368 ]

what appears to have been happening, namely an unreasonably high demand both in standards and in the amount of procedures that the applicant has to go through?

Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to intrude on other amendments that have been added to the order paper but I do want to ask the minister one particular question in regard to development permits. I want to be very specific and ask the minister a very definitive question. It was my understanding that he said developers would choose whether or not they wanted a development permit. The council could not coerce a developer or extract concessions on the basis of insisting that a development permit be applied for. On the other hand, if a developer applied for a permit with the exception of density and land use, then the whole picture was opened up to possible negotiation regarding siting, parking, landscaping and a whole variety of other factors.

Now I think it's very important that we get that question answered one way or the other. Was that the minister's clear purpose in introducing the principle of development permits - namely, that the developer would have the choice of seeking a development permit and that council could not coerce either directly or perhaps indirectly the developer to become involved? It seems to me that if that was the initial purpose the minister had, then he has all but nullified that goal with the amendment which we will be discussing later in the session.

I have no wish, Mr. Speaker, to break the rules of the House by getting into that other amendment, but I think it is fair, if we're to have rational debate, to point out that the essence of the amendment is to give councils authority to designate development permit areas. Now what happens if a council designates half of the whole municipality as a development permit area? Then the council in fact does have authority to extract concessions from the developer who is wishing to build in that particular area.

I realize that we will go into that in detail later on but when we're talking about principles, it seems to me that the original principle outlined in the bill in regard to getting use of land-use contracts and substituting development permits was primarily designed to give the developer a more rapid and less harassed time from councils who had previously been abusing both the spirit and the practice of land-use contracts. If that was the case, then it seems to me the later amendment which was put on the order paper.... If it hasn't completely nullified that, I suggest it is going to give the minister some very serious headaches when municipalities, if they were able to abuse the land-use contract system, are certainly, in my view, very likely to equally abuse the concept of designating development permit areas within the municipality.

The only other main area of this bill which I wish to discuss at this time, Mr. Speaker, is of course the section which gives the minister power to overrule bylaws passed either by councils or regional boards. Again, I find this very ironic. I'm sorry the Premier has just left the chamber, because I felt it was important to quickly refer to two of the fundamental principles that enabled this government to be elected. One was local autonomy for the municipalities and the other was freedom.

We heard about the great freedom fighters at the last election. I just looked back at one or two of the newspaper clippings from the elections and in The Province of November 1, the Social Credit leader is reported as saying that amongst the other basic planks of the platform would be a sharing of revenue and power with municipalities. I grant that this government is sharing revenue but in sharing power....

AN HON. MEMBER: They're taking their share of power.

MR. WALLACE: Perhaps the member is quite correct that in regard to power they're taking more than their share.

Just a few days later, on November 4 in The Vancouver Sun, the Premier is reported as saying that the party favours giving more autonomy to municipalities and school boards to make decisions on the basis of local need.

AN HON. MEMBER: Huh!

MR. WALLACE: In this House, Mr. Speaker, on April 25,1975, the Premier said in the course of the estimates debate on Municipal Affairs:

What you are saying is that regional government really needs provincial direction. This has been a concern of all regional governments in the provinces. They are slowly being emasculated because the province wants to tell them what to do. Yet the concept of regional government was to get locally elected self-determination.

Just as a final quote, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the House remembers that in 1975, when the present government was the official opposition, the then leader of the official opposition introduced the municipal consultation Act, which in essence was a small bill which stressed in a variety of ways the degree to which local government would at all times be closely involved through consultation with the provincial government.

I already mentioned when we were debating an earlier bill in this House the irony of this government in some of the legislation which it has brought in where fundamental ideas which appealed to the voters in 1975 have been so flagrantly contradicted. I

[ Page 4369 ]

talked about the opposition of the Social Credit Party to big government. Yet the fact is that they seem to be doing quite well in creating new Crown corporations.

Now here we have a section and a principle outlined in one of the sections of this bill which not only is very disturbing in its impact, but even in its language. The minister says: "If you haven't altered your bylaws it will be deemed to have been altered." That word "deemed" just scares the spirit right out of me - that things in fact are considered to be quite different from what they are in the place where they were originated. In this case bylaws which originated in the municipal or regional level are "deemed" by the minister to have been altered.

While the minister may feel convinced that he requires this power, it also disturbs me that whenever this kind of bill comes before the House - it doesn't matter what government it is, and I've seen three of them - it's always justified, or the minister tries to justify it, on the basis that: "Well, of course, it'll be used with the greatest discretion and very carefully. It'll hardly ever be used."

Mr. Speaker, if it's power of this degree which only needs to be used very rarely and occasionally, the most reasonable question to ask is: "Why do we need it at all if the occasions under which a problem arises are so rare?" I'm glad that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is in the House because he might be willing to agree that the Minister of Municipal Affairs doesn't really need this power anyway because we've got it already.

We had a devastating example of how provincial government really doesn't give a damn for local authority, in the case of selecting a replacement site for the Victoria General Hospital. That decision broke every rule in the book: local planning, community planning, regional planning. It was a complete and utter devastation of all that local government stands for. That's got nothing to do with whether the site was a good site or a bad site or otherwise. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that all the wheels of local planning from the municipalities upwards - through regional board, the hospital board and regional planning - came up with conclusive decisions which the Minister of Health in his particular wisdom, as he saw it, completely and radically changed. This in turn was a complete and utter denial of all the regional planning that had gone on in the greater Victoria area.

I don't like the principle that this minister's introducing into this bill. He doesn't even need it because when government decides that they want to build something in a regional area which is not zoned or planned or anything else for that kind of development - if they want to plunk a hospital or a prison or anything else down there - the way the Minister of Health has pulled off that particular decision, it's obvious that we don't need this additional power. They're doing it already anyway.

But at any rate, Mr. Speaker, it is a very disappointing principle in this bill that there should be need for the minister to feel that there may even be rare occasions when this kind of authority would be used to overrule democratically -arrived-at decisions at the two main local levels - the municipal level and the regional level.

The only other points I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is to ask in regard to impost fees.... Again, it's a little difficult to debate this without at least mentioning very quickly in passing to other legislation. I'd like to know how this principle relates - or does it relate? - to revenue sharing which I felt was designed to try and assist in particular municipalities who have rapid growth, or were faced with capital expenditures in areas like Surrey, Richmond, Delta and other areas, compared to the more stable, settled and fully developed areas like Oak Bay. I thought that the principle underlying revenue sharing was to try and recognize the additional problems in these areas of rapid growth.

But here we now have good news and bad news. I think it's good news that the bill insists that the municipalities define what the costs really are in relation to sewers, water supplies, drainage and so on, and that the money be put in a separate account. I think that's an excellent idea. But more importantly even than that I'm wondering whether the minister can tell the House if even that amount of specific permission to charge impost fees is needed, when in fact we have a very substantial and radical step forward in the other proposed bill, which we will debate later, on revenue sharing.

Regardless of whether these impost fees should be allowed, the other point, I think, relates in somewhat similar fashion to the power given to the minister to overrule bylaws - that's the power on impost fees given to the inspector of municipalities. I'm looking right at him, Mr. Speaker. If we want to consider the minister as the czar, I'm talking to the deputy czar. Again, I won't deal with this in detail until we get to committee stage, but there's a very substantial outline of the reasons that the inspector can give for disputing charges that are made by municipalities.

There are four or five of them by which the inspector can refuse to grant approval. One of the particular reasons he can give is that what they've done is not in the spirit and intent of the bill. That phrase seems to me to be unusually flexible, or it could be given very varied interpretation.

I would feel that I could even back up the comments of the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) , who felt that it just isn't just a question of being concerned about the power in these two areas -power to the minister, power to the inspector - but the kind of problem which the minister is creating for

[ Page 4370 ]

himself and the inspector. Sometimes in life it's a great deal easier - perhaps it's not as fast, but it's a great deal easier - to disseminate power through two or three persons or groups so that at least the decisions that are rendered can usually be seen to be a consensus and the result of objective review of whatever the controversial issue might be. But in this particular case, in some things such as impost fees, which have been a source of better controversy and heated arguments, as the minister well knows, it would seem to me that it would be well if there was even a slight distribution or dilution of the final authority in deciding whether or not impost fees in a certain case should or should not be approved.

The last question I'd like to leave with the minister is again related to the apparent contradiction between what this party espoused on the election platform and now appears to be introducing. I'm talking about local community commissions which would be set up for areas of less than 500 people. While I recognize that this government has espoused a commitment to representation at the so-called grass roots local level, is this not just one more layer of government at the local community level?

It seems obvious from the numerous pieces of legislation we've already dealt with in this session that we're having more Crown corporations, more arms of government. Now even here, right down at the smallest scale at the local level, we have local community commissions and a substantial section in the bill pointing out what the numbers shall be and how they will be appointed and that they will function as advisory and administrative bodies.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The minister interjects that they are miniature municipalities. I may be wrong in my criticism. I just have become so sensitive to more and more government, period. All kinds of government, direct or indirect, whether it's a specific elected government or a Crown corporation or a board or a commission or whatever just seem to be reproducing themselves like rabbits.

In this particular instance, perhaps I should leave the minister with a specific question. Has he had specific requests from small, tight-knit areas, as he mentioned across the floor, seeking this kind of new or more discreet localized representation where at the present time they are presumably a part of unorganized territory? If so, how many such requests has he had? Would it be reasonable to ask the minister to give us one or two examples?

It's quite obvious that while the public and the citizens of the province are entitled to fair and adequate representation, it would seem to me that there's got to be some kind of reasonable dividing line where we spend most of our time and money trying to step up the quality of service to those people who have access to representation rather than developing more and more layers of government even for small units of this nature where there are fewer than 500 people.

These are my comments, Mr. Speaker. I cannot support the bill, even though there are many principles that I do support, simply because of the overriding impact of that one principle which I find not only unnecessary for the reasons I have mentioned, but I find such a complete and total contradiction of one of the fundamental principles on which this party was elected in December, 1975. Even if I could agree with all of the rest of the bill, that one principle to me is completely unacceptable.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair. ]

MR. LEA: One of the questions that has been asked by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is: who really authored the bill? Was it the minister of was it the Bawlf committee, or the Bawlf report as it has become known?

That question is asked about a great many bills that come from any government. I'd like to quote to you from page 1532 of Hansard debates of the Legislative Assembly, Vol. II, March 6,1973, to March 30,1973. The speaker at that time was the hon. member for Saanich and the Islands who is now the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , who at that time kept referring to his leader, Mr. Derril Warren, throughout his speech. He was referring to Bill 42 also, in another day in another parliament. He said:

What about the Department of Municipal Affairs? Who really authored this proposed legislation? Was it one minister, was it two? Did all interested ministers of the Crown have an opportunity to review the several drafts? - and we've been told there were several drafts. Were these reviewed by the concerned ministers in detail with their senior civil service people?

What about the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his top advisers? Were they totally involved in the work leading to introduction of Bill 42? Does the Minister of Municipal Affairs give his full and unreserved support to a bill that says in effect: "Sorry, local governments; you've dropped the ball. In land matters you've failed miserably. . . ."

That's what this minister who has introduced this bill said about another bill on another day in this very Legislature. He is saying: "Sorry, local governments, " to the NDP government. He says: "You've all dropped the ball. In land matters you've failed miserably."

Then we have the same member who is now a minister of another government and another party.... What was he at that time Liberal or Conservative?

[ Page 4371 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Both.

MR. LEA: Both. Anyway, what has happened here is that we have a minister who I don't believe agrees.... I just cannot bring myself to believe that that minister agrees with sections of this bill himself. How could a minister who has been a mayor do away with land-use contracts? How could he say to the people of this province that no longer will a municipal council have the right to bargain and to negotiate with a developer who wants the privilege of developing in a municipality?

Mr. Speaker, that is, in effect, what he is saying: now municipal councils will no longer have the right to negotiate with the developer. The developer will just come in, do what he wants, and leave town. It doesn't sound like a minister who was a mayor himself. It doesn't sound like a minister who was involved with the Union of B.C. Municipalities for a number of years. It sounds like a minister who may have been coerced by other ministers who represent developers to bring in a bill that is beneficial to the developers but not to the citizens of a municipality. It has to be, Mr. Speaker, to the benefit of the citizens of a municipality that their council has the right to say to a developer: "You will do this, you won't do that, or you won't develop." It has to be within the right of a municipal body, elected by the people, to do what they see as just and fair on behalf of the people who elected them. They are not going to have that right when this bill passes. They won't have that right.

Here is a government that talks about "user pay" out of one side of its mouth and on the other hand, in this bill, takes away the theory or the policy of user pay, because that is what land-use contracts are all about - that the user pays. Now the user-pay concept is missing because of this legislation.

What is impost? What are impost fees that a developer has to negotiate with a local government? Well, they could be talking about putting in a recreational area in order that they may develop. They may be talking about negotiating the paving of roads, the construction of sidewalks, or other aesthetic projects that could be negotiated with the developer before he's allowed to go ahead. So in effect the people who are going to live in that locality when they purchase that piece of land or that land with a house on it are going to pay for those developments that their small community within a community is going to utilize. That's all that it means. It means that a developer will come in and negotiate with the municipal council on a land use contract, so that the developer will put in place those things that are going to be charged to the user when that user purchases the land or the home. That's all it means. Why do away with it? You can ask yourself that question over and over and over again. Who would benefit from land use contracts being taken away, with no more negotiations between the municipality and the developer? The developer can do what he wants. Would the citizens of a community benefit from that? Would the taxpayers of a community benefit from that? Not likely.

Only one person or one group of people will benefit from doing away with land use contracts, and that's the developer. Who will be the loser? The taxpayers within that local community will be the loser, because what's going to happen is that when you live on the other side of town and the municipality is not allowed now to negotiate with the developer whether a sidewalk is going to be put in, a road's going to be paved, a recreational area will be set aside, people on the other side of the town, when it's found out later that those services are needed, are going to pay for them.

We're doing away with user pay. That's what we're doing. A government that says they want and need the user-pay policy are now saying in this bill: no more user pay. When you do away with land use contract, it's the developer's field day. That's what it is. It's not going to be the fault of the developer. The developer is going to come in, take a look at a piece of land and say: "What can I put on there as reasonably as possible and make as much profit at it as I possibly can?" That's the developer's job. There's nothing wrong with that. That is what the developer should do - go in and make the maximum amount of profit. That's what he should do.

The municipal body is there to say: "Hold up. We don't mind you making profits, but you have to negotiate with us exactly what you're going to do and when you're going to do it. You just can't have free rein because someone else might have to pick up the bill after you've gone, after you've left town." That's exactly what's going to happen when this bill passes this Legislature. We don't have land-use contracts any longer. The developers will no longer have to reckon with municipal council. It's going to be: "Come on in, boys, and take what you want and get out." It's not going to be the developers' fault. It's going to be this government's and that minister's fault for not looking after their duties.

During that debate of yesterday when Bill 42, the Land Commission Act, in 1973 was coming through, this minister, when he was on this side of the House as a Conservative, before he joined the Social Credit, said - and this is again page 1532 from Hansard of that debate:

Mr. Speaker, let's have some names of people who have misused their position in local government in this province. Let's h ave some names of municipalities which have misused their rights instead of vague references.

And I say that now, echoing that minister's words when he was in opposition. Let's have some names.

[ Page 4372 ]

What municipalities have misused the land-use contract? What municipalities have asked that it be removed?

MR. BARRETT: Answer your own question.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Yes, let's have the minister answer his own question. "Try Kamloops, " says the ex-alderman of Kamloops and the ex-developer - or is he a present developer? Yes, the developers want this bill passed. Yes, they do. And the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) wants it passed because he is a developer. Yes, this is a developers' amendment. This is not a people amendment. This is not for the municipalities; this is for the developer. This is not "user pay." This is "taxpayers pay" after the developers have come in and gone. That's what it is.

Impost fees. You say impost fees are going to be done away with. People in the province say: "So what?" They don't understand that it's going to cost them money on their tax bills because developers are going to not have to enter into negotiations or come to an agreement with the municipality. Developers love this bill. They love this amendment, and the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) has already shown his glee by saying: "Yes, it's a good bill. I'll back it." But I wonder if he would if he were an alderman and not an alderman-developer.

I'm going to tell you: this is for developers. Developers are going to make money, like they should, but they should only make money after they've negotiated a fair deal with the municipality in which they're going to develop. This gives them free rein - run in, hit and run out. That's all it does. It's no improvement. It's a backward step in this province that this minister is going to take away the right of the municipality to negotiate with developers as to what those developers are going to do within the boundaries of the municipality that an alderman or a mayor or a council is elected to serve.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a moral crime. It's a moral crime that we're going to see developers have a free rein like they've never had before.

It's odd that there are only two parties in this Legislature that really agree with decentralization -the NDP and the Conservative Party. Right-wing Liberals and Socreds have always centralized everything. The Minister of Human Resources and the Minister of Health are centralizing. All that government has done since they've gotten into power is to centralize the decision-making process. That's all they've done, because they have really bought the old message that it's better to have a friendly dictator than an unruly democracy. They bought it hook, line and sinker. They want to be that friendly, autocratic government. They like it.

MR. BARRETT: Friendly car salesmen.

MR. LEA: Why would a person who's been a mayor for many years bring in a bill that takes powers away from the municipality? They're hard-earned powers - powers that he helped fight to get when he was a mayor. Now that he's a minister he's doing away with them. Could it be that he was a mayor so long that he believes he's a super mayor and that other mayors are so stupid and other councils are so stupid that when it really comes down to the crunch he can, with the stroke of a pen, do away with anything he wants at the local level - not only do away with it but say: "l, the super mayor, know better."? Does he know better? Maybe. But I'll tell you, it ain't democracy.

Also on page 1532 of the same Hansard the same member, the now minister, was talking about appeals. He was talking about the people having some right to appeal, and he said: "Again, Mr. Speaker, the question of the year: where does this bill speak about the public hearing?"

MR. BARRETT: Did he say that? But he was a Conservative then.

MR. LEA: Or a Liberal.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Maybe a Socred.

MR. LEA: Maybe a Socred. No, I think in 1973 he was....

Then he went on to say: "Where does this so-called government for the people show its willingness in Bill 42 to consult, to communicate with the people, with the citizen who may consider himself or herself affected."

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Oh, that was the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing when he was sitting on this side of the House as a Conservative, before he joined the Socreds.

MR. COCKE: And after he left the Liberals.

MR. BARRETT: Don't do that to him. Don't punish him by reading his old speeches back to him.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the furor on this side of the House if when this party was government we had brought in a section to a bill that said that anything a municipal government did

[ Page 4373 ]

our Minister of Municipal Affairs could not only overrule, but also throw in his own rule? What would the member for Saanich and the Islands have said in those days?

MR. BARRETT: Awesome, sweeping power! Moscow-inspired!

MR. LEA: Awesome, sweeping power. But now today, because he's minister and they're government, anything goes. Where's the hue and cry from the developers who will not have the opportunity any longer, Mr. Speaker, to negotiate with municipalities?

MR. BARBER: They've got hue and Curtis. (Laughter.)

MR. LEA: They've got hue and Curtis.

I wonder why the developers haven't been up in arms. Why haven't they been out on the lawn over this Bill 42 like they were over Bill 42 from 1973?

MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you.

MR. LEA: Where are those developers talking about their rights being taken away by that minister? Where are they? They're not out on the lawn yelling and screaming any more.

Mr. Speaker, you'd almost get the impression that the developers who protested the Land Commission Act like this one.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: Why haven't the developers been up in arms? Why haven't they been angry? Why haven't they been protesting the actions of this minister in taking away their right to negotiate with municipalities so there will be a fair deal for the taxpayer? Where are they today? Where were they yesterday when Hansard was out on the road with the Bawlf committee? Where were they then? Meeting behind closed doors with a committee of government talking about the very thing that this bill executes. They were there behind close doors talking to a government committee with no opposition members, but today they're strangely silent, the developers. The minister doesn't know whether he will release the tapes because the developers may not want them to. Just because the taxpayers paid for the tapes is no reason to embarrass the developers.

Do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, the developers asked for this? Do you suppose the developers were sick and tired of dealing with the elected municipalities about what would go on within the boundaries of those municipalities? I'll bet they were just sick and tired of having to deal with all that red tape and those darned councils that want to save the taxpayers money and have a user-pay policy.

MR. BARRETT: What would Nixon do with the tapes?

MR. LEA: He would have long gaps and he wouldn't be able to recall, which is another thing that this government is very adept at - recalling. We have a minister who can't recall his own remarks from 1973 when discussing another Bill 42.

Only a super-mayor would take unto himself the powers to be not only the mayor, Mr. Speaker, but the council. This minister is now the mayor and council of every municipality in the province of British Columbia; that's what he is. He is Supermayor himself!

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, you're Superalderman, the developer! That's Supermayor over there. He is the only person in the province who is the mayor and council of every municipality within the province. That's what he is by section 28 in this bill.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, the day will come, as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) has said, when that minister and that government will rue bringing in these amendments, because no people anywhere are going to listen to those two-faced, two-sided arguments from that government who said one thing when they were in opposition and are saying another now that they are in government.

Now that they are in government, anything goes. Take power away and centralize power. That is all they have done since they have been in government and that is what they will do until they are thrown out. That is what they will do, because right-wing Liberals and Conservatives tend to centralize anything. It agrees with them; they like it. They like things tidy and in place because democracy is so unruly and unfriendly; dictatorship is so efficient. Anything goes for efficiency, even if it is rights -even if it is the right of people to have their councils negotiate with developers for what they want within their communities. They are going to take it away. They are not only going to take that away, but if city council happens to pass a bylaw in regard to developers, that minister can overrule it and put his own bylaw in place.

When you take these two amendments together, the plot becomes even more sinister. All in one bill the developers now no longer have to negotiate with the municipality to develop within that municipality, but if the council of that municipality has the cheek to pass a bylaw to try and control them, that minister and that government can do away with the bylaw and place the minister's own bylaw in place.

Put those two amendments together, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 4374 ]

and you have a pretty sinister plot. Also, you probably have the beginnings of a very large campaign fund. If I were a developer, I'd sure pay for that kind of government. I'd pay heavy. You're going to make nothing but money from these amendments if you're a developer - nothing but money. What you lose is just a little bit of democracy in this province, just a little democracy.

The Minister of Labour, when he was on this side of the House, would no more have stood for these amendments than fly to the moon. I'll guarantee you that he'll stand up and vote for everything. Once you've taken the first step, it's easy to take the second; it's very easy to take the second and the third and the fourth and the fifth - until you walk right into something you hate. You become what you hate. That's what this government is going to do. When in opposition what they said they hated they've now become, and it's a sad day for this province.

If you want to speak, Mr. Minister of Labour, why don't you get up? Every day you sit over there and yap, but you never get up. He doesn't have it, because down deep he's just a little bit ashamed of being over there. That's why the red face every once in a while.

Mr. Speaker, this is a developers' bill. It is tyranny. And that minister and that government don't care a whit, because they're paying off campaign debts of the past and trying to secure campaign funds of the future.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments in Bill 42 are awesome; they are sweeping and autocratic and do lead to tyranny. And if that government and that minister don't realize it, I think the people in this province will. I hope they will. I hope every member of this House tells them about this bill, because it's a bill for developers; it's not a bill for the people. It takes away from people and it takes away from democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many political parties you have to belong to to come to this state, but I know he belonged to at least two - three, probably. But most of them over there have, as I said, taken the first step. The second and the third and the fourth are a little easier.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill and for all the reasons which have been expressed so well by the members on this side of the House. But it doesn't surprise me, actually. It was only a matter of time before the Social Credit government of British Columbia would bring in a pro-developer bill in this province.

I think the shocking thing about it is that we have sitting in this House a number of members of the Legislature who have been local mayors themselves, including the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , the Minister of Municipal Affairs himself, and I think a couple of other ministers of this House. Also, to my left are two members who represent the great municipality of Burnaby. Unfortunately, they are only there physically. I hope they are going to get up in this debate and speak on behalf of the great municipality of Burnaby - which they represent along with myself - in opposition to this bill. I am sure they are aware, if they have followed the municipal council proceedings, that the Burnaby municipal council has passed a motion in council protesting particularly the section of this bill which gives these awesome powers to this Minister of Municipal Affairs.

As a matter of fact, on April 12, Tuesday, the Minister of Municipal Affairs.... I don't know if he was given a copy of the motion, but I will read it to him. "It was resolved that the Burnaby Council register opposition to the proposed change in the Municipal Act, section 879, that allows the minister to overrule zoning or planning bylaws approved by council, and so notify the minister, our MLAs, and the UBCF.- So our other two Burnaby MLAs are certainly aware of this and the minister must be. So I hope they will stand up in the House to this misguided minister and other members of his government that this is not acceptable to the mayors and the aldermen of this province.

I think the most shocking thing of all is that I have listened to this debate and I have been watching the members of the government. I've been watching the laughter when some of the points have been made on this side when we talk about sweeping powers. Now that is not used in an exaggerated way. You just have to read the motion of the Burnaby council, you just have to read the Act, to see that this minister has taken upon himself powers that no other Minister of Municipal Affairs has ever taken before.

Of course, one of the other shocking things about this bill is that this minister, who sat on this side and talked about consultation and who was a mayor himself of the Municipality of Saanich, has himself brought in a bill and brought in this major change without even having consultation with the UBCM itself. Instead, after the bill, is brought in, he apparently allows a lengthy meeting. But, as the members of the UBCM executive said themselves: "What is the point, when we've had no input?" It's an in-house committee, made up of Social Credit members. Thrown in were some representatives of municipal councils who obviously were not listened to and who are most unhappy with the bill. I listened to the minister's opening remarks and the only vindication he had for bringing in this particular bad section, in which he takes on these sweeping powers, is because a couple of other provinces brought it in. But there was no explanation.

MR. BARBER: It's not even correct.

[ Page 4375 ]

MRS. DAILLY: No. It has been pointed out by the member for Victoria that this is not even correct. But he has not explained to this Legislature why he brought it in, why it was necessary to. I think we are all going to wait with great interest the minister's reply to the questions posed by the member for Victoria, by the Liberal member and by the Conservative member, who are asking the minister to explain why he needs these powers.

Has the minister completely caved in to the developers who supported that party? I think it's shameful and it's shocking, and I'm wondering how those members who sit over there can sit back and laugh at a complete sellout to the developers of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to adjourn debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: I ask leave to file an extract from a memorandum to which I referred in question period today.

MR. BARRETT: We asked for a ruling prior to the minister filing that document. I'm anticipating a ruling and I would suggest that permission not be granted until we have such a ruling.

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't care! It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. BARRETT: Well, stick to the rules of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. If the hon. members will permit the Speaker, I'll refer them to the Votes and Proceedings of this House -February 1,1977 - when the hon. Leader of the Opposition rose on a point of order and requested that the hon. Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) table a memorandum from a member of his department to which he had referred in answering a question during the oral question period.

There are a number of references and quotes from May and a Speaker's decision of this House, which I don't intend to read in full. But in brief this is what May had to say about such circumstances:

"A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the House unless he is prepared to lay it upon the table. And further, the rule for the laying of cited documents cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda."

Speaker Pooley in Speakers' Decisions of this House of Vol. 1 at page 86 is the only reference that we have to similar circumstances or similar matters that have come before our House previously. Speaker Pooley had this to say: "There is no rule requiring the production to the House of any private letters and memoranda or documents which have been cited or quoted from during debate."

In reviewing this, it would appear to me that unless it was a state paper or document of a similar nature, it would not be a requirement of the minister to file the memoranda. However, I must also point out that on many occasions members of the House, quoting from memoranda, have filed those documents with the House. But it's certainly not for the Speaker to say that it must be filed with the House in view of what I have just read to you.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order. I would ask you to determine the definition of the document referred to by the minister. That is what I'm waiting for.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. member and the hon. Leader of the Opposition is well aware that the determination of the document referred to can be at the discretion of the member who is referring to the document.

MR. BARRETT: But, Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I don't know. Somebody has to determine what document it is.

MR. SPEAKER: I presume that we're all hon. members in this House and the minister can so identify it.

MR. BARRETT: Well, how can you make a ruling unless you know what the document is? I expect the Chair to inform the House if the document falls into that category.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the document with me, but my recollection is that it was a memorandum prepared by one of my staff to my Assistant Deputy Minister of Consumer Affairs for my attention in order to help me answer the question raised by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) .

MR. BARRETT: On this same point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the minister doesn't recall, I'm asking him to at least address the document to the Speaker so the House will be satisfied that that's indeed the case that he can't recall from a few hours ago this

[ Page 4376 ]

afternoon.

HON. MR. MAIR: if my word is not good enough....

MR. BARRETT: If you can't recall, how do we know what it is?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.