[ Page 4377 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of urgent public importance

Construction of Alcan pipeline. Mr. Gibson –– 4377

Routine proceedings

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

Mr. Cocke –– 4377

Mr. Levi –– 4381

Mr. Barrett –– 4387

Mrs. Wallace –– 4392

Mr. Lauk –– 4395

Mr. Nicolson –– 4397

Presenting reports

Ministry of the Environment annual report, 1976. Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4400

The House met at 8 p.m.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of standing order 35 at the first opportunity to seek leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. The matter is the position of the province of British Columbia and the immediate communication to the federal government of that position in respect to conditions we would wish to see implemented or sought for the province from the federal government and by the federal government on behalf of the province in respect of the negotiations with the United States on the matter of the Alcan gas pipeline, which is being built in part by a British Columbia company and transitting through several hundred miles of the province.

That the matter is of public importance cannot be disputed. The Alcan pipeline is the largest individual public work contemplated in North America. The British Columbia portion would cost in excess of $1 billion, and ensuing revenues directly to the province would be in the tens of millions of dollars annually. In addition, two major public inquiries have been held into these questions in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories, indicating the importance placed on the subject of those jurisdictions. None has been held in B.C.

That the matter is urgent is demonstrated by the following two facts: (a) in question period today, the Premier stated that no representations in this regard had as yet been made to the federal government by the provincial government, even though he had months earlier indicated that this would be done; (b) to quote from a news item in The Province this morning: "The federal cabinet meets again today to consider conditions which the government should seek from the U.S. if it decides to go ahead with the $10 billion northern gas pipeline."

The Premier indicated in his answer this afternoon that the provincial government will be receptive to suggestions for immediate negotiation with Ottawa. This matter in the interests of British Columbia concerning the Alcan pipeline, both with respect to Ottawa and Ottawa's position with the United States, is therefore a matter requiring urgent debate by this Legislature.

If Your Honour finds this request for leave to be in order, and in view of the fact that this is the beginning of an evening session, I would suggest there be merit in the House leaders arranging by agreement for debate tomorrow in order that members have time to consider the question overnight.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I've just received a copy of your request under standing order 35. 1 have not really had an opportunity yet to study the matter which you have placed before me, but I will certainly give it as immediate consideration as possible and reserve my decision. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to determine the matter before adjournment this evening or, if not, immediately after question period tomorrow.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) adjourned the debate. However, the hon. member is not here, but that does not prejudice her place in the debate if she wishes to continue later.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, she is unavoidably detained and I will carry on for the moment.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, for the most part Bill 42 is an omnibus bill. It comprises a number of housekeeping amendments to the Municipal Act. It has some areas with which we can agree, of course, in principle. On the other hand, it has some areas that we feel are not quite so agreeable and another area we feel is downright catastrophic.

All afternoon I've been listening to quips and righteous indignation expressed from across the floor anytime there's been good hard criticism of sections of this bill giving the minister power that a minister is not normally expected to ask for. So we have to ask ourselves the question: Is the minister an innocent in this whole question or is he part of the plot? Now the minister is asking this House to give him the right and the power to take over zoning of any municipality in this province - to take it upon himself to overturn any ruling that's made by municipal council or a city council. When we talk about broad, sweeping powers, that just has to be one of the broadest and one of the most sweeping of powers.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to interrupt your phone call but I wish you would move your mike just a little bit. I'm just giving the Speaker some warning. It's all going on to Hansard, Mr. Speaker, that conversation you're having.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not quite sure where the minister

[ Page 4378 ]

stands in all of this. I have said on occasion and have been quoted on occasion that the minister is doing a relatively good job. Mind you, in that cabinet, it's not too hard to be one of the top. There are lots at the bottom. But, Mr. Speaker, either he is being duped into this by some of his colleagues or the first minister, or, if it's his idea and coming directly from him to this House, and he is giving himself these kinds of powers, then I'd suggest we have something to worry about with this minister.

From this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we've heard some criticisms. We've not heard one minister or backbencher to date get up and defend this minister and what he's doing. We've heard all sorts of people ad libbing, we've heard all sorts of people calling out, but we haven't heard them defend the minister and his position to date. Now I would hope that more than just the minister are going to stand in this House to defend the government's position on Bill 42.

In the first place, the real departure in this bill is that in New Westminster or in Salmon Arm or in Pouce Coupe or in Dawson Creek or in Delta or, for that matter, even in Coquitlam, where we have some representation in this House, we're going to go home from time to time and we're going to find that our municipal councils are going to be boiling mad. They're going to be angry for this reason. They have been elected by the local citizens who have told them that their responsibility is for zoning, their responsibility is to pass bylaws. Then suddenly they pass a bylaw. The minister doesn't like the bylaw. It either offends the government or it offends the minister, and immediately the minister has it within his power to turn that bylaw around and write a new one of his own.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the heaviest kind of power that we could expect from a minister on his own behalf. This isn't an emergency measure. This isn't something to be taken in times of an emergency, in times of a provincial disaster. Mr. Speaker, yes, they are a provincial disaster, but it is not the kind of thing that you would expect to see an emergency measure Act, let alone the kind of thing that you expect to see in the run-of-the-mill running of a province and running of municipalities.

And what else are we facing here? We're facing a situation where the minister not only has the right to do that after this Act is passed and proclaimed -thank heaven it has a proclamation section because maybe he'll change his mind - but there is no recourse, no appeal. Ignore the supreme court -just to his colleagues in the cabinet. That's not an appeal at all, because I'm sure that they will have discussed it beforehand. So, Mr. Speaker, this group across the way has decided that the Supreme Court of British Columbia no longer had their confidence and they themselves are omnipotent.

1 suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should stand in this House at his earliest opportunity, and suggest that he's going to withdraw section 28 from this bill. It's the only possible way he can make amends for the harm that he's already done.

When we go around the province talking to aldermen and mayors we find the same thing: surprise. The reason we find surprise is because many of those aldermen and many of the mayors in our province had rather supported a change. For what reason, some of us wonder, but they had rather supported a change. Now all of a sudden, they find this group in whom they had confidence doing the kind of dictatorial thing that was least expected, as far as they were concerned. They are very quickly losing their confidence not only in this government but in this minister, who can take away their powers at the stroke of a pen. What did the minister say when he was asked about it in the first place? He said: "Well, we would only take it under certain circumstances and we would use it very carefully, frugally, " et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, this kind of power is the kind of power that corrupts. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that's a very easily corrupted government over there. At least, we've sure seen plenty of signs of it in the last little while.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Point of order. If the member is suggesting any corruption on this side of the House I ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I'm sorry, I hadn't recognized you, hon. member.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. If the member for New Westminster is inferring or imputing any corruption to any member on this side of the House, I would ask you to ask him to withdraw such imputation or suggestion.

MR. SPEAKER: Did the hon. member for New Westminster impute corruption or wrongdoing to any hon. member of this House?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I suggested - and if the minister was listening carefully, which I would never expect from that minister - that there are plenty of signs over there that would give us grave concern, and I go on to suggest that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. MAIR: Point of order. With the greatest respect, I was listening, Mr. Speaker, and the suggestion of corruption on this side of the House

[ Page 4379 ]

was clearly inferred.

AN HON. MEMBER: You used the word.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I used the word. I said, "signs of corruption."

MR. SPEAKER: Obviously, hon. member, the word is offensive. Would you withdraw it, please?

MR. COCKE: If it's offensive, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Proceed.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I go on to suggest that this kind of change in our legislative process or this kind of change of legislation in B.C. is not going to lend anything to this new government. It's going to take away, really, from their direction. It does not provide the kind of confidence that we would expect, that their work should be doing, if in fact, they are the very holy group that they like to put forward as an image.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that they are a sanctimonious group, if nothing else, and I think their sanctimony really showed itself this afternoon in the fact that they could not get up and defend their brother minister. They could not get up and defend their brother colleague. All they could do was catcall across the floor, in spite of the fact that they concede that this is an unprecedented grab of power from one minister, a minister who can even go into the Speaker's municipality and take away the power of the mayor and council there.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the councils and to the mayors in this province that they take a real good, hard look at what this government is doing to them and see to it that the government gets their immediate response. It's not good enough now to have some of them at one time or another making criticism if they are not doing it in a concerted fashion. This bill does not come up again for a day or two, and in the meantime I would hope that the municipalities want some kind of integrity - that they want to exercise the power that has been vested in them by their own voters - and see to it that the minister is told loud and clear from them collectively just how they feel about this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria indicated this afternoon very clearly that there is only one group that can benefit from this power. Certainly the minister in the long run is not going to be a direct beneficiary. How can he? He just upsets the bylaw. But who could be the beneficiary? Well, the developer can be the beneficiary - the land developer who puts the heat on the government, whining and crying and indicating that all of the rights and all of the opportunities that he wanted within a municipality haven't been vested in him. He can turn to this friendly government in Victoria and put the pressure on that government, either through the minister or through his colleagues, indicating a wish for a change in the bylaw, a wish for a change in zoning. And that's what we are worrying about.

The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) walked in and he said: "Be serious." How could one be anything but serious over a bill like this? I suggest to the minister that either he had not read it, or he's on the side of those people who want to vest themselves with more awesome powers - sweeping, awesome power.

AN HON. MEMBER: I've heard that before.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I've heard it before too.

You know, Mr. Speaker, Bill 42 was benign compared to the power that this bill gives to this minister. Remember, not even the supreme court can hold sway. There is no appeal, just an appeal to the cabinet and, Mr. Speaker, we know how far that would go. No, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that when the developers go to my area, your area or any other area in this province and are upset, then, Mr. Speaker, they can turn around and they've got another political group which they can lobby. I had something to do during the last election with a group called HUDAC, the Housing and Urban Developers Association, or whatever they happen to be, which is a very strong group. I listened very carefully at an all-party meeting to the discontent that they were expressing about government. I suggest that one in government should place oneself in a position where you don't have that direct kind of authority, where you have the kind of authority that a minister should have. That is the authority to enact laws that are to be carried out by others, laws that are beneficial to all.

Mr. Speaker, if a law does not qualify in this way - if it doesn't provide the greatest good for the greatest number - then it's got to be really reread and thought over, because this one certainly does not. This one does not provide the kind of protection that's needed for the citizens of our municipalities. It provides possibilities for speculators and for developers that I hate to see a government have to face. Think in terms of the lobbying that will occur as a result of this, if for no other reason than the very fact that it's there. The minister stood up and gave us a half-hour harangue on why he felt it was necessary. We had to trust him. Not only that, he didn't tell us one time in that whole half hour why it was necessary. He didn't indicate at all why it was

[ Page 4380 ]

necessary. He just indicated that this was something that he felt was a good idea and so therefore it was going, whether we like it or not.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest this kind of authority should not be vested in one man. However, I don't really charge that it is. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there are others in that cabinet who are far more interested in development than that minister. I still have just a little feeling of confidence in the way he does his work and I don't like to criticize this minister for doing something like this, but it sure destroys my confidence in his ability to stand up for himself because somebody, somewhere in that cabinet, is making these suggestions. Surely it can't come from him.

Mr. Speaker, there's no point in saying this a dozen times, but I think we should just repeat this question: what if there is a cabinet shuffle this fall? I wouldn't be surprised to see a cabinet shuffle over there - they've got to do something. Mr. Speaker, what if there is one and what if the Minister of Municipal Affairs moves over and somebody else moves in? I can think, Mr. Speaker, of a number of those ministers over there whom I would hate to see with this kind of power.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): How about the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) ?

MR. COCKE: That would be almost too much for anyone, even his closest colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I would hate to see some of his cabinet colleagues have this kind of authority. I don't really think that that government now, with all of this confidence they seem to have in themselves, should be doing anything more tonight than thinking back on some of the statements they made around some of our legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind you of another Bill 42 - a Bill 42 that protected agricultural land for agricultural purposes. What did that group do? They screamed their lungs out. They filibustered for hour upon hour upon hour on that Bill 42. They talked about awesome, sweeping powers and all the rest of it, and yet all it was, Mr. Speaker, was a defence mechanism to protect our agricultural land for agricultural purposes so that our children, and their children, could look forward to being able to grow some food in this province as opposed to looking at all our land covered with asphalt. Yet at that time they made dramatic gestures and there were great parades and great demonstrations from Howe Street.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, Mr. Speaker, that's a most interesting thing. How could one sneak anything through?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The farmers? You know, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to tell you about the farmers. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) talks about the farmers. We saw the farmers down demonstrating in front of this building on that Bill 42.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let's deal with this Bill 42 if we can.

MR. COCKE: Sure, Mr. Speaker, but I have to draw an analogy. Wouldn't you if you were arguing this case? I'm sure if I were Speaker I wouldn't interrupt like that, just because somebody tries to call me to order from over there. No, Mr. Speaker, that group of farmers were not farmers at all. If they were, they were farmer-developers. There were a number of real estate men among that group whom some of us recognized.

Mr. Speaker, this is dangerous legislation. This is not legislation that we should be joking about. This is legislation that, by comparison, is a cancer in our legislative process. It will be a cancer in our statutes. It's a piece of legislation that gives the minister the right to overturn a bylaw and leaves the city council with no other right than to appeal to his cabinet colleagues. What kind of legislation is that? That is jackboot legislation, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): You'll be judged by your pals again.

MR. COCKE: "Judged by your pals again." That's the way this government likes to be judged: judged by your pals, not by your peers.

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the minister will restore the confidence that some of us have in him. The way he can restore that confidence is to withdraw section 28 of this bill and do that at his earliest possible opportunity. As a matter of fact, we will let him right now, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if he wishes to get up. We'll let him get up and withdraw section 28 of this bill, right this minute, before my next colleague speaks.

Mr. Speaker, if nothing else scares the people, it is the fact that they have no recourse, no appeal to the courts in this province. I think that is probably the overriding factor. That he has granted unto himself this power is a surprise, but almost anything over there has ceased to be a surprise. Where he takes away the right of the people to go to the supreme court to appeal a wrong decision is just too much, Mr. Speaker. I hope that his backbenchers and some of his colleagues are going to vote against this bill, just because of this one section that is so terribly dangerous.

[ Page 4381 ]

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, when the minister introduced the bill this afternoon, he made a great number of comments. Towards the end - as a matter of fact, I think it is on the second to last page of his comments in the Blues - he states:

I anticipate, Mr. Speaker, that much of the questioning of 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 other remedies have been exhausted.

Mr. Speaker, over the years in this House, as some of the other members have pointed out, we've had great debates about sweeping powers. But the minister doesn't state in any way, except for the subtleties, that he has taken unto himself some extreme, sweeping powers in respect to this.

Now he also stated that he had had contact with the Union of B.C. Municipalities and they had shared their thoughts with him. In the January issue of the Union of B.C. Municipalities newsletter, they talk about the outlook for 1977. One of the things they say in the beginning . . . and they're making some reference here, Mr. Speaker, to the throne speech. It's rather interesting critique of the throne speech, but they go on to say:

"It's virtually impossible to pinpoint or assess specific benefits or adversities for local governments contained in this month's Speech from the Throne which inaugurated the 1977 session of the B.C. Legislature. Thus - well, hopefully - all the government proposals will prove to be extremely beneficial, but it seems certain that local governments will have to wait until each item is presented to the session before its effects, merits and demerits can be evaluated."

Then they go on to do a further analysis and over the page, on page 2, they say this:

"The throne speech stressed that the past year has been one of challenge and difficulty for all of us in British Columbia. It was a year in which government was obliged to face serious economic problems and deal with them decisively. It established and practised a policy of restraint and accountability and, because of that, was able to take a number of positive actions to provide our people with tangible benefits."

All right, that's the comment on what took place in the 1976 year. In another statement affecting local government, and now the man who wrote the newsletter is quoting from the speech, it says:

"Just as the government believes that there should be an effective decentralization of powers and responsibilities on the national scene, so does it believe this concept should apply to relationships with local governments in the province."

Then in parentheses they've got "nothing specific, "

Now here they are stating that they have some concern - and this is my reading of this - that here you have a government that is prepared to see, and to demand, a decentralization of power on the national level and they would also apply this kind of process to the provincial level. The UBCM are happy about that. Now my question is, and perhaps the minister will tell us and perhaps the UBCM will tell us: have they changed their minds? Are they concerned not about the process of decentralization but about the taking back of power, the holding of power?

You know, Mr. Speaker, the city of Kelowna wrote to the minister on February 10,1977. They said to him: "The council of Kelowna read with great interest the report on the joint committee on housing." That's the Bawlf report. The origin, the antecedents of this bill, this section, comes from some of the impacts of that report. They go on to say in the report:

"We have given the report very careful consideration because the recommendation contained therein had the potential, if adopted, of drastically changing municipal, provincial, and municipal developer relations. We recently read that you intended to introduce legislation very soon based on this report. We sincerely hope that you will take careful note of our concerns regarding the report, and there will be an opportunity to discuss our suggestions and hopefully incorporate them into the legislation between the time of tabling and adoption."

They read the report. They have some concerns. In the introduction to their brief, Mr. Speaker, they say:

"We, the council of the city of Kelowna, are in substantial agreement with many of the proposals of the Bawlf report. At the same time, we find ourselves in disagreement on a number of specific points. We feel strongly that the right of self-determination for the individual municipalities has been overlooked in the report, thereby eliminating a number of alternative solutions which exist to the problems which have been identified. Because of this complexity of the problem, we have found it impossible to have this report ready to forward to the UBCM as requested for inclusion into the reaction to the Bawlf report."

Now this is from the city of Kelowna - the Premier's riding. We will have to ascertain at some other time from the Premier if he had an opportunity to discuss with the city council its very strong feeling as stated in the introduction to their brief, "that the

[ Page 4382 ]

right of self-determination for the individual municipalities has been overlooked in this report." Now they said this in February, and how right they are, because in a new section of the bill, Mr. Speaker, it deals with the very problem, with the very fear they had - not that we're going to see a move towards decentralization, but rather that there is a direct threat, and they put it very well, to the self-determination of individual municipalities. The ironical thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we haven't heard one word from the Union of B.C. Municipalities about this. They have some concern about this, too. They said so in their newsletter. They said they were looking for decentralization. They knew that the government had a policy like this, but this is a complete turnaround.

But the minister goes on in his remarks when he's talking only about this section. He says:

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this has been the subject of the closest possible consultation and discussion with the Union of the British Columbia Municipalities since the bill was introduced. They have been talking. Nobody has been saying anything, but they've been talking.

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 the municipal council zoning and subdivision powers for them.

It's one thing, Mr. Speaker, to talk about doing something different in relation to municipalities, but it's an entirely different thing to justify the implementation of this particular section on the basis of precedent. We know that in Ontario they've had problems enough in terms of zoning, land development and land assembly. We are not interested, at this particular time, in the antecedents and also the precedents that he can offer us, but, rather, what is this going to accomplish in terms of the basic problem that they are trying to get at?

We know for years we've had the problem of trying to expedite development through municipalities. We've had long discussions in this House about it and we need to come to grips with it. The municipalities have indicated that they have some ideas, but what we have from the minister is the minister's own idea. This afternoon, my colleagues quoted from speeches he made when he was on this side of the House in some party that I can't remember now - it was one of the parties he was in.

Now he has done a complete about-face. It's a pity because what he tells us to do next is to trust him. He says: "Trust me. I've got these massive powers but I won't use them, except when we have to." What kind of trust has he been able to demonstrate in terms of municipal matters? After all, he said to the seven regional districts in the Islands Trust: "Trust me. We will do something." But they didn't trust him, Mr. Speaker. They didn't trust him to the extent that they went to the Premier and said: "We're not happy with this minister. You've got to talk with us. We have got some very serious problems." Then he said: "Okay, I'll talk with you."

Now you may recall, Mr. Speaker, that he set up a meeting for June 2 1, but lo and behold, this highly trusted minister who says, "trust me, " comes rushing into this House and tries to push the Islands Trust bill through the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we're dealing with Bill 42.

MR. LEVI: We're dealing with Bill 42 and trust, Mr. Speaker. That's the minister who says: "Trust me." He tried to do it to those seven municipalities, even while one of the chairmen was sitting up in the gallery. And then he learned a lesson. It's a lesson that some ministers learn when they think they can do it over the Premier, because right in the middle of the debate, the Premier gave the cut-off sign and the bill was pulled. Trust? That's an example of trust which we can't go with on this kind of thing, because nobody trusted him then. So we're sceptical about what this minister characterizes as "trust me, " and we won't use it too often.

There is another question, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that I think characterizes this government is their inability to feel that somehow they can have open public discussion with people about changes which they have in mind. They are a highly secretive government. The Bawlf committee was a secret thing. We still don't know how secret until he tables the minutes of the proceedings. But it was secret. One wonders why it was secret. What's so terrible about having open discussion? That's what has characterized their so-called public cabinet meetings, which are done in private with select groups of people, usually selected by the local Socred constituency, who are going to appear in front of this group.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Bill 42, Norm.

MR. LEVI: Bill 42? There's nothing wrong with Bill 42 out in the open. There was lots of debate, and all those farmers that came onto the front lawn in their patent-leather shoes. Incredible! But it was open and it was pretty horrific. You should have been here then, Mr. Speaker, but I know you weren't. You were out there on the lawn wearing your patent-leather shoes along with the other farmers.

But I ask, Mr. Speaker - and I must ask this again - where is the Union of B.C. Municipalities in this? They are the people who say they speak for the municipalities. They are the people who said in their

[ Page 4383 ]

newsletter that they agree with the government's policy of decentralization and the government's criticism of the federal government that there should be decentralization. After the discussion that the -minister has had with them - and he's had a discussion with them since the bill has been brought down - they haven't said a word. The only thing I can conclude is that they have more sense than we have and they're all on holiday. But they're not doing their duty. Because I've already quoted from the city of Kelowna's brief. They are concerned when they talk about self-determination of individual municipalities.

Let's talk for a minute about the Greater Vancouver Regional District. They have some concerns too. I mean, when they had to present a brief to the Bawlf committee, they only sent a two-page brief. I don't know whether that indicated how important they saw the committee or whether they didn't have time, but they covered the basic points. Now in their letter to the minister, which was sent on February 3, they make a comment on page 2 and they say:

"Master planning pre-zoning.

"We agree with the intent of the joint committee report of simplifying the planning approval and production of housing. We DO NOT agree that a return to the old system of master planning and provincially improved community plans and universal pre-zoning will satisfy this objective." They're also beginning to worry.

They indicate there - this is before the bill came out - that they had some kind of feeling for the way this might go. After all, what kind of conclusions can you draw when you don't have open, frank discussion? There were no open, frank discussions at a hearing; no open, frank discussions in terms of the minister when it's out in the open. What has the UBCM got to be afraid of in terms of the problems they see in terms of this legislation which they anticipated? This group here has anticipated some problems, and we are told by the minister that if we trust him everything will be okay. There won't be any problems; he's a good guy.

Why is it that in all of the bills, when lie presented it this afternoon, he spent an incredible amount of time talking about some of the housekeeping matters which he was going to deal with, and he spent very little time talking about this particular section? This is the section that we have to be concerned about. We are concerned about it over here because we have the scars of legislation that we brought in where we were accused of massive powers. It didn't always come from this side or the other side of the House. We had the press that was aiding and abetting people. After all they used to get pretty excited. Somebody would tip them off. "Did you know that in that bill it gives them massive, sweeping powers?"

Then when somebody analyses and looks at it, it's the same kind of format legislation that's been there before. But this is somewhat different; it's unique. It's certainly unique for this province. I don't recall another minister taking unto himself this kind of power.

One begins to wonder, with that kind of power, that maybe the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is right. She's the one who stood up here in answer to a question and said: "Yes, I believed it then and I believe it now that there was a secret police." Well, my God, if there's a secret police and she believes it now, and we've got this fellow here talking about massive powers, there's something to worry about. Underlying all of this is a secretiveness.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, he agreed. He wasn't in the opposition party then.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: As I said, Mr. Speaker, in order for him to give some justification for the legislation he's brought in, he doesn't talk on the basis of himself when he says: "This is why we're doing it." He goes on the precedents. He acts like a lawyer. He chalks out a number of precedents where they're doing it in other provinces.

Well, there's a slight difference in other provinces. He talks about Ontario:

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.

Yes, but in Ontario they don't have a Social Credit government. They don't have a government that got elected with a bunch of real estate people jumping up and down. They didn't have that. They don't have a Social Credit government.

Then he takes us to Manitoba.

... the municipal board can intervene to alter a zoning bylaw to suit its own specifications....

A board. A one-man board? No, a board. This is a one-man tribunal- He's the judge, the jury and the executor as well.

MR. D, BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Where is everybody? They all got laid off?

MR. LEVI: They're having a rally.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh.

MR. LEVI: In the telephone box downstairs.

In Saskatchewan the minister can establish a special planning area in any municipality and then proceed to

[ Page 4384 ]

exercise all of the municipality's land-use control powers. In Saskatchewan government has already used these powers of intervention six times.

That's where he gets all of his drive to do this. He takes a look at what everybody else has done and he says: "This is the way we're going to do it in B.C." This is the first time that I've ever heard a minister from that group over there actually lean towards legislation by two socialist governments. It's incredible.

Last week we had trouble with a closet socialist, who was the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . Now we have another closet socialist, the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) .

MR. BARRETT: Opposition tactics.

MR. LEVI: Yes, well, we're going to come to that in a minute, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. We're going to come to that because that seems to be a theme, Mr. Speaker, that's going through some of the legislation coming before this House. We've had editorial writers comment on the fact that we shouldn't say that this government has fascist undertones.

But the overtones from Mr. Moffat - you know he's not a card-carrying member of the NDP. At least, he wasn't before 12 o'clock today. And he said it. Now why does he say it? After all, there's a man, a very experienced man in municipal affairs, with as much experience as that minister. That minister used to be a freedom fighter when he was the mayor. I remember the stories he told over here at the time when the government in 1970 jacked up the rates for welfare. He jumped up and down, along with the Minister of Human Resources when he was mayor of Surrey, when they both advocated breaking the law....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you're straying from the principle of the bill.

MR. LEVI: I'm not straying at all, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about the principle of trust within the municipal area, where we've narrowed it down. We've narrowed it down to massive sweeping powers and it's been underlined by Mayor Moffat as a fascist act. My God, Mr. Chips is here. He lives and breathes.

Mr. Speaker, you can't stray too far in this debate. After all, we're dealing with municipal affairs and we're dealing with a very serious issue, the most serious issue that we've dealt with and it came into the debate four years ago or five years ago in the land bill, Bill 42. There, the developers were saying that we must not freeze farmland because there'll be no development.

Now he doesn't disagree with that. That minister over there doesn't disagree with Bill 42, the agricultural freeze. But what he's saying now, because the election was 18 months ago, is that the IOUs have been laid down on the table. And now they've got to start paying. It's incredible that any minister would want to do what he sets out to do. We had a debate in terms of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) who wants to hear a one-man appeal board. That's two ministers who want to be one-man tribunals in terms of decision making. It's appropriate, Mr. Speaker. I'm probably out of order on that.

We're looking at a general theme that is going through the government - secretiveness; massive powers; ministers who want to be one-man tribunals, to make decisions; lack of consultation that's public. That's important, because these issues are far too important not to have that kind of consultation.

We've heard from two areas. There are more areas, because if we include Mayor Moffat we are talking about the Prince George municipality. We have heard from the municipality of Kelowna, and we have heard from the GVRD, which represents an incredible number of municipalities and some of the larger municipalities of the province. They have concern about the provincial function in terms of rezoning and they are not in favour of that. The municipality of Kelowna is not in favour of that. I must repeat this, because they've put it in almost the terms that you find in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States - the right of self-determination for individual municipalities. That's really saying something. They're saying to that minister: "Don't ignore it." He knows he was a mayor in his municipality for years that there is a right of determination. It is a level of government. They have a right to make decisions within their own area and not be dangled on the end of a string by some minister who is sitting in Victoria with a high degree of centralization. He is moving away from what even the UBCM thought was happening. He actually believed this government when it said: "That government in Ottawa is wrong to centralize all the power. We're in favour of seeing them decentralize it, and we will decentralize power here." We have with this bill, and bill after bill that have come into this House where it is the continuing acquisition of power to the central body. This is most acquisitive government in terms of power.

They want to bring it all back. A government for three and a half years was trying to find a way of putting the power out into the community, and here you have a government now who wants to bring it all back. That's a very serious retrogressive move in this province, because the people out there are prepared to make decisions on their own community interest, but they are suspicious about a government or a minister - in this case, one man who would make decisions in what he terms the provincial public

[ Page 4385 ]

interest. The provincial public interest? That's the provincial interest of the government, which is the Socreds. That is the kind of decision he makes -political decisions based on the betterment of his own party, which happens to be the government. That's not the way you exercise power - by taking unto yourself sweeping powers. And they are sweeping. There's nothing that has come before this House that is so retrogressive in terms of the acquisition of power that they have done.

It's a move, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is going to have to enlarge on when he winds up the debate, and then he's going to have to enlarge on it when we get into the committee stage. He's going to have to do a lot better than he did in terms of the minute or minute and a half that he devoted to this section.

You know, it may have been that he thought that if he made any further reference to it we might have overlooked it, but the bill has been tabled for too long. We've had an opportunity to look at it; we've spoken to a lot of people. The minister should tell us who he has been talking to. What has he said to people in municipalities who are upset about this? Yet except for the GVRD and the cities of Kelowna and Prince George, we are not hearing from anyone. We're certainly not hearing from the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Why not? What do they know that we don't know? Has he got some kind of an arrangement with them? We need this piece of legislation, but we'll trot out some other things that will make you happier. I don't know how they can be happy with this, because they have already expressed their unhappiness with it in terms of the fears that they had in the beginning of the year.

Mr. Speaker, there is the other question, and it is an important question in terms of the provision of housing. We know the kinds of problems that we have had in terms of the provision of housing and the difficulty of getting through the municipality in terms of the red tape. All governments have experienced that. Unless you want the absolute, massive fascist-type power that Mayor Moffat has characterized.... Does he think that that's going to make any difference? What kind of difference is it making now in this province anyway when the major developers who would be interested in all issues of rezoning and land assembly are going somewhere else? They are already out of the province spending millions and millions of dollars in the United States, and have lost to the people of this province this year alone about 2,500 houses simply simply because they see nothing in this province. Now we've got this. Is this going to make them happier, more willing to participate? He's going to be able to hit people over the head and say: "We don't agree with it. This is the way it's going to be."

We have a right to view this with a great deal of suspicion because of the powers that this minister has got. These are the powers he wants. Who is he going to be talking to if we are going to follow as he will do, because after all, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , when he was a backbencher - he's still a bit of a junior minister now, but this is the senior minister of the two.... After all, when they went out they were looking at a couple of questions. It was terribly urgent, so urgent they didn't even have time to set up a standing committee in the House. They had to set up a little separate committee.

There is some gall in terms of this minister when he keeps coming back to this House and telling us that we haven't yet got permission from the people who submitted briefs to this committee, probably on these areas. He keeps telling us: "Until we get the permission, we can't release the transcripts of the hearing." Now we're not down in the United States. We're not talking about Watergate or some missing tapes. We're talking about a committee that heard representations on this very issue that we're debating here now and he tells us that he still hasn't got the permission to release it.

Now what kind of process is that? Here are people who are in organizations for the first time, to my knowledge, that have participated in this kind of a forum - the forum of this hearing committee that the now Minister of Recreation and Conservation had. The minister comes back and tells us: "We can't give you anything. We can't give you any information on that until we get the permission to release it." The only very basic difference between that kind of a hearing and the hearing that usually takes place in this province is that it's held in public. Now we're being told by this minister that you can't have it until you give us permission, and if we don't get permission, we're not going to have it. We may never know. Yet it's being paid for by the taxpayer.

He's not been doing this for one or two weeks. This has been going on since.... The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has been asking him now for pretty close to six months. Today he tells us again that he's just sent out some more letters. Well, he must know as well as anybody what's going to happen if he releases the tapes. Do you know what's going to happen? He'll probably say: "I cannot break faith with these people." Well, he's breaking faith with us because we want to know what was said at that hearing in respect to this particular question that we're dealing with in this bill. We have to know this kind of information. He's hiding behind some code of ethics that I've never heard of. They are secret hearings. We don't know what they've said and that's all part and parcel of the development of this kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand we have three municipalities pointing out the dangers of centralization. We have the mayor of one of the most

[ Page 4386 ]

improving municipalities in the province, Prince George, saying that this is fascist-type legislation. We have the GVRD saying that it does not agree to the return of the old system of master planning and provincially approved community plans. They are not in favour of that.

Now what was said at these meetings that has some relevance to what we are discussing here? One can presume that because we do not have the information - and we should have had the information months ago - people expressed some real concern about the involvement of the government in this very decision-making that the minister wants to take to himself. We have had that kind of concern, because there's a secretiveness about it. Yet he tells us that he can't do it. He can't release the transcript because they haven't approved.

Here he's got a piece of legislation in which he's proposing at appropriate times that he's going to go in and put the hammer to them and say: "This is the way it's going to be." Well, my suggestion, Mr. Speaker, in terms of this legislation is that before we get to the committee stage we would like to see those transcripts. Because they would assist us in getting some idea of the kind of thinking that's going on out there in the community in terms of these issues. If he wants that kind of massive power in the bill, he can exercise just a scintilla of that kind of power and say to these groups: "I'm sorry, but my first obligation is to the legislators of this province, who have to deal with legislation. They have a right to get any information that's relevant to the legislation before the House."

In two briefs that I quoted from, both of them make reference to the Bawlf report and to the two basic proposals, one of which deals very specifically with the issues of land and rezoning. That is my suspicion because this whole thing is cloaked in a kind of secretiveness that we're probably not going to get it; that we'll get it afterwards.

Some people are not prepared, so what we'll have to do if the minister can't produce the reports is go to them ourselves and say: "Can we have a copy of your report?" I'm suggesting to my colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , that's what we should do. Send them a telegram and say: "Let us have a copy of the report that you submitted." If they wire back to us and say: "We can't give you a copy of the report until we get permission from the minister, " then there's going to be quite a noise going on in this House. We left it up to the minister to do this and he hasn't done it.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the kind of power that this minister wants is always a constant source of concern to both sides of the House. When you switch around and you have the government becoming the opposition and the opposition becoming the government, all the oppositions take the same position, particularly when it relates to the centralization of power, and more particularly when it relates to the centralization of power in the hands of the minister written in law.

We know that generally ministers have ministerial prerogatives in which they are able to make certain decisions in the public interest. This is a practice that has grown up over hundreds of years of the parliamentary system. Here we have it written down that that minister and that minister alone can make those decisions. After all, he's not an individual who could go to cabinet and maybe lose the fight.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Would you remove that member from the House?

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that as you have been listening to this debate you have begun to understand some of the climate that we have attempted to describe - not only what is out there in the province but what existed in this Legislature over the years in terms of this kind of legislation. After all, the role of the opposition is to oppose and to propose and to point out where the weaknesses are. We have from the minister a flimsy minute-and-a-half statement about the most crucial section of the bill. So we don't have much information from him. We have no transcripts of the hearings so we don't know what went on there. We have a few briefs from the municipalities so we know they are worried.

The only group that doesn't appear to be worried or has been silenced in some way by the minister is the Union of B.C. Municipalities. But we know that in practice over the years they have fought against -certainly when the previous government was in - the acquisition of central power by a government. I don't think that they have changed their minds and they have an obligation to speak up about this. If they agree with it, then they should say so and point out to us that we are on the wrong track. But I am concluding that their silence is that they are against it but they are not prepared to speak up. That is a sorry state of affairs because that was an organization that in my experience was prepared to speak up at the drop of a hat at almost anything that affected them. But we haven't heard a word from them. The minister met with them after he tabled the bill. He probably said to them: "Everything is okay. You don't have to say anything. We've consulted with you." About what? What have they consulted about with them? About the fact that he is going to be, in terms of municipal control, in terms of land development and the acquisition of land, the most powerful individual in the province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have three minutes, hon. member.

[ Page 4387 ]

MR. LEVI: Thank you very much. Did the minister come and tell you it was three minutes? Is he the timekeeper? My God - they've found you something to do!

Let me just summarize again for you, Mr. Speaker. The UBCM started out with some optimism at the beginning of the year. They were somewhat puzzled by what the government was saying in its throne speech, but they were prepared to wait. But then they made a very specific statement, and I think it bears repeating because it is their own statement. This is their comment about the speech:

"In other statements affecting local government, just as the government believes that there should be an effective decentralization of the powers and responsibilities on the national scene, so does it believe this concept should apply to the relationship of local governments in the province. This bill demonstrates very clearly that that is a radical departure from what the intent was in the throne speech."

Then the two former freedom fighters for the municipalities, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) - he had a lot to say when he was the mayor of Surrey - have not said a word. I don't know; one must presume that they lost the battle in cabinet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired, hon. member.

MR. LEVI: That was a quick three minutes.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to open my comments by taking some comments from a former president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. He said about legislation in this House regarding centralizing authority in Victoria: "I believe they - the municipalities - should be able to, under the Municipal Act, look after their own destiny. It might be well and good for big government in Victoria to say: 'We know what is best for you, ' but it is not very palatable at the local level."

I'm sure the minister will be back shortly. That was a former president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities who felt that the local level knew best for itself, and they did not believe that big government in Victoria should be making all of the decisions. As a matter of fact, that is a very lengthy speech, Mr. Speaker, and I won't quote it all, but it's interesting that it was a vociferous attack in this House against the government legislation that wouldn't centralize authority nearly as much as this section and this bill will.

That member is now the hon. Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) . When he was in the opposition he spoke and identified himself as a former president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and he said:

I believe the municipalities should be able, under the Municipal Act, to look after their own destiny. It might be well and good for big government in Victoria to say what is best for you, but it is not very palatable at the local level.

I don't like to quote the minister's own words back to him when it's embarrassing, but I have no choice. That was in the heady days when they were the Cardinal Mindszenties of the British Columbia Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and they were the great freedom fighters who on every issue and every day stood up and fought against big government in Victoria.

They went on to say other things. I'm coming to the wonderful member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) , and his pristine statements about government and honourableness and the opportunity for appeals and attacks against centralist government. I have to come to those in a few moments, but I want to go on to quote with my good friend, the now Minister of Highways and Public Works. He said here:

Madam Chairman, I know from having been the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities our municipal leaders go elsewhere in Canada. They say the story we hear outside the province is far different than the story that comes from the members of the opposition, and others have created the myth that the British Columbia municipalities have been driven into the dust by the former government.

You should hear, Mr. Speaker, how the Minister of Labour attacked the Minister of Highways and Public Works when he made that statement. There's a ringing, vicious indictment in here by the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) against the former Social Credit government for ignoring the municipalities and centralizing authority.

He'd never want to be a part of that, would he, gang? No. That was in the days of plastic principles when it was all fair and good to get up and make speeches attacking the NDP for centralizing and saying: "Oh, horrors, we'd never want to go back to the bad old days of Social Credit either." He's now become part of those bad old days, Mr. Speaker, sitting there silently, with ministerial aura, not saying a word in this House about the very kind of legislation that he and his smiling blue-suited seatmate used to make great speeches about the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) when they attacked the NDP. "Oh, horrors, " they said. "They're taking away your freedoms, centralizing."

Oh, it must be the late show. Isn't that funny, gang? Just put it all down as a bit of a joke from the present Attorney-General, because after all, plastic

[ Page 4388 ]

principles are okay as long as you're fighting another political party. If you don't fight the other political party, join them. Make it up as you go along.

Listen to what you used to say in the old heady days when we used to believe there were principles involved in your statements and your speeches. In the old heady days you used to stand in this House and attack centralist governments. In the old heady days you used to sit there as a Liberal and stand up and fight for the rights of individuals in the municipalities, when we thought you believed that.

It's too bad these words are on the record, but I'm not finished yet with the former president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities who attacked the NDP. Oh, yes, he even moved a motion. He even moved a motion against the minister, and Hugh Curtis at that time wouldn't support that, Mr. Speaker. He wouldn't support it. He said a dollar reduction was too much. Twenty cents might do.

What were they attacking? My goodness gracious me, Mr. Speaker - do you know what they were attacking? They were attacking centralized government authority with ringing words of "No appeal! Oh, you can't appeal against this terrible autocratic government in Victoria. A minister is taking unto himself powers that deny democratic institutions the right and the voice to participate in debates." Halcyon days for the freedom fighters of British Columbia, with an appeal to all the electorate saying: "Vote for this new coalition group and you'll have your freedom back." What a joke. What hypocrisy.

You don't like it, do you, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) ? You look a little sick to me. Mr. Speaker, he looks a little sick and ill. He used to be one of the greatest freedom fighters himself when they'd get up and decry this kind of thing. He'd also say that he served on a municipal council. He didn't want big government in Victoria interfering. He didn't want that kind of absolute authority, and now they're sick in their guts because they're doing exactly what they said our government was doing, and they haven't got the nerve to stand up and fight their own government.

I find it hypocritical. I find it really hypocritical. You go out there and you go and call the rallies of hundreds of people against Bill 42, as you did when you were in opposition, and say: "Oh, those terrible centralizing governments are taking away municipal authority." Then when you get into power, what do you do? You do it yourself and you sit there smugly thinking it's all a game, it was all a farce and a fraud. It was all fun, but now that you've got power you can do anything you want.

Mr. Speaker, let's quote from the hon. member here in this book, Debates of the Legislative Assembly, page 2018, April 2,1973 - one day after April Fools Day. In those days he wasn't the Hon. L.A. Williams; he was just Mr. L.A. Williams.

This is what he said: "Has the official opposition forgotten what happened at Dufferin?" Oh, Dufferin. Listen to this. This is the hon. Minister of Labour chastising Social Credit for their autocratic behaviour and interfering and establishing Dufferin in those days when he espoused these principles and said: "Oh, yes, we don't want centralized government. Look what happened at Dufferin, " he went on to say. "Is this what they call the democratic approach to local government administration in the province of British Columbia - the way Dufferin was established?" This is what Mr. Williams is quoted as saying in Hansard.

Is this what they call the democratic approach to local government administration in the province of British Columbia, the way Dufferin was established, where we had the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the previous government (Mr. D. Campbell) putting before a committee of this House a question as to how the establishment of new local governments in British Columbia should be carried out? How ironic. Attacking Dan Campbell. The only thing that's missing in that marriage is that he won't be going to Europe with good old Dan. How ironic. In a quick twist to history, in four and a half fast years there is that Minister of Labour sitting over there who attacked Dan Campbell, who attacked the former Social Credit administration for doing even less than what's taking place in this House tonight under this bill, and I'm sure we're going to get a ringing speech from that member denouncing his colleague in cabinet and saying what lie said in 1973 he believed -or was it all a farce and a mockery then, on the very same kind of legislation - hollow, ringing tones that we got from those high hills in West Vancouver saying "look what they did in Dufferin" and "it should never be allowed in a democratic institution."

AN HON. MEMBER: We've heard all this before.

MR. BARRETT: You've heard it all before? It made you sick then and it should make you sick now - the hypocrisy and the duplicity and the doubletalk of the opposition at any given time, and then they come in and say that they support this kind of legislation.

They smile. They know better, Mr. Speaker. They know better. "You can trust us. You can't trust a big government with centralized power, but you can trust us because when we become big and we become centralized, we become fair."

"Who the gods. . . ." What's that quote?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Animal Farm.

MR. BARRETT: "Who the gods would destroy they first make mad." Is that not the quote?

[ Page 4389 ]

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Pretty close.

MR. BARRETT: Pretty close. And one way of making them mad would be to respond to them by reading back their old speeches. He's a buddy of Dan Campbell now. He didn't like him in those days. What made them become amenable? What led to this marriage? What led to this hand-holding, love making, other than politics? What gives politics a bad name? The actions of those present members who now sit in the cabinet benches, especially when you read the stench of their old speeches back in the nostrils in this House when you're faced with legislation that makes them look like the greatest hypocritical, political principle-twisters that ever lived. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that the minister will go to the UBCM and stand up and say: "I had to change my mind and take away your democratic freedoms because it's good for you. I had to do it because now we're in government and anything goes. We have plastic principles and when we're in power we can do whatever we want."

Mr. Williams goes on to say on page 2018, one day after April Fools in 1973: ". . . putting before a committee of this House . . . new local governments.... Immediately following upon making that request to the select standing committee, we suddenly found that Dufferin was established. We know the tragedy that has been." Do you remember the tones - glasses on and off and the aloofness with which those words used to be delivered? Above the pettiness of this House, above the kind of hostility, above the emotion, it was the lawyer's logical appeal, and the dulcet tones that slipped the words right up into the press gallery and impressed them up there by knowing that this high-priced West Vancouver lawyer, when he spoke about democratic freedom at the local level, was above party politics, was beyond any kind of partisan approach, was a man of reason and principle and dedication and devotion above anything that anyone else could obviously practise as any standard of this House.

He sits there silently writing away, face getting a little red, but not too bad. The half hour will be over and he can walk out saying: "Oh, I hate those socialists." But deep down, his words are coming back into his gut to haunt him over the hypocrisy of the position they took when they were in opposition and said: "Oh, you can't take this power away from the municipal government."

I quote the mayor of Prince George, who is not an NDPer; I quote the mayor of Prince George, who was a sympathizer to Social Credit. He calls this "fascist legislation." A mayor of a major city of this province, who is not moved to extravagant statements, a man who has shown responsible leadership at the municipal level for umpteen years in this province, a former campaign manager of the now head of

Can-Cel, not a socialist, a Social Credit supporter, calls this "fascist legislation." Interesting.

Mr. Speaker, I remember actions taken before that member for West Vancouver was in this House by the previous administration that caused the member and other mayors of the municipalities to come down to Victoria on a special trip, opposing what the government of the day was then doing. I yet don't recall that when he was sitting in the government benches, he made criticisms of the way in which the then Minister of Municipal Affairs was carrying on.

What do we find here? We find the present Minister of Labour chastising the present Minister of Public Works and Highways for not having spoken out when he was the present Minister of Highways, a member of the government. Yes, the present Minister of Labour stood up in the House and attacked the present Minister of Highways for the present Minister of Highways not having got up as a Socred attacking his own government for bringing in anti-centralist policies. Now we find that he as the Minister of Labour sits alongside the Minister of Highways, and not only has he not opened his mouth on this legislation, but he agrees with it. At least the hypocrisy of the Minister of Public Works doesn't transcend two arguments or two parties. The Minister of Labour not only was against the legislation, but was against the Minister of Highways for not speaking out when he was a backbencher of the government There he sits, a minister of that government that is doing exactly the same or worse that he condemned and criticized individual members in government for and hasn't said a word about it.

Oh, well, it's different, isn't it? I mean, when you want to be pristine and you want to be above politics and you want to have an image that gives the impression that whatever you say or do at the moment is something you believe in at the moment but it's necessary to maintain power or twist things later on, just change your mind when you came in here, because now he's a Socred. I can remember a time when if someone said to him that he would be a Socred, he'd punch him out. You could swear at him, you could call him names, but don't ever call him a Socred - that's going too far. There he is, sitting there, studiously reading a letter while his guts are churning about having to defend the piece of legislation that you, sir, through you, Mr. Speaker, attacked members for, made speeches against, and now you're part and parcel of the same kind of legislation. I'll bet you a cup of coffee and a donut that you won't get up and say a word about this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, what the people have to do to twist their arguments and principles to that point. Is there nothing that people have respect in or believe in? Do we tell the young people of this province that you can say anything that you want, believe in anything

[ Page 4390 ]

that you want, but as long as you get power, then you change your position, then you change your attitude, then you change your approach?

MR. LEA: Is nothing Socred?

MR. BARRETT: "is nothing Socred?" said my friend from Prince Rupert, and perhaps he's put it in the best humorous approach that could take place. If you start taking this gang seriously, Mr. Speaker, you would begin to wonder.

What's the use of reading the rest of that junky speech? I can remember sitting there. I remember this speech - I listened to it. I thought he was serious. I used to think that because of his background and his academic approach, because of his aloofness as he refrained at that time from petty politics, he meant what he said.

Then there are the speeches of good old Hugh, through you, Mr. Speaker. I only quote the name in Hansard, because he's the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) now. All of his high-flying sounding phrases, through you, Mr. Speaker. Oh, yes, and the deep tones that come along with professional association. That minister's principles are so deep they're all surface, Mr. Speaker. He stood in this House and he attacked the government of the day and he said: "Oh, centralizing authority, big boot government, jackboot government, big policies, centralizing. . . ." And then they bring in this legislation which in one section here alone is more "fascist, " in Moffat's words, than anything else we've seen in this place in a long time.

Oh, it's all a joke. Anything goes. The member who is the only Conservative left in this House had the dubious honour of being a seatmate of that minister when he made those speeches. I remember the good doctor, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , applauding his desk when his former seatmate would get up and attack centralist government taking away democracy at the local level. Look what happened. The minister got so carried away he not only left his seatmate, but he jumped political parties and abandoned his philosophy on the way.

What makes you so good, Mr. Speaker? Not you, Mr. Speaker - you are good - but to the minister: what makes you so good and so right? If ever a government was motivated by hate and used that as a rationalization for doing any single thing it wanted to do, it is this government here in Victoria right now.

Take away the right of the municipal government. If there's any criticism against it, oh, it's just socialist, Mr. Speaker. It's not real criticism; it's just the NDP.

Do you know how ulcers are caused, Mr. Speaker? Ulcers are caused by a little twinge of guilt feeding acid into a stomach in response to a Pavlovian nerve when one examines what used to be principles and are no longer principles. That acid drips away in the stomach, Mr. Speaker, and becomes bilious and it eats away at the stomach wall, and it develops sores. You get sores in the stomach and they become ulcers, and ulcers are caused by an abandonment of principles.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dr. Barrett.

MR. BARRETT: "Dr. Barrett, " says that happy radio announcer who also made it along the same route as the present minister. There he is; become a hotliner and make it into the cabinet.

You know, Mr. Speaker, if one were able to shut out the whole community of British Columbia, and summon up Shakespeare and say, "come back and write a play about what's gone on and what's going on, " he couldn't come up with the characters who got elected over there. In all the Shakespearean plays, with the activities of Brutus - at least Brutus was only a single double-crosser - I don't know of any Shakespearean play that has got a double, double, triple, double-crosser like the kind of things that have gone on with this government's policies. Tinkers to Evans, to Williams, to Curtis, to. . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: Iago.

MR. BARRETT: Iago. Thank you, my friend. My limited experience with English literature left out the example of Iago.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Let go of my Iago.

MR. BARRETT: The centralized Iago in the blue suit.

MR. WALLACE: You're practising medicine without a licence.

MR. BARRETT: I'm practising medicine without a licence. I want to tell you, these fellows would practise anything, and if they ran out of licences, they'd print one, just like they're doing in this bill tonight. Anything I do is all right; anything I say is all right! Just pass this bill and section 28 allows the minister to tell any municipality: "Ho hum, gang, I'm going to be Big Dada; I'm gonna run it all." It's going to pass and you're going to stand up at the Socred convention and announce how you've been a great freedom fighter. You have protected freedom. That will be your argument, because you took it away from the people before they lost it. That's a great thing that you have done. Take away their freedom before they lose it.

Mr. Speaker, how do they sleep at night? How do they figure these things out, that the population is so dumb and so stupid that when they ran around saying

[ Page 4391 ]

that they were going to fight for the rights of municipalities, they were going to fight for the rights of any municipality which will elect anyone they want ... just elect us the government and we will protect democracy." Now we have a bill in front of us that says no matter what a municipal council says or does, the minister has the right to change it and to make all those changes himself, and there's no appeal whatsoever, unless it's to the cabinet.

What about the speeches from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) when he sat in opposition, demanding appeals on, ironically, Bill 42? Will you stand up tonight and make a speech demanding appeals on this Bill 42 for the ordinary citizen? You won't! Plastic principles! Plastic philosophy! Full of hate! Yes, yes, you know whom I'm talking about, through you, Mr. Speaker. You stand up and tell us that you've changed your philosophy and your principle - the speeches you made when you were a member over here, attacking Mr. Fraser, the speeches you made when you attacked the Minister of Municipal Affairs. You stand up and explain to us why you're going to allow that minister to have the power that you said was wrong, was anti-democratic and was against the democratic principles of our society. You, through you, Mr. Speaker, who got up and attacked Dufferin on the same basis as this bill we're debating here tonight. Dufferin was created and you attacked Dan Campbell. Now you sit there, and I'll bet you a buck - I'll bet you a cup of coffee or a doughnut - you won't stand up and repeat your speech that was made with such high-flown principles. Oh, yes, look angry at me. Personalize it on me, Mr. Minister.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): And you talk about hate!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Minister, it's not a question of hate! I'd love to hear you stand up and say that you are changing your mind about those principles you held then. I'd like to see you stand up and say that I was wrong, Mr. Minister. Stand up and tell this House that when you made that speech you were incorrect. Stand up and say that when you crossed the floor, you didn't really abandon your principles-, you just corrected some errors you made.

There are two colleagues who sat with those two ministers over there who have a responsibility in this decision that is taking away democracy from the local level. If you want to rationalize it because you dislike me, Mr. Speaker, then I will step out of the room. If your dislike for me forces you to abandon your principles, I'll stand out of the room. Then you get up and tell this House that what you said when you were an opposition member is what you truly believe, regardless of me or anyone else.

When the present Liberal leader sat with the Minister of Labour, didn't you believe that what he said in terms of freedom and democracy at the local level was a matter of principle? Didn't you believe that? You don't hate him, do you, Mr. Minister of Labour? He used to be a seatmate - a bedmate, politically speaking. (Laughter.) You don't hate him; he doesn't hate you. So if you don't want to say it to me, say it to him. Don't let him be broken-hearted and believe that you could have been not telling exactly the truth about principles and philosophy when you spoke against this kind of legislation.

Oh, speak to one of the backbenchers; that takes a little bit of the heat off. Maybe give him a learned tome about how the law works and how democracy functions. If you're a good boy ...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, back to Bill 42, please.

MR. BARRETT: ... you might make it into cabinet. All you have to do is abandon your philosophy and your principles.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, back to the principle of Bill 42, please.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no principle in the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then obviously you're finished.

MR. BARRETT: I'll try to discover the principle in the speech by that Minister of Labour when he attacked the municipalities for losing their democratic rights. It's all a joke, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? It was all a joke then and it's all a joke tonight. All the speeches, all the statements, all the demands that ordinary citizens who pay taxes at the local level, who meet the assessor at the doorstep, who are forced by law to pay taxes and are being told tonight that no matter what decision is made by their duly elected democratic representatives, this government will absorb for itself the right to upset that decision. It's all a joke. It's one thing to be said during election campaigns and appealing to masses of people and saying: "Vote Social Credit and we'll bring you freedom at the local level." It's Orwellian. Why have all those choices out there at the local level when they can do it for you here? It's Orwellian. Mr. Speaker, it was necessary for me to refer to the former member for West Vancouver and now the Minister of Labour's speech. It was necessary for me to refer to the speech that was made when he was a seatmate of the present Liberal leader. It was necessary for me to refer to the speeches made by the minister when he was a seatmate of the leader of the Conservative Party, , because when they jump parties

[ Page 4392 ]

they abandon their principles as well.

You may dislike me, Mr. Speaker; you may dislike what I am saying. But all I am doing is repeating your own arguments. You believed them at one time. All I'm doing is regurgitating to you the same speeches you gave in this House when you said socialists were taking away your freedom.

We had no appeal process amended in the Act on Bill 42. There is no appeal process in this. All those things you said against our Bill 42 are worse in your Bill 42. Am I such a bad boy, through you, Mr. Speaker, that it makes them react this way? Do they have any backbone of their own as a government to stand up and fight for the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens who, after all, make this province the place it is to live in?

I know that the Victoria Daily Colonist, The Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province and the Victoria Times have all run editorials quoting that minister's statements attacking this very kind of legislation. I know the weekly sheets will bring out Mr. Curtis as he is quoted in Hansard, his attacks on the loss of freedom at the municipal level.

I'm quoting from Hansard when I use the minister's name, Mr. Speaker. I'm very correct about things like that. The only thing I might be incorrect about is exactly what party he was in at the time. That changed very quickly.

Mr. Speaker, for me it is an experience being forced to stand up on this bill and speak this way. It is something that I feel all right about. It is unpleasant, it's a little bit sick, but I can walk out of here and hold my head up high because I haven't changed my principles. I believe in a democratic right of citizens in a free society to elect a municipal government and that municipal government being responsible and having a say. We listened in debate and amended the Act and allowed an appeal process for citizens. I can hold my head up. I don't hate any one of you. I love the whole works of you. Some of it is a bit more difficult to love than others but, nonetheless, I work at it. But I find it hard, Mr. Speaker, to swallow the hypocrisy that is attached to the former statements and beliefs of the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Highways and Public Works and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing when they defend this kind of legislation here tonight and won't even speak on it, when they stood four-square against these kinds of moves when they sat in different parties and in different places in this Legislature. I hear those tones saying that this place has come down in public repute. It has not come down in public repute on the basis of human behaviour in this chamber. If there is any disrepute, it is because of the abandonment of principles and the ploy for power at any cost, at any argument and the price of any principle.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

You want to tell young people to stand for office? We tell young people to stand for office and say: "When you stand for office, be clear. Believe in principles. Accept their philosophy and stand and fall on those principles or those philosophies." What do they see today? An accumulation of a group that has abandoned philosophy, abandoned principle, abandoned their old speeches about freedom and said: "Give us power and we'll do what we want to do." That is exactly what the minister is going to do in this bill.

MRS. WALLACE: It's not very long ago - less than two years, in November of 1975 - when every one of those members sitting in the cabinet now stumped this province, screaming and decrying the NDP government, calling it, "big government." They claimed it was taking away powers from local authorities and putting them into the hands of a centralized government. Those members who are now in that cabinet, and those members who are in the back bench, went around this province saying that if they were elected things would be different. They would decentralize the power that the big NDP government had supposedly taken away. They would put power back into the hands of the local authorities.

We've been in this House now, Mr. Speaker, for nearly two years. In that two-year period, bill after bill, time after time, one piece of legislation after the other, we've seen that government drawing unto itself more and more centralized powers. They have taken away the very powers that the former government had moved to decentralize and put them back into the hands of government. Now we have this bill, Mr. Speaker, which is more of the same.

I had expected something different in this bill from this minister. I'm concerned not only about the things that are in this bill, but also about some of the things that are omitted from this bill. I'm concerned to see that the only apparent change in the regional concept is simply a right to change the boundaries of existing regional districts. I'm not opposed to the regional concept, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure, that minister is not opposed to the total concept, but I suggest that minister has some responsibility to ensure there is some provision to do away with the many, many problems that are being created, particularly in the rural areas. I'm not so familiar with the urban areas, but in the rural areas there is a terrific overlap in regional, municipal, village and town government. In this bill we see nothing that is going to take any steps towards correcting those problems. I get complaint after complaint from constituents, from elected aldermen, from councillors and mayors, as to the kinds of problems that are

[ Page 4393 ]

being created by the multiplicity of layers of local government. I had expected that in this bill that minister would be taking some steps to correct some of those problems. Instead, Mr. Speaker, nothing of that is happening.

What do we find instead? Well, we find some changes, or some rewriting at least, in what, say, a municipal council has to do if it's going to designate a community plan. It's quite interesting the things it has to do before it can propose a bylaw for a community plan. This council has to hold public hearings and it has to assure that the community plan was prepared in accordance with sections and subsections of the Act. It can't even amend a community plan, Mr. Speaker, unless it has held a hearing. Certainly it has to have a public hearing if it's going to propose any new community plan. It also has to go to a regional board and have the concurrence of the regional board. The bylaw has to be drawn up and shall be deemed to be a reference to the official community plan. A great deal of detail, a great deal of study, is laid on the municipal layer of government, the municipal authorities, volunteer elected people in there doing a job for their community. Those are the kinds of steps they have to go through, Mr. Speaker, before they can initiate a community plan, or a bylaw in support of that community plan.

What about the regional district? What does it have to do? Well, on page 12 of the Act ' it says: "The regional board or the trustees of an improvement district shall not adopt a bylaw or undertake works contrary to or at variance with an official settlement plan." Therefore they, too, are tied into the whole concept of the public hearing - the review, the research that is necessary before they can issue a plan or a bylaw to make that plan law.

The Act is very explicit on all those items. In the instance of a regional board, it says:

" (2) An official settlement plan shall contain (a) a statement of broad social, economic and environmental objectives.... (b) a statement of the policies of the'regional board respecting the general form and character of the future land use pattern. . . ."

It goes on. It must look into "the location, amount, and type of major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational and public utility uses." A regional board must do all of those things before it can initiate a plan or get a bylaw to cover that plan.

It must go into the protection of land areas subject to hazardous conditions; the preservation, protection and enhancement of land and water areas of special importance; the preservation and continuing use of agricultural land for present and future food production. It must look at urban development. It must look at public facilities, waste and disposal sites, road systems. It's all spelled out, step by step, in great detail, Mr. Speaker - the things that a regional board must do before it can initiate a community plan or propose a bylaw to cover that plan.

On top of that, a regional board in submitting an official settlement plan or amendment for approval by the minister shall provide evidence that the public was given adequate opportunity to examine and comment on the proposed plan or amendments and shall provide a summary of the comments that were received by the regional board.

Mr. Speaker, I think those are probably very good provisions. I think it's necessary that if we're going to adopt a plan and a bylaw that is going to affect the day-to-day living of the residents of a given community, that plan or that bylaw should be subjected to all those requirements. We should have public hearings. We should have consideration for future needs and planning in all areas - the hazardous things, the services, the roads. All those amenities should be considered. It's rightly spelled out there.

But then come to section 28 of this bill, and that's where things change, because now we suddenly find that this minister, with one stroke of the pen and simply at his whim almost - no reason, no consultation, just at his whim - can not only send that bylaw back and say: "No, you must change this. . . ." That's nothing new. He can also, if the community, the municipality or the regional district doesn't agree to change it, simply change it. One stroke of the pen, and it becomes, as the Act says.... He alters the bylaw and the bylaw or plan "shall be deemed for all purposes to be so altered." Just one stroke of the pen and there it is. The local people have to go to all those expenses of hearings, of ensuring that all the facilities are there, of looking at all aspects, but one stroke of the pen and it can be wiped out by this minister.

I thought perhaps I was over-reacting, Mr. Speaker, and I thought perhaps some of the people that were being quoted were over-reacting. We've heard of the mayor of Prince George, who's called this bill fascism. The chairman of the Capital Regional District says its a danger to democracy. So I thought I would check with some of the local mayors in my own constituency, and I've done that.

One mayor, who shall remain nameless, had admitted to not having read the bill or being aware of what it said, but the others were much more explicit. The mayor of Lake Cowichan was very perturbed about the bill, not so much for the reasons I have been outlining, but because of the appeal procedure.

He believes, Mr. Speaker, that it is very wrong to have no appeal except to the cabinet because that mayor sees very rightly that an appeal to the cabinet is really no appeal. No cabinet is going to let down one of their number; by refusing to uphold a ruling of that minister. It's a no-appeal appeal, that's all.

[ Page 4394 ]

There's just no real effect that can be gained by appealing to the cabinet on a ministerial decision.

MR. GIBSON: Just a banana appeal.

MRS. WALLACE: A kangaroo court, perhaps, or a banana appeal, as the member says. The mayor of Lake Cowichan has suggested that there should be an independent tribunal. If we're going to have this kind of power put in the hands of one individual in cabinet, then there should be an independent tribunal to which municipal governments or regional governments can go to discuss and have a ruling made from an independent source as to whether or not that ministerial decision to rewrite a bylaw, or change a bylaw, or issue a bylaw is allowable.

A very interesting piece of information came out of my conversations with the various mayors in the Cowichan area, and that was that this minister has seen fit to have a seminar in Parksville for town clerks and municipal clerks to explain section 28 of this bill, Mr. Speaker. Now if the mayor, who shall remain nameless hadn't read the bill, but did think there was really no change, is correct, then certainly what the minister said in his opening remarks today differs from that mayor's thinking, because he indicated that there were some changes, and that he wasn't going to use them but they were there just in case he needed them.

Well, the mayor from Lake Cowichan sent his clerk to that forum at Parksville and the mayor of North Cowichan also sent his clerk. it's very interesting when you compare the comments that came back to these mayors from the two clerks.

The mayor at Lake Cowichan tells me that his clerk, who attended the seminar, says that the real purpose of this section 28 is not to give the minister any further powers to write bylaws for municipalities, it's simply to provide a legal-aid service for those municipalities. Now that isn't what the minister indicated when he talked to us, but that's what this clerk got out of that seminar. He said that a lot of small municipalities didn't have legal advisers and they might not have written their bylaws quite technically correctly. Therefore the minister, rather than refer them back to be rewritten because they were technically incorrect - rather than do that and have that small municipality shoulder the load of legal fee to rewrite the bylaw because it wasn't technically Correct - was going to be very generous and provide legal-aid services to the municipalities to tidy up their bylaws. Now that was the impression that one clerk got from that seminar.

However, the clerk from North Cowichan got quite a different understanding. That clerk came back, and I'm sure she was right, because she is a member of the ... I don't like to say "weaker sex" -the stronger sex perhaps - and I'm sure that she got the correct interpretation. Anyway, her interpretation was that it was going to put some rather stringent controls on bylaws and some rather hazardous possibilities. Both she and the mayor of North Cowichan have expressed to me the feeling that it did not sit very well. They are very concerned about that particular clause.

I spoke to the mayor of Ladysmith and he was very outspoken. He said the bill was nothing short of the minister telling us how to write our bylaws, and that it was a dictatorial measure. Those were his words.

It seems strange to me that the minister would be holding a seminar for these clerks in advance of this bill even being passed and yet there has been no consultation, as far as we can find out, with the elected representatives.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Not correct.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I just listened to the second member for Vancouver-Burrard and he was quoting some authorities that sounded.... Perhaps the minister in his rebuttal when he closes his debate can answer some of those points, but the points raised by that second member for Burrard made good, logical sense to me. If the minister has something to offer that counteracts those arguments, it would seem that there has been little or no consultation with the elected personnel. Certainly from my discussion with the mayors in my particular constituency there was no indication that there had been any consultation whatsoever. The mayors that were familiar with the Act were familiar with it because they had taken it upon themselves to read it and to study it, and had taken it upon themselves to send a clerk to that seminar. The mayors that have not done this were not at all familiar with what the Act contained.

So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this minister has no choice but to either withdraw this section or to bring in some amendments which will change the dictatorial powers that are contained in that statement. With those kinds of powers being provided to the minister, it is a direct contravention of the whole idea that was expressed by his ministry and by his government when it was seeking the support of the electorate.

It is centralizing powers in the hands of big government, and it's a repeat over and over of the continuing trend in that direction.

It seems every bill I get up to speak about, every measure that I rise in my place to discuss raises the same ugly spectre. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) was expressing some very real concern about the members of the cabinet and their stand on this bill, it was considered as a bit of a joke by some of the members on that side. I don't consider it a joke, Mr. Speaker; I consider this as a

[ Page 4395 ]

real threat to the democratic future of British Columbia.

Dictatorship, fascism, communism - those things don't happen overnight. They creep, creep, creep. And that's what's happening bill by bill, motion by motion, step by step with this government. More and more powers into the hands of fewer and fewer individuals. And it's dictatorship, Mr. Speaker. That's where it's going. It concerns me because, imperfect as democracy may be, it's the best answer we have. I don't want to see it lost; I don't want to see it gone.

When this minister chooses to bring in a bill supposedly amending some of the nuts and bolts and housekeeping procedures - a technical kind of a bill to correct various aspects of detailed administration of municipal and regional government - and then sees fit to sneak in at the very last a whole new section that's going to put the total power in his hands, that is a step in the direction of fascism, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before I recognize another speaker in this debate this evening, I wish to comment on the matter that was raised by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) as we resumed the session at 8 o'clock.

The HON. member for North Vancouver-Capilano brought to my attention his request to move adjournment of the debate to discuss a matter of urgent public importance under standing order 35. 1 have examined the matter and I wish to report my findings to the House.

First of all, in my opinion, the matter was raised by the hon. member at the appropriate time, and that is at the first opportunity that presented itself to the member following question period this afternoon. It is also, in my opinion, a matter of urgent public importance to the province of British Columbia and I would therefore be prepared to consider a request by the hon. member to debate the matter as he suggested earlier this evening. The hon. member, I think, realizes that he must ask leave to debate it, but I would suggest that he defer asking leave until immediately after question period tomorrow afternoon so that it would give some notice to the hon. members of the House to prepare for debate.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your decision. The time immediately after question period tomorrow is perfectly agreeable to me.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I'll recognize you immediately after question period tomorrow on the matter.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): With respect to this bill, I have one initial observation to make: the minister, during the course of a rather scathing attack from the opposition parties, has been absent during the conduct of second reading on several occasions. He has not been in his seat and has been absent from the House, which is a highly unusual thing for the minister to do. Debate gets hot and heavy, and the kitchen gets very warm indeed, but the minister must remain in his seat. Otherwise he'll miss some of the very important points that the opposition is trying to raise.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, now I presume you are going to return to the principle of the bill.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty that I have with this section is that I understand completely what the minister is trying to do. What does the bill hope to do by giving the power of section 28 et seq. to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, which is really the gravamen of this bill? It's to get needed housing and industrial development going and to extricate it from stifling red tape at the municipal level, a kind of red tape that has held back development in this province for years.

MR. LEA: By the ex-mayor of Surrey. What's his name again?

MR. LAUK: And we as an administration as well as they as an administration are fed up with local bickering and petty politics that have destroyed chances for developing housing, a strong tax base, more jobs. It is a frustrating thing indeed. The minister is merely saying: "Let's move towards efficiency. Let's centralize power and allow for that individual decision that will cut through the red tape, bring about needed jobs, development, housing and efficiency."

I agree that that is the solution, if indeed what I stated was the problem. We do know that there is a problem; there is a morass of red tape; there is a constant, continuous and it seems never-ending bickering that goes on at the municipal level, disabling private developers and the government in Victoria and the government in Ottawa itself from moving ahead in needed projects that are required for housing and industrial development. The minister is saying: "Give me the opportunity to be efficient." Indeed, a solution is there in this bill. This is a characteristic, Mr. Speaker, of this party. They want to move towards efficient, quick government; they want to avoid the arguments, the bickering and the to-and-fro of debate not only at the municipal level, Mr. Speaker, but in this very chamber.

We have had a parade of bills from this fledgling government over the past two years that slowly eats away at the parliamentary process and at the democratic process. There are all kinds of statements about the democratic process that are very much

[ Page 14396 ]

cliches today; but because they are cliches, Mr. Speaker, that does not make them any less true. We saw last spring the passage of the Government Reorganization Act which cut the guts out of the Legislative Assembly. We see the Education minister who, like Marie Antoinette, is decertifying unions through legislation in this chamber. We see the college legislation, the holus-bolus centralization of power to the minister. The Human Resources minister tries to abolish the VRB because it offends him politically. I am not going to speak on those pieces of legislation; I just mention them briefly.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure you wouldn't do that.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just mention them briefly as an example of the parade of Acts and statutes and proposed bills that is eating away at the democratic system in this province. It reveals the character of this government - a government that is of itself. They feel they have the divine right to rule, that they were born to govern, that they are not the only ones equipped to govern, that debate is not necessary once they have made a policy decision because when you are born to govern you can't be wrong. It's an insidious attitude, Mr. Speaker, that this opposition strenuously objects to. It is so clearly identified in this bill by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Indeed, I mean no light-hearted quip when I say that this bill could have been written by Joseph Stalin. This is the idea of centralized government; this is the idea of centralized power. Sure, I agree that it's efficient. Sure, I agree that we're dissatisfied with the bickering and the arguing and the debate that's going on at the municipal level. And, yes, it's delaying needed development. This bill is a solution, but at what cost, Mr. Speaker? I ask that through the Speaker to the minister. Does he realize, does he have any conception at what cost? A deliberate placing of himself as a czar above all municipal governments.

Is he suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the collective judgment of municipal councils duly elected by the people of those municipalities is inferior to his own? Is he so elitist to suggest that he alone and his advisers can make better judgments than municipal councils? Is he suggesting that municipalities as governments, duly elected, have too much power at a time when all across North America the major urban centres of this continent are being starved by state, provincial and central governments, their needs are being ignored, their costs are escalating, the tax base is dwindling, at a time when in this province directly because of the provincial government - and three successive administrations take partial blame for this - we have the highest real property taxation in the country? At a time when everyone says that municipal government should be stronger, should have more power, more revenue-sharing and more responsibility for their own land use, this minister brings in an Act to centralize and consolidate power in himself.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) says he thought it was just the opposite. I did too, because I read Hansard, April 16,1975. "Municipal Land Use Regulations" during question period, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Labour could listen carefully, because I thought it was just the opposite too.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, before he leaves for his regrettable meeting with the mayor of Burnaby. The minister was quoted in The Province this morning with regard to the possible need for legislation to speed municipal approval for housing developments. I wonder if the minister would inform the House if this is a move on behalf of his department to involve itself in the overriding of land-use regulation which has been within the jurisdiction of municipalities for many decades.

The question is: "I haven't seen the report in the press, but I presume it is in regard . . ." et cetera, et cetera. Now never mind the answer. The question is framed, Mr. Speaker, in such a way as to indicate clearly that the then member for Saanich and the Islands was opposed to that kind of legislation, or even the suggestion of it.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, he did, because the minister said: ". . . we'll have to take a close look at the actions of a few municipalities in regard to holding up development permits and so on for housing purposes."

"Supplementary, " says Mr. Curtis. "I wonder if the minister is now in a position, after a number of weeks, to tell us which municipalities. . . ." "Name names, " he says.

One final supplementary, "If he's concerned about the delay and the approval o f various developments. . . ."

"Don't look to the municipalities, " says the member for Saanich and the Islands. "It's the Department of Highways and it's the provincial departments that are delaying things, " says the now Minister of Municipal Affairs, the member for Saanich and the Islands, as he then was.

MR. LEA: What party was he in then?

MR. LAUK: That was April 16,1975. The Attorney-General has had to eat more crow since he's

[ Page 4397 ]

joined the Social Credit Party than any other member on that side of the House. Is he in favour of this legislation? I expect the Attorney-General to resign from the cabinet unless this bill is pulled. At least one would think so if you read his speech from April 30,1974, in this Legislature.

MR. LEA: What party was he in?

MR. LAUK: He was the second member for Point Grey; he wasn't the Attorney-General at that time. The lunge for power was not focused in front of his eyes at that time. He was known as a diffident Liberal on April 30,1974.

He said: "Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would again stress to the minister, as I have done in earlier debates in this House, that I do hope. . . ." Would the Attorney -General kindly have the courtesy to listen to his own speech? I can hardly blame him. He's engaged in an intellectual, philosophical debate with the Minister of Mines.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please get back to the principle of Bill 42?

MR. LAUK: Well, I have to get back to the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, because of the two members, principle has little to do with their actions. Page 2640 of the debates. He said:

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would again stress to the minister as I have done in earlier debates in this House, that I do hope he is of the view that the cities and the municipalities are going to be permitted to have zoning control over provincial government developments within their own areas. I'm afraid this government has not only followed but compounded the practices of the former administration by denuding the municipalities of that right to see that they can plan their own areas in the way they wish to do it.

Now the Attorney -General supports a bill that won't allow municipalities to have the final say over anything, let alone provincial projects.

It's all very casual. Mr. Speaker, look at the scene over there. It's almost like a mid-Victorian play. The seats are half-empty; the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is in the corner with his hand on his hip; there's a chat over there in the comer; the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is chatting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) ; the Speaker is writing his memoirs; the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) is asleep out of his seat over here on the other side of the House. A typical average evening in the Legislature!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. LAUK: Oh, good. I've got some attention. We seem to have awakened the Minister of Mines, Mr. Speaker.

I see that the press gallery is excruciatingly interested in the debate that is progressing as this debate rages on.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please address his remarks to the principle of this bill?

MR. LAUK: I'm required to address my remarks to the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: And to the principle of this bill, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the trouble with that side of the House is that they have missed the point. They think that their arrogance, their presumption, is exactly what the people of the province want. Well, I say they're mistaken, Mr. Speaker. Their cavalier attitude expressed tonight by their actions, by their posturing and by their lack of care for the arguments of the opposition will come home to roost.

I've heard arguments for centralized power before, Mr. Speaker. One of them I remember reading many, many years ago and I will read it again. I'm reading from a book. It says:

"Our standpoint is always to be that of high national policy, and must never be narrow or particularist. This last observation is necessary, lest our adherents should come to imagine that we would think of denying that the state has a right to assume a higher sovereignty than that of the individual states or provinces. There neither should nor could be any question as to that right, since for us, the state in itself is but a form, whereas the essential is that it includes, namely the nation, the people. It is clear that everything else must be subordinated to the nation's interest, and, in particular, we cannot permit any single state or province within the nation to enjoy independent status."

That was Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler. We've heard it before. We've heard expressions of this before. It's nothing new. It's when people, democratically elected, mistake what their mandate is. I say that municipal governments can certainly be efficient, no more or less than this Legislature and no more or less than the government. It's the democratic process and we of the New Democratic Party are, if nothing else, committed democrats, as these cavalier people, who believe they were born to govern, are not.

M R. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I think another point should be brought out to amplify the remarks of the previous speaker. He quoted the viewpoint of the present Minister of Municipal Affairs and he also quoted the

[ Page 4398 ]

Attorney-General on how they sat and what their position was in terms of land-use contracts and in terms of the balance of powers between provincial and municipal governments.

One has to keep in mind that when they took that point of view, it was a time in which there was a housing crisis. It was a time before this province took disastrous economic measures that discouraged people from coming to this province. We don't have that magnitude of a housing crisis, although we have many people who are not properly housed today. There still is a need for housing for poor people, for people that are disadvantaged. But in terms of the numbers of housing starts that have to be generated today, they can't be as great. Our population is not growing at the same rate here in British Columbia, because one good thing that did come out of the disastrous economic policies, the big ICBC increase and the tax increases is that the flow of people into British Columbia was momentarily stemmed.

So, here we are today, looking at the granting of powers, which might have been justified in 1974 as an emergency measure, perhaps with some sort of a time limit spelled out in legislation, that these things should pass back to a proper balance. That isn't in this bill. There is not the emergent situation that there was in 1974 or 1975.

When the minister was making these protestations and trying to embarrass the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, asking questions.... After listening to that question, Mr. Speaker, with respect, I would question the Speaker of the day as to whether or not that question perhaps wasn't out of order. It seemed argumentative and might have been ruled out of order, but it certainly was allowed to go.

This minister at that time, when there was a tremendous increase in population - about a 3.4 per cent per annum increase in British Columbia.... It has since been reduced to less than half of that. At present, or just in very recent history, we've seen that there has been a reduction in families which were receiving family allowance, indicating that family formations had more or less stabilized in the province. So we have this cure now for which there is no longer a disease, Mr. Speaker.

It might have been justified at some time earlier and could perhaps have been accepted as an emergency measure, as a sort of an act of desperation - had it been introduced with a time frame of getting it by and allowing this Act to expire within one or two years and then having to at least come back to the Legislature in order to get a further renewal - no, this is being brought in as a measure today when the situation in terms of housing and in terms of the absolute numbers in housing is certainly not what it was a couple of years ago when this minister felt so strongly about the balance between the powers and the rights of municipalities.

1 see another person here in this House besides the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who, I believe, was a past president of the UBCM, and many others in this House who were members. I recall, Mr. Speaker, when I was just first appointed as a Minister of Housing of this province, attending a trilateral conference. I listened to persons at that trilateral conference in Edmonton who have since become involved in the provincial scene. But at that time they were mayors, and they bewailed the fact that they were the child of the provincial government and that they did not have any other status or any other power other than that granted to them by the provincial government. They were asking for a status that would be enshrined in the constitution - an amendment to the constitution of the British North America Act. They wanted to have a status that would protect them against this type of incursion into their powers.

I can remember the former mayor of Vancouver, Art Phillips, stating his position very eloquently on this and the provincial and federal government listening. I was more of an observer than a participant at that first conference. I guess the trilateral conference eventually, as with most of them, winds up and goes away and people can forget it again until some poor, misguided, but well-meaning federal minister decides that he wants to hold another one.

These are the things that come out not only from the municipalities of British Columbia, but also from people like Mayor Crombie of Toronto and from people right across Canada. Yet we see within this bill an incursion into what has been the domain of municipalities here in British Columbia. It is something that has been held somewhat sacred. It is rather ironic, too, that one of the greatest pioneers of the abuse that this Act might seek very expediently to rectify is now a minister of the Crown. If there was any municipality that would have to be singled out as abusing the land-use contract in this province.... Well, I think if you were making up a short list, Mr. Speaker, then on that short list you would have to put Surrey and the then mayor of Surrey, who is now the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . On anybody's short list, if you at least got down to two, you could certainly have included that area.

The part where the minister can dictate that bylaws be amended and if they are not done by a certain time they shall be deemed to be amended.... I really can't believe it. I find it very difficult to believe this of this minister and of this government. I found that when I was minister whenever I had a delegation of developers come to me to talk of their very real problems with building codes that lead to unnecessary expenditure, I very much appreciated the input that they had. I know they were very adamant in their opposition to the land-use contract, yet

[ Page 4399 ]

whenever I went to a community such as Surrey, the municipality of North Vancouver, or almost any of the lower mainland municipalities, and municipalities around Victoria as well, these municipal people - the aldermen and mayors - were most adamant in their deference of land-use contracts.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is a one-sided, lop-sided victory on a question where there should be some middle ground. This government has not taken any middle position. They could have modified this vehicle. They have taken an extreme position and they have come down on the one side. As I said, I certainly always appreciated input from developers. I always tried to listen to both sides. I didn't dismiss the suggestions of developers, but when developers were so adamantly in favour of getting rid of land-use contracts and yet all municipalities seemed to be just as adamant in their defence of them, this is certainly a one-sided victory and it is going to create more problems than it solves.

So look at the price that is being paid, Mr. Speaker. We have right now not the emergent situation that existed two years ago. Yet two or three years ago the minister would not have accepted these measures. Now, when there is some breathing space, when there's time for dialogue, did the minister really continue having public meetings to which the press were invited, in which various groups were brought together, in which there was an effort made to create honest, open dialogue between developers, between ratepayers, between municipal officials? Did the minister continue that type of thing? Right now he might have the luxury to do it. He has that luxury; he has time because of some of the disastrous policies of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) with ICBC and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . By whatever strange circumstance, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) would have the luxury to have addressed himself to this problem in a more open way, not by way of the Bawlf committee in which the committee traveled around this province. Many of these recommendations - not most - are the result of the Bawlf committee.

The Bawlf committee traveled around. I recall when we were in Vernon just weeks after the Bawlf committee, and Mayor Fleming came to us and presented a brief to us because he was under the impression, when he was invited to appear before the Bawlf committee, that he was appearing before an all-party committee of the House. He found out he was not. Of course we know that meetings were held in camera in the Bawlf committee. There was a better way to address this problem. There is now some time to do things properly. This bill, Mr. Speaker, should really be hoisted, and there should be some dialogue. This bill should maybe at very best become a White Paper about which some discussion could take place.

It should be a public and open discussion.

If the minister were to spend some dollars from his ministry in order to bring people together in one forum where they could discuss and not only speak to members of the commission or of a committee, but also speak to each other and have some dialogue, if the developers could express their grievances - and they have grievances - to people in the municipalities, then, Mr. Speaker, I think there would be a much better chance of coming up with something that is suitable.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

But this hasn't happened. The input into this bill was done in camera. Really what it was was developers appearing before the committee and having their input; municipal people appearing before the committee and having their input. As for other groups, I'm not sure because we don't have all the minutes and the transcripts of the Bawlf committee. I can't tell, for instance, whether such groups as Bruce Yorke, representing tenants, had an opportunity to appear. It was always the committee interpreting the input of these groups who were heard separately. There was not any reporting of what was being said and there was certainly no opportunity, which I really think will have to take place in this province, for developers to talk to municipal people, to talk to the consumers of housing, to talk to tenants or tenant representatives and to create that kind of dialogue.

As long as things such as this are spawned in secrecy and in camera, then we're going to have bills such as this which come down on one side at the expense of everything else. I could scarcely believe the section in this bill which says, in effect, that where the minister finds bylaws to be passed not to his liking.... If he slaps them on the wrist and sort of sends it back, and if they don't respond, then they will be deemed to be amended to his liking.

Mr. Speaker, the warning of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in his reading from Mein Kampf I found to be something we should perhaps take very much to heart. Where is legislation heading in this province and in this Legislature when we do these things? We see, for instance, just the other day what would really be a new ministry, only they have changed the whole lexicon of what a ministry is, what a department is, and what the powers are. All of these things have now been granted to the executive council. So a new ministry was created the other day.

Now the minister has taken something which I understand he said he would only use very reluctantly, or words to that effect, Mr. Speaker -powers to overturn what has happened. I certainly feel that the minister has really overstepped the mark in whatever type of motivation he has. However

[ Page 4400 ]

well, meaning he is, however seriously he sees the problem, certainly measures such as this are totally anathema to the democratic situation.

I'd like this minister to think back. He must have attended some of those trilateral conferences. Think back, Mr. Minister, to how you might have felt at those conferences. What were you asking for? What was the minister asking for then? What did he see as the rights and the rewards? Will anybody even bother to serve on a municipal council or as a mayor when they're just a frontispiece and a pawn of this all-powerful government? "Superminister" was a very good appellation, I think, on behalf of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) . That's what we see here.

Now maybe he has had a distinguished career in municipal affairs. He's held, I think most of the important offices, not only having been a mayor, but most of the important offices of UBCM Perhaps now as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing he knows that the Premiership is just a little bit out of his grasp, so he's just saying: "What next?" Well, you don't always have to strive ever-upward, higher and higher all the time. Just try and do a good job.

I would ask the minister to think back on what it was like to sit there at a trilevel conference and try to get across to perhaps the provincial governments of this country and to the federal Minister of Urban Affairs the feelings and the frustrations of being on the front line. It is the local government that really has the everyday contact with the people. Where you take away the authority of these people there cannot be the responsibility. How can you really ask a group of people to act when they don't have some of the ultimate responsibility, when they're being stripped of their authority? This is the absolute opposite direction to what the minister has asked for.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that there were times when I might have been tempted to use this type of thing. As individuals, when we let our egos get the best of us, we do get tempted to take these measures. But certainly we should be stopped. There should be others around us and there should be others around that minister and his cabinet to protect him from taking out some of his own frustrations. In letting some of the little vexations, perhaps not always having complete co-operation.... I can certainly think back to some incidents that I could have taken very personally that arose in the municipality of Surrey at the time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. NICOLSON: Would you like me to move adjournment?

MR. SPEAKER: I am about to draw your attention, hon. member, to the fact that we are debating the principle of Bill 42, Municipal Amendment Act, 1977, not reminiscing about what might or might not have taken place a number of years ago.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. I'm just pointing out that it is now very current to look at some of the things that did happen since. This minister has apparently done a flip-flop, as documented in press releases. I'm not being repetitious this evening; otherwise perhaps I would read again to the minister press material and things he said on April 30,1974, and so on. I want to stay in order, Mr. Speaker, so I'm not doing that.

But I am suggesting that these members and the people in cabinet in particular really have a duty to consult each other on this legislation. They have the duty to point out in all honesty and frankness when they feel that the minister has perhaps let personal vexation drive him to the point of doing this.

This goes against anything I have ever heard espoused at any gathering that I have attended of municipal leaders, whether it be a tri-level conference, whether it be the UBCM or whether it be two conferences, one of which was held in Vancouver on these very problems and possible solutions. These problems are supposedly being solved by abolishing land-use contracts and abolishing the right of municipalities to pass bylaws and not be second-guessed and dictated to by the minister.

These are the two main objections to this bill, Mr. Speaker, and this is why I have asked the minister to think back a little bit. I have tried to point out to him in this debate that there might have been an emergent situation that might have justified a temporary measure, a temporary bill, Mr. Speaker, of some very definite duration like one year or two years. Maybe an argument like that could have been made in 1973 or 1974. But certainly now the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and others have driven this economy so far down that we've discouraged one of the major problems we had - in migration from other provinces. We no longer have a 3.4 per cent growth in population, Mr. Speaker, and because of that we certainly can't support this type of legislation.

I'm sure that no member of the opposition of any party is going to support this type of legislation. Certainly most of that cabinet should know better than to support it, and the back bench as well.

Mr. Nicolson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presents the annual report of the Ministry of the Environment for the year 1976.

[ Page 4401 ]

Hon. Mr. Nielsen files answers to questions 84 and 96.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.