[ Page 4915 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Municipal Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 42) Committee stage

On section 28.

Mr. Barber –– 4915

Mr. Barrett –– 4916

Ms. Sanford –– 4918

Mr. Lea –– 4919

Mr. Lauk –– 4921

Division on the motion to rise and report progress –– 4923

Mr. King –– 4923

Division on the motion that the Chairman leave the chair –– 4925

Mr. Lauk –– 4926

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4926

Division on the motion to rise and report progress –– 4929

Mr. Levi –– 4929

Mr. Barber –– 4933

Division on the motion that the Chairman leave the chair –– 4936

Ms. Brown –– 4936

The House met at 8 p.m.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table a document referred to in committee this afternoon. I will explain to members that there is a marginal note which is my notation. It's the only additional notation on the letter.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Committee on Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 42; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 28.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Before we were so rudely interrupted by dinner, I was going to mention that, as well as losing the confidence of local government regarding section 28, the minister has also lost the confidence of the reputable press in this province. Not only has the Vancouver Province, in an excellent editorial dated August I I entitled "Super Mayor Curtis", denounced this section, but so has the Victoria Times just this evening in an editorial entitled "Where's the Proof?"

I propose, because it might be something of interest to the members, to read parts of it into the record and, if only because it's of interest to the thousands of readers of Hansard in this province, to start as follows:

"An opposition proposal to hoist for six months Bill 42, an omnibus of amendments to the Municipal Act, was of course easily defeated by the Social Credit forces in the B.C. Legislature on Monday. The majority of the 30-odd changes in the 'bible' of local government are progressive and useful reforms, and the opposition said so.

"But one section alone outweighs these benefits and establishes a potentially dangerous situation. It is section 28, which will give the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing power to overturn, change, or alter as he wishes any bylaw of any municipal council or regional district relating to preparation or designation of an official community plan, zoning and zoning appeals and subdivision of land.

"If the amendment is enacted, it will give one person, the minister, ultimate authority in these affairs. If he finds that a bylaw or community plan or zoning change is not to his liking, he will only have to write. a letter to the offending council or regional board ordering it changed, and the bylaw will be 'deemed for all purposes to be so altered.'

"His freedom of action in these areas of jurisdiction is constricted only by A slender little definition, that 'the minister is of the opinion that all or part of the bylaw is contrary to the public interest of the province . .' And what is the public interest? It will be defined by the minister."

The editorial goes on in a technical manner until it gets to the end. Reading if I may, the last four paragraphs-

"At bottom, what is the need for such sweeping powers by the minister? Where has the public interest of the province been harmed by his inability to step in and quash zoning bylaws or subdivision bylaws?

"We have heard a few complaints on previous occasions from the minister that'~some municipalities were being irresponsible in their active discouragement of growth. There was some mention of the need for greater efficiency in processing these bylaws in last year's Bawlf report on housing, but to this day the documentation and research for this brief remain secret and unpublished.

"But there has not been near enough proof presented to the Legislature by Municipal Affairs and Housing minister Hugh Curtis to justify the granting of such wide and arbitrary authority. If the public interest has been harmed in the past, then let the public know when and where and how it happened.

"For such grave and serious abrogation of municipal authority, there must be an equally comprehensive and substantial burden of proof placed upon the minister to show why he must absolutely have that power. He has not done so."

The editorial also mentions, as we have on this side of the House, that in the view of the writer – and in our personal view as well – this particular minister is an honourable man. This particular minister personally may never – and we trust that's the case – abuse this power.

In conclusion to our argument, strenuous against this bill, upon which we shall shortly divide, let me ask again the question of the minister. He trusts himself with the power, and presumably most of the members of the coalition of which he is presently a member, with the same power. Would he in opposition trust a New Democratic minister with this

[ Page 4916 ]

power? We suspect not. We suspect that that member would never trust any member of this present opposition with the power.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARBER: I've pointed out that no member of the public....

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Well, listen to that! What a joke.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: The member from Omineca (Mr. Kempf) says he wouldn't trust anyone from over here with the power. What the possibility is, of course, that one day – it may be one day soon – this opposition just may be back in power. It's just possible that that government may fall, as its predecessor Social Credit government also fell. It's just possible that one day there will be a minister over here to whom you have foolishly given that power. You will rue and regret the day when you're in opposition, no doubt. You will rue and regret the day if you make it into , opposition, much less back into government, that you ever gave anyone else, other than the esteemed Minister of Municipal Affairs of this day, that power.

I don't think it is fair for one member of one party to say "trust us with the power, " and then to admit in a breath off to the side that they wouldn't trust another party with the same power. You are giving power not to an individual, but to law and to a government, and that's the difference here. In partisan, narrow, predictable ways, our party doesn't trust yours and yours doesn't trust ours, and so what'?

Everyone knows it. Big deal. The point is that the public has no reason to trust either of us with such power and neither of us should have it. Neither party should have this power. No minister should want it-, no minister should use it. We see nothing but the potential for abuse. We see nothing but a potential for the disenfranchisement of responsible local government and we oppose this section.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I just have a few remarks on this section. Earlier, the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) mentioned the New Democratic Party government's decision on Kamloops, and he was absolutely correct. We made a decision in cabinet and we moved with specific legislation.

The point was, Mr. Chairman, as made clearly and effectively by the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) to the minister, that in the opinion of the government of the day, there may be specific situations in which the government of the day feel s, in the best interests of the province of British Columbia, that it wishes to make a specific decision on a specific problem. Of course, the government should do that, and I agree completely with the member for North Vancouver-Capilano. Whether or not the government has a desire or the courage or the lack of it or anything else around a decision-making process, that should be the individual situation which the government of the day is confronted with.

That is exactly the way we operated, and we took our lumps politically on the question of Kamloops and on the question of Kelowna. We did not ask for, take or request, in any way, blanket powers that would have given us the authority to make absolute decisions without any reference back to the Legislature, public debate or participation in the normal process that goes on in this House. So I want to make that very clear.

I want to associate very forcefully with the Liberal leader's comments, that there are situations and there may be situations which any government of the day wishes to move in on. Those should be handled on an individual basis. I agree with him. Otherwise, a government can't function. But what we're clearly dealing with here, Mr. Chairman, is the minister having absolute power before the issue arises. To this moment, he has not catalogued a specific situation that has happened since he's been minister or prior to him being minister on which he would have needed this section to act and which he was stopped from acting on because he didn't have this section.

There are two things involved here. One, we don't dispute the right of the government to move, if it feels it's in the best interests of the province, around the issue. Two, this government and this minister have not demonstrated, to this moment, what exact situation has come to its attention that requires this particular power. Therefore we can only speculate -and we are free to speculate – essentially based, to be logical, on the kernel of the minister's arguments and statements. The minister was asked this afternoon, and many times prior to that, to state, in general terms if not specifics, the areas which he was concerned about. That's what brings me to my second point.

The minister did state in the House this afternoon that in his opinion there were situations – if I may paraphrase; if I'm incorrect, I would hope the minister would correct me – where he saw this being applied. As I recall, he mentioned two specific things. One was port facilities and the other was, perhaps, pipelines. Those two things were mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, what this raises in my mind is that the minister is anticipating the public debate that will eventually take place on these two matters. Indeed, it is a fact that since the minister introduced the bill, the federal government has made a position clear on

[ Page 4917 ]

the Alcan route. And what the minister is saying in regard to the Alcan route is that under this section, if it passes, regardless of the planning or lack of it at the municipal or regional level, the pipeline goes through. The minister wants to abrogate to himself the power to tell those people in their own local communities how that pipeline should go through their community. That's asking for plenty of trouble. That's frankly unnecessary in a democratic society.

If you're going to deal with the pipeline, then you call the regional districts in, you call the mayors and the council in, and you say: "Look. It appears the pipeline is going this route. Can we come to some common agreement on handling this?" But to beg the question by putting the legislation in ahead of time smacks to me of this government already thinking of that eventuality, although there is even a more questionable content in connecting both pipeline and docks.

I want to raise this, Mr. Chairman – the question of the Kitimat dock facilities for an oil pipeline across this province. The minister knows there is severe public question about such a proposal. There is also the question of Ridley Island up at Prince Rupert, and the location of dock facilities for coal shipments for sometime in the future. Or there is the question of Squamish and dock facilities there, and the question of eventual use by the BCR of the coal docking facilities at Squamish. There are just too many possibilities on the horizon in dealing with this kind of issue for me to believe that it was accidental that the minister mentioned dock facilities and pipelines.

I can think of two specific incidents with docks, and I have mentioned those. Ridley Island is still unresolved in Prince Rupert. Our good friend from Prince Rupert knows that the question of a centralized government authority making a decision on Ridley Island, with the information that has been gathered, and overruling any role by the Prince Rupert council.... It's not a new question, Mr. Chairman. The minister talks of authority, and with that festering problem in Prince Rupert, it's a mistake.

Secondly, in the riding south of there, there are the potential port facilities at Kitimat related to the pipeline proposal. That's another issue. Thirdly, there are the proposals for the possibility of coal-loading facilities at Squamish.

I would like to remind the minister that while he was still a Conservative – Social Credit was the official opposition then before he joined them -Social Credit had taken a number of clear-cut positions about those ports. By you mentioning ports, it forces us to examine your record on clear-cut positions before you had power, and what you have actually done since you have obtained power. In almost. every instance, it's been whirling dervish policy with the use Of maximum powers.

There are three areas where ports are concerned .right now, and a possible fourth. The three are Ridley Island, Kitimat and Squamish.'The possible fourth, and the most dangerous problem of all in terms of environmental and social impact, is the plan that has always been on the burner to expand the Roberts Bank port facility.

Recognizing the problem that the Social Credit government of the day had even to get the original

Roberts Bank proposal through, this particular authorization would allow the minister to make absolute decisions related to that particular region without any direct request being heard by the municipalities concerned. In other words, there are too many things that can be read into this and the minister's statements about ports, and all those regions that are having problems with ports, especially the lower mainland and Roberts Bank, had better beware.

Now I want to deal with pipelines. There are two possibilities of pipelines going through this province. One I oppose absolutely. That is the Kitimat proposal for an east-west oil pipeline.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: Well, the minister raised the pipelines. It's in order. The minister raised the fact that he may use this in the question of pipelines and I am pointing this out to him, through you. If you would spend more time in the House you would understand. Just listen and be calm. You'll be all right. You used to be an alderman. You would have screamed you know what. kind of murder had the NDP brought this kind of section in, You know that. Your face is a little bit red now having to support this kind of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that when the minister mentions pipelines, there is the question of the availability under this particular section to ram that pipeline through regions and municipalities no matter what local comments are or local jurisdictions decide. That's not good. It may be efficient. There are records of a lot of jurisdictions all over the world who are efficient by the use of dictatorial powers. Anyone can be efficient and businesslike. Democracy gets in the way sometimes. There are some people out there with some nerve who actually may stand in the way of "progress" as the minister sees it, Mr. Chairman, or as the government sees it. So he's going to wipe away citizens' participation through their own elected governments.

I don't believe that the Kitimat to Edmonton pipeline is a reality at this point, but the one reality, aside from the dock facilities that I have talked about, is that Alcan route. When I tell you this, Mr. Chairman, it becomes obvious to me that the

[ Page 4918 ]

minister, in mentioning pipelines and dock facilities, has in mind the absolute power to designate the responsibilities to the municipal or regional level that that pipeline investment will have going through this province. I am convinced that this is part and parcel of an agreed-upon policy to present to the federal government a fait accompli. If the pipeline goes ahead, there is no mechanism where local people, through local governments, will be in a position to object to any single proposal that is made to them because, in the final analysis, under this section the minister will have absolute power to veto any objection that they have. That's true, Mr. Chairman.

It means whether it's private property, public property, p arks, industrial areas, highways, subdivisions – whatever it is – if the deal is made on that pipeline under this particular section, the minister had indicated that he would have the authority to veto any local objection to the location or the conditions of the location of that pipeline. It's true, The minister is the one who said it. That's all the more reason.

The member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) started this debate on the basis of fear in general terms. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked for specifics. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano was told to check the Blues and he got the 20-second rundown.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has inadvertently let the cat out of the bag with statements that he didn't intend to make like "suppose it was dock facilities, " or "suppose it was a pipeline." Well, I am supposing that it is dock facilities. And I'm absolutely frightened that it is pipelines behind this move by the minister, specifically the Alcan route. Everybody in the north part of this province is being told by the minister that he wants that power to make those decisions.

One last comment, Mr. Chairman, and I say this as charitably as I can. Regarding the comments this afternoon about Mayor Moffat of Prince George, I want to associate myself with those who have said that Mayor Moffat has done a good job in administering that city. In my opinion, he has. He's not a supporter of the New Democrat Party; he's a Social Crediter. But when the mayor of Prince George was asked to comment about this section, he said it was like fascism.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Are you calling the mayor a cucumber, Mr. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) ?

Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources hasn't got anything intelligent to contribute to the debate, I wish he wouldn~t insult municipal officials. They're not here to defend themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister that I'm coming to the conclusion there is a design and a reason for this, and the design and reason is attached to the Alcan pipeline route and to dock facilities, perhaps. I'm convinced that this will be the vehicle that will enable the government to do anything it wants with the Alcan route, and the local people won't have a. say in the development of conditions around that route.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Whether there is any grand design or not in this particular section of this bill, within my constituency I have nine municipal councils and two regional districts that have been elected in the same way as the Minister of Municipal Affairs has been elected. They have campaigned among their constituents; they've appeared on platforms; they've taken out ads in local newspapers; they've issued press releases; and, as I say, they were elected in much the same way as the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

These people devote a lot of their spare time to doing what they can for the particular area they represent. They spend taxpayers' money in hiring planners to advise them on how the area should develop. These people, Mr. Chairman, after devoting a lot of hours of work, after being elected by people within their constituencies, after having spent taxpayers' money to get the advice that they need in order to draw up the bylaws that they think will be most effective in dealing with the problems within their own particular area, can now be vetoed by this minister.

I don't understand, Mr. Chairman, why this minister feels that he somehow has more knowledge, more experience, and better judgment than the people who are elected in the same fashion as the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Why, Mr. Chairman, should he have that ultimate authority to veto, to do away with any bylaw, any work that these municipal people have been through, involved themselves in at great expense to themselves and their families in terms of time and effort, so that they are then faced with this clause that says the minister can do away with whatever they decide to do?

Mr. Chairman, it doesn't matter what government is in power. There is no minister who should have the kind of authority that this minister is asking us to grant tonight under this section of this bill,

This is the party that campaigned on decentralization. These are the people who said: "We want the local people to have some say and to have some authority". They said that over and over again during the campaign. Here, in one section of one bill, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, within one riding in this province, is able to do away with all of the

[ Page 4919 ]

authority of nine separately elected regional districts. Mr. Chairman, there is no way that we can support this section of this bill.

How is it that somehow this minister has more knowledge, more experience, more ability to understand what is in the public good and can therefore do away with all of the work that these people who have been elected the same way as the minister has been elected? How is it that he is able to assume this power unto himself?

You know, when I hear this government talk about democracy and the democratic process, I have to laugh just because this section exists within this Ul. They've gone through the same process, Mr. Chairman. They've been to the electorate. They have sought the support of people who vote to try to get the best possible laws that affect them, and yet this minister, in one section of one bill, says: "All the work that you do, all the effort that you have made, all the money that you have spent in hiring planners and advisers can be undone because I don't like it." Mr. Chairman, that is not democracy. There is no way that we, on this side of the House, can accept the minister's proposal, which is very authoritarian, that says: "Yes, I am the one who knows what is best for the people of this province and if I don't like what's decided at the local level, then I will undo it by vetoing it or by rewriting whatever bylaws have been presented at those local levels."

Mr. Chairman, I speak on behalf of nine municipal councils and two regional districts in strongly opposing this section of this bill.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, how would any elected municipal person feel about section 28? Except for the odd exception you'll find that most people who are elected believe in the system that elected them. They believe in the democratic system with all its faults, and it does have them, as we all know – a great many faults. But what other system can we turn to? There isn't one that we know of in this party that can govern people better than the present British parliamentary system. Most of the people who belong to municipal councils agree with that, too.

But the m d part is the silence that we're hearing from government members and from the back bench of government, people who served on councils, like the member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) . The member for Kootenay is not over on this side of the House; he's on that side of the House. Would the member for Kootenay, when he was mayor of Cranbrook, support this kind of legislation? I don't believe so,

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I am speaking to the Chair, Mr. Minister of Mines. Would you speak from your proper place in the Legislature? I'm not going to call you a cucumber. You're not that cool; you're just not,

AN HON. MEMBER: You look like one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's have order in the committee, please.

MR. LEA. Oh, no. I don't mind that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair minds, hon. member. Back to section 28.

MR. LEA. Mr. Chairman, I have sat here and listened to a lot of people talk about how the minister is an honourable man and maybe he won't abuse this power. But I don't even believe that the minister thought up section 28. 1 believe that he was ordered to put section 28 into this legislation, and that he was ordered by cabinet to do it. I want to ask you: would a person who spent the better part of his life in municipal government stand idly by and let his cabinet colleagues order him to bring in section 28? Would you, Mr. Chairman, if you had put about 20 years in on a municipal level? It means that we don't have an honourable man necessarily. What we have is a man who went into cabinet and didn't come out that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are all honourable members within this chamber.

MR. LEA: I'm talking about the cabinet chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are all honourable members.

MR. LEA. I'm talking about a person – the minister – who has authored section 28, or who at least brought it in to the House, who would obviously not stand up in cabinet for those things that he stood for all the years he was in municipal government.

I've had the opportunity of talking with that minister off this stage about his ideas on democracy – that was when he was a Conservative and I served on an all-party committee with him – and what he thought about Social Credit and about his visits to see the then Minister of Highways, Phil Gaglardi, and the arrogant way that that municipal body....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is this relevant to section 28?

MR. LEA: Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. Yes, it is, because we have to examine not only the legislation itself but the application and the motivation behind it. How could a person who became so angry when

[ Page 4920 ]

talking about the arbitrary way he was treated by the Minister of Highways under Social Credit. . . ?How could that same person, who is now a minister, bring in a piece of legislation that I don't think Phil Gaglardi would bring into this House.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Phil Gaglardi wasn't a turncoat.

MR. LEA: I don't think Phil Gaglardi would have brought it in. The one thing you have to say for Phil Gaglardi....

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. LEA: He's a man, and for those things that he wants to believe in and does believe in, he'll fight, openly and honestly. You may not agree with him. You may not agree with everything Phil Gaglardi says, but I find it absolutely extraordinary that a member of this Legislature who told me that he disagreed with the way that Phil Gaglardi arbitrarily dealt with the municipality of Saanich when he was mayor could bring this legislation into this House.

How could he, Mr. Chairman? And how could the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , who just recently was an alderman in the city of Victoria and a Tory, a person who said he believed in democracy and believed in the autonomy of the Victoria city council, now vote for section 28, which takes away powers from that council?

The minister, if he cannot be trusted to fight in cabinet for the principles that he had when he was mayor, cannot be trusted with this kind of power. He cannot be trusted with it. I reject from colleagues the fact that this minister can be trusted with it. He cannot. No one should be, but this minister in particular cannot be because he went into that cabinet and came out like a pussycat. He came out like a little pussycat, Mr. Chairman, with his tail between his legs. Why? Why would he make enemies of municipal bodies? Why would he do that? Because lie wanted to? No, that doesn't make sense.

MR. LAUK: He's afraid for his job. He likes power.

MR. LEA: That's absolutely right, Mr. Member. It was: bring it in or get out. I'll tell you, when you love power that much ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Kempf would like that.

MR. LEA: ... you come out of cabinet meetings like a little pussycat, doing the bidding of the Social Credit that you opposed as a municipal person and as a member of this Legislature for years. For years he opposed legislation like section 28, and his only defence is now "section 28." 1 believe that all those years when the minister was in municipal government he looked with green eyes of envy towards that Social Credit cabinet because all along he agreed with what they did; he just wanted to be one of them. He wanted to do it. He wanted to say to Saanich, here's section 28, 1 am Super-Mayor. Through section 28 he is reaching a pinnacle of ego satisfaction that he never dreamt possible, that he would actually be a Super-Mayor, and the czar, and the man who can tell any council in this province what to do. He can tell any one of them, all he has to do now is be Super-Mayor, but the one thing he can never hide is the pussycat minister that he is. The pussycat minister came out of his cabinet with his pussy tail between his....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as you are well aware – there are several statutes that relate to this, and citations – a personal attack upon a member of this House is never in order except by a substantive motion. .. .

MR. LEA: And I will not make one, Mr. Chairman. I will never make a personal attack on this minister. I'm talking about the actions of this minister and that's completely different. I'm talking about a minister who went to cabinet after all those years of municipal government, and in the media....

AN HON. MEMBER: What's new, pussycat?

MR. LEA: That's exactly it. What's new pussycat ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 28.

MR. LEA: ... is that pussycat is afraid to lose his job, and pussycat is now going to be Super-Mayor. If we're going to have a super-mayor, let's at least have a tiger instead of a pussycat who gets pushed around by his colleagues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must caution you once again, back to section 28, please.

MR. LEA: That's what we're talking about, the minister pussycat who brought in section 28 because he was afraid to face his colleagues, afraid to lose his job, afraid to even go to the backbench and say: "On principle I will not do this to the municipalities that I defended all those years." He won't do it. He'd rather sit there shame-faced, and not make a stand, the same stand he took for years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, for the second time I an warning you against making a personal attack against a member of this House. It's the second

[ Page 4921 ]

time.

MR. LEA: There is no personal attack, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not interfering except to keep order in this House, and I must ask you to return to section 28.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'll bet at the end of the year you have more time than any member of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. CURTIS. An attack on the Chair now. You can lower the debate in this place faster than anyone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to section 28, please.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, was that a personal attack?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to section 28, please.

MR. LEA: The only way that minister can defend himself is to do exactly what he's doing, which is to shut up and be silent. Not to tell us why history shows us that we need this piece of legislation – he has not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take another tranquilizer.

MR. LEA: The minister can't show us why history demands that we need section 28, or why we presently need it, so we can only look to the future. That's where he made his big slip, on the pipeline. A desperate government first said that we're going to bring economic prosperity to this province because of our wizardry around coal. They couldn't do that, it fell through. Then they see as their second opportunity, something they had nothing to do with, the pipeline through British Columbia. A desperate government, not wanting to go through the democratic process and have hearings and let municipal councils have their fair share, because then the pipeline might not get going until after it's convenient for them to have an election. That's really what it's all about. They need that pipeline so badly for their political opportunities that they can taste it. They don't care about anything else except getting elected, and they proved that when they played musical chairs with political parties. That's what they proved, and today, after a career in municipal politics, we see a minister who's turned pussycat in his actions. We need a tiger to fight for municipalities, and we got a pussycat.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Dewdney says, "a lot of yacking." The lion. member for Dewdney, a distinguished citizen, a veteran of this Legislative Assembly, does not understand the import of section 28. If it wasn't for the New Democratic Party government that protected his constituency from ruthless land developers his constituency would be a suburban sprawl.

This is a section for land developers, Mr. Chairman. There is no question about it. I wanted to address a few remarks to the hon. minister so that he could understand the import of section 28 that has so far escaped him. I know he is wandering around socializing now – he has been under pressure for some ` time now and lie is getting nervous and pacing – but perhaps the minister can calm himself and take his seat and take a little bit more heat....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps, hon. member, you could return to section 28, if you would.

MR. LAUK: I'll return to section 28 if the minister returns to his seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you will return to section 28 now, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the minister is a bit concerned about this section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No.

MR. LAUK. Well, you will be tomorrow when we are still in the debate. Section 28 is a clear encroachment on the local autonomy and the local power of people elected democratically by the residents of municipalities throughout the province. I speak on behalf of the city of Vancouver, or for my constituency at least. Certainly Mayor Volrich has indicated his very strong disapproval. He interrupted his programme of cleaning up the city. He even stopped that, Mr. Chairman, sobered by section 28. Don't worry. They are going to get to your riding pretty soon, sir, paddy wagons and all.

MR. BARBER: Into your office, too.

MR. LAUK: They're fashioning chains you'll wear.

Mr. Chairman, Mayor Volrich has clearly called section 28 an unwarranted intrusion. He says: "It is a serious intrusion into local government autonomy, The section may be used to frustrate the plans for a community... " Would you get this, Mr. Chairman? Did you hear Mayor Volrich's comments, Mr. Minister?

[ Page 4922 ]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you address the Chair please, hon. member?

MR. LAUK: So you do remember them. Do you refute them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you address the Chair please, hon. member?

MR. LAUK: No? The minister said "no."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please address the Chair.

MR. LAUK: The mayor said: "The section may be used to frustrate the plans for a community or for the minister's political interest...." That's a serious charge made by the mayor of the biggest city in the province of British Columbia: " . . . or for the minister's political interest, constituting a serious intrusion into local government autonomy." That's Mayor Volrich speaking. He has no axe to grind. He's a former law partner of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) . You're making a lot of enemies o f former friends. I'm wondering why.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said "green eyes." Isn't there some company by the name of Greeneyes Holdings Ltd.?

This is a developer's law and the person who brought it in is not so much a former mayor, a former alderperson, a former municipal politician, as he is a developer. He knows that democracy at the local level is tedious. He doesn't like the sandbox politics that go on in little municipalities. It interrupts these tremendous dreams and plans of land developers, who we know have our best interest at heart; who we know are the prime movers and shakers in the community; who we know contribute the most to our society.

The present minister looks upon the land developer as the modern saint. He is the only person who is going to save us from our own stupidity and the terrible, tedious, bourgeois, unfortunate characteristics of democracy at the local level. We also know that because the people of these municipalities make so many mistakes and they elect all kinds of people with contrasting interest, we have to intercede a la the Bawlf report. We have to intercede and protect the developer.

Perhaps the minister could indicate whether he is bringing this section in because he believes it is good government or because he knows what a good developer wants. He knows all about that. The minister should indicate that in this section. What are his motivations in this regard? The minister was, as I say, a municipal politician for many years. He didn't always get his own way; he had to convince a council. We know that people with his intelligence and background and experience ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Had a hard time.

MR. LAUK: ... shouldn't be pressed into explaining themselves to council or to the Legislature or to the people of the province, because they don't know very much. He does.

This is the most sinister form of elitism that we've seen from this government. We thought that the good doctor from Point Grey was bad enough with his elitism, his idea of building a huge teaching hospital at the University of British Columbia at tremendous cost to the provincial treasury,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not relevant to this debate.

MR. LAUK: We thought that that was terrible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to this debate. You're debating section 28.

MR. LAUK: Section 28 is worse, much worse. Section 28. When are we adjourning, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's up to you, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: When he withdraws the section -that's when we adjourn.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I think the minister's getting the point, isn't he, Mr. Chairman, that we're going to be here an awfully long time?

MR. BARBER: Withdraw the section and we'll stop talking.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: As we wish. This little opposition has no power, Mr. Chairman. We, win every debate, but we lose every vote. Another government stranglehold. A Virtual dictatorship for four or five years. I remember when the Liberal leader stood up in this House and said: "This is what democracy is: every government gets elected for a dictatorship of a period of time." Did you know that the Minister or Municipal Affairs took him seriously, and brought in section 28? He nodded his head in approval. Bring in section 28; we're a virtual dictatorship.

[ Page 4923 ]

MR. LEA: He's another one who thought he was joining a bicycle club and got into a motorcycle gang.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that the minister is just not receptive to the comments of the opposition. He's demonstrating once again his paternalistic attitude to this committee. He's answered none of the questions that have been raised. He himself introduced in this debate the question of the pipeline, giving the whole reason and rationale behind section 28. It's interesting to know that he's made no comment since that little Freudian slip. Are you writing out your resignation now, Mr. Minister.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it would be appropriate for the minister to adjourn debate on this bill and on this section. Think it over tonight, quietly and reflectively, without the pressure of the House.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS – 13

NAYS - 22

Mr. King requests that leave to asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 28.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Chairman, I'm absolutely appalled that the minister sits there silently and fails to respond to a very, very legitimate concern. The minister has failed to make any rational explanation to the House regarding the need for the powers.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order in committee, please.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm having great difficulty hearing myself.

Interjections,

MR. KING: The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is happy. That's good news for all the welfare recipients in the province because we seldom see that man happy. He usually looks rather irate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now back to section 28.

MR. KING: It's a new image for the Minister of Human Resources.

Mr. Chairman, I'm just appalled that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, a minister who has portrayed himself as a rather mild-mannered individual, one of the moderates in that rather reactionary government, takes unto himself a power which is the most reactionary, arbitrary, dictatorial power that's been witnessed under this centralist government so far. He apparently asks the Legislature to trust him. He apparently asks the Legislature to trust him because he's a nice guy and he won't abuse the power.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that nice guys are measured in politics by the consistency in their dedication to the principles over the years. It may be that under this particular regime the minister would guard this power reasonably and zealously. But who knows what party he may be in tomorrow? He's been in a number before.

Regardless of what we think of the minister or this particular centralist regime, the propensity that the power of the authority given to the minister gives for large-scale political abuse, patronage and interference of the broadest scope, is just rampant in this section of the bill. I am absolutely appalled that this minister would seriously sit in this Legislature and ask the opposition to pass this kind of statute, It's complete anathema to everything that this government has said that it stood for over the years. They talked about the rights of the individual. They talked about their belief that local and regional governments should have more autonomy and more freedom. And here this minister, with one stroke of the legislative pen, virtually strips away all of the autonomy enjoyed by local government. He sets himself up as the arbiter of what is in the provincial interests. He will be the czar to decide whether a policy set and voted on by a duly elected government can be brought to fruition or will be vetoed by his office. It's an absolutely scandalous provision, Mr. Chairman, and the minister refuses to give any explanation to justify it, I am appalled that other members of the government failed to get up and discuss and give their opinion of this absolutely unusual power.

[ Page 4924 ]

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair. ]

Mr. Chairman, the opposition doesn't argue with the need of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to have some control. We don't argue with that at all. What the minister doesn't seem able to discern is that there is a vast difference between a continuing statutory power of veto and the right – indeed, the obligation – of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to deal with unusual situations as they arise on an ad hoc basis.

If any municipal government abuses its authority or acts in a way that is deemed to be detrimental to the best interests of the province, if the minister is honest and up front, he will come to the Legislature and he will report that in an open, up-front way. He will say: "This is held to be an abuse of power. This is held to be at variance with the best interests of the public weal in this province, and I propose the following remedy." It will then be put before this Legislature for open debate by all members of the Legislature.

No one would argue that we have the opportunity to debate the specific circumstances of a case, but that's not what the minister is asking for. The minister is asking for a continuing statutory right to interfere with the free democratic process of local government. He will decide and he will determine, in isolation from this Legislature and from any public accounting, what the public good is. He will override the decisions that are made by democratically elected local bodies. That leaves the broadest scope for the widest conceivable abuse of power. It's not good enough for the minister to say. "Well, I'm innocent in my motivation and I seek to do the best and. most noble on behalf of the province."

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I don't doubt that Mr. Nixon held those same sentiments when he suggested there should be ways of eliminating the press or of shutting them out from a free scrutiny of public machinations of the government in the nation south of the border. I don't doubt that Mr. Haldeman thought that he was serving the best interests of democracy, his government and his party, as he saw it. I don't doubt that Mr. Dean, Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Mitchell felt that they were dedicated to the highest principles when they abused public office.

The point is that no politician, regardless of philosophy or party, should have the authority and the scope for the abuse that is contained in the section 28 that is before this House tonight. I am ashamed and I'm appalled that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would try to slip this by the House in some innocuous way, saying in an offhand manner: "Well, it's necessary; it won't be abused. It may be necessary for the public good." He's failed to give one clear indication of what he has in mind as the kind of abuse he seeks to prevent.

He talked about possible pipeline construction. Is he suggesting that the government must have the right to override the legitimate interests of any regional district or any municipal government that a provincial or transcontinental pipeline should have to run through? Is he suggesting that local government has no valid interest in that kind of development in the province? What did he mean when he suggested a pipeline was one of the considerations that transcended local government interest?

There's ample scope for the joint sharing of decision-making between local government and the province. If he has something clear in mind which concerns him, then he should identify and delineate that in clear statutory terms. But to take unto himself the broadest, most open-ended power of veto over local government decision-making without accountability to anyone is an abuse of power. It's a political doublecross of the tallest order by a man who served on municipal councils in this very city for many years. This minister, who has the obligation to defend the rights of municipal government, is stripping the rights away. That's an abuse and a doublecross.

The minister sits there mute and silent in terms of any explanation. I suppose he feels that if he stonewalls the opposition and fails to respond, eventually we will tire and let this bill go through by default, Mr. Chairman. I want to say that the opposition is more tenacious than that. We have some dedication to what we believe is right. We're willing to debate the issue as to whether or not we are right, and we would like to hear some debate from the government side about what they have to justify this kind of provision.

We have heard speaker after speaker on the opposition side – not only the official opposition, but the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) and the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) ~ outline the grave concerns we have about the provision. We have heard one government member besides the minister get up.... No, two. I beg your pardon. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) would have been better not to have risen in his place. Nevertheless, he did. He contributed very little to the debate and offered nothing in terms of justification for the section. The member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) reinforced our concern about the scope for abuse of this provision in the hands of that government. That is all we've heard.

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the government is failing to take this matter as seriously a's they should. I think it's important that initial incursions into democracy and the democratic rights of individuals and municipalities in this province be halted at the earliest possible stage. If they are not, it's the thin edge of the wedge; it's a precedent that continues to grow. To demonstrate our concern and our wish that the government take this matter

[ Page 4925 ]

seriously and bring some of the members back in the House rather than the seven that are here now, I move that the Chairman now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 13

NAYS - 22

MR. LAUK: I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, that when you report to the Speaker – if, indeed, you ever do – you would inform the Speaker that a decision took place at this point and that we want leave to have it entered in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll be honoured to do so. Will the member continue?

[Interruption.)

MR. LAUK: Don't you think that that is a bit excessive? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 28 pass?

[Interruption.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, that comes out of your pay. (Laughter.) It's a Herb Bruch [illegible] breaking of the gavel.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: I wish to assure the galleries that this doesn't happen every night – only on the nights that we sit. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have just had a message from the Public Works department. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I have just had a message from Maui. "Being a member of the rump group is far better than being a horse's. . , ." (Laughter.) Mr. Chairman, it is the usual quality of note that I receive from the member for Maui, the Cardinal Richelieu of ICBC.

Mr. Chairman, now that we have exchanged pleasantries, I wonder if we can get back to the point, which is section 28 and this minister's complete and utter disregard for the democratic process in the province of British Columbia. Quite clearly, the minister designed this section for a secret purpose, which he only hinted at this afternoon, with respect to the building of a pipeline across this great province.

It is part of a conspiracy on this government's behalf to build that pipeline. Since he slipped with that statement in his speech this afternoon, it should be noted by this well-attended press gallery here this evening that the minister has not spoken a word in this debate since. He probably got the message from the chief that he has spoken too much in this debate.

AN HON. MEMBER. You mean the son of Da-da.

MR. LAUK: I think the opposition would be irresponsible, Mr. Chairman, if we did not conduct ourselves the way we have in trying to slow down the passage of this section and force the minister to reflect on the gravity of this section. It's been opposed by almost every right-thinking member of municipal councils across this province. It is repugnant to every basic tenet of democratic action. It's totally repugnant.

Now the minister has tabled a letter from some former Social Credit candidate who is presently the mayor of Duncan. It has no reference whatsoever to this section – none whatsoever.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Cucumber.

MR. LAUK: Oh, there is the Minister of Mines calling Mayor Moffat of Prince George a cucumber again. The disrespect that some of the members on that side of the House have for hard-working, long-standing public officials is just incredible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, back to section 28.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Listen, 'don't knock that minister. He is a great minister. He's fantastic. Do you know that that minister, at public expense, has signs all over Victoria telling the people of Victoria how great he is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon . member, section 28.

[ Page 4926 ]

MR. LAUK: I think that they put a new four-foot curb at one street here, and there is a sign up saying: "Compliments of Sam Bawlf."

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat. ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the , hon. first member for Vancouver Centre on section 28.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now I realize that the minister is getting tired and ill-tempered and he wants his little section through. But the opposition, even in the midst of this frivolity, quite seriously does not want him to have it. If the minister can offer some form of compromise -anything that will ameliorate the tremendous impact this section has on the democratic process – we would be happy to hear about it. If we had a municipal appeal board made up of non-partisan individuals, might help. I don't know.

The minister has not responded to the legitimate criticisms, not just made by the NDP and the Conservative and Liberal parties in this House. He has not responded to the tremendous and forceful criticism he has received from municipal politicians. Mayor Volrich of the city of Vancouver ... I had an interview today with the leading aldermen of the city of Vancouver; they are absolutely repulsed by this section. They can't explain it. Their inquiries as to why have not been answered. They don't understand it and the minister has done nothing to allay their fears. There is no need for it.

I wonder if the minister could not stand in his place and finally admit that he has made a terrible mistake and withdraw this section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the opposition will be disappointed because I have no intention of withdrawing section 28. It is one part of a series of amendments to the Municipal Act under Bill 42 which has been given a great deal of thought. I would remind the committee that this sudden rush of phone calls on August 24 on the part of the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , or his unnamed research assistant referred to earlier this afternoon, to find reaction to a bill which has been on the order paper since April I and a section which has not been amended, is really quite astonishing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, I've been silent this evening. I inquired, as I believe each member is entitled to do, of the time spent in debate on second reading of Bill 42. The bulk of the debate in second reading....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to interrupt the minister. I do want to hear his speech, but I do not think it's proper for the minister to reflect on the debate in second reading. He can't do it. It's tantamount to reflecting on a vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In reflecting on this particular section, it would be quite in order, but other than that, in general it would not.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I was not reflecting on what was debated in second reading. The member for Vancouver Centre incorrectly anticipated what was about to be said.

I had indicated earlier, sir, that I have been quiet this evening. We spent a great deal of time on section 28 this afternoon, and we spent six hours and 55 minutes in second reading debate, the very large percentage of which was on section 28, the section which is before the committee right now. That's the point I wish to make, and I think it should be emphasized.

The opposition arguments have been, to say the very best one can about them, thin. We've had the Mayor Volrich news release related to the House and now to the committee, I would think, 10 or 12 times. We've had references to individual members of the union of B.C. Municipalities executive. We've had that a number of times.

MR. LAUK: You don't like Mayor Volrich? What's wrong with Mayor Volrich?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm not tired, Mr. Member. I'm prepared to stay here tonight, and tomorrow, and tomorrow night, and Friday – no, I can't be here Friday – and next week for as long as you wish to permit the debate on section 28.

1 suggest that at some point relatively soon the debate is going to become tedious and repetitious, because there have been no new arguments offered. We've had a few opposition members participate. They're running a shift system, and that's clearly evident. They have been back and forth.

I have said earlier today, and I said in second reading with respect to section 28.... Somehow, the chief critic for the official opposition, and other members, choose to overlook the very great similarity that exists between section 28 of Bill 42 before this Legislature and this committee at this time, and similar regulations and requirements which have been

[ Page 4927 ]

in existence or have been recently introduced in other provinces.

MR. LEA: Similar but different.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Depending on the province, Mr. Member, if I have to spell it out for you. Mr. Chairman, the Ontario Planning Act....

MR. MACDONALD: They have a municipal board. Come on!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I have listened quietly while others have participated. Now may I be afforded the same courtesy?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has the floor. Only one member can speak at a time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Ontario Planning Act, section 14 (l): "Upon adoption the plan shall be submitted by the council that adopted it to the minister, who may refer the plan to any ministry of the public service of Ontario that may be concerned therewith, " et cetera. The portion I delete is not key to the debate. "If modifications appear desirable to the minister, he shall, after consultation with the council of the municipality affected, make such modification and cause the plan to be amended accordingly." The last citation is from the Ontario statutes, 1973, chapter 168.

A little later, Mr. Chairman, with respect to Ontario again: "The minister may by order, with respect to any land in Ontario, or exercise any of the powers conferred upon councils by section 35 without the approval of the municipal board, and with respect to any land in Ontario, exercise the powers conferred upon councils by section 29 (3) '7.

A member earlier today on the side opposite said that this is legislation which the federal government should disallow. Well, the federal government is going to be extremely busy if it examines the British Columbia legislation and finds the similarity which exists between this proposal in British Columbia and existing legislation in other provinces of this country.

MR. BARBER: He did not recommend disallowance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Member, I've listened quietly. Please offer the same courtesy.

The Newfoundland Urban and Rural Planning Act:

"Control and use of land.

"When the municipal plan comes into effect, the authorized council shall adopt fully a scheme for the control of the use of land in strict conformity with the municipal plan or any further plan or scheme, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall prepare zoning plans dividing the planning area into use zones, land-use zoning regulations and subdivision regulations.-

Section 39 of this particular bill:

"When the scheme referred to in section 37 is adopted by resolution, the authorized council shall submit it to the minister for approval. The minister may approve or disapprove any scheme submitted to him for approval under subsection I., ,

Mr. Chairman, in New Brunswick, the Community Planning Act, section 69, says: "With respect to any.

MR. LAUK: This has nothing to do with it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, then that shows how little you know about local government, Mr. Member, if you sit there in your place and say it has nothing to do with section 28. "With respect to any bylaw enacted, . . ."

SOME HON. MEMBERS. A totally different law!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, lion. members.

HON. MR. CURTIS.: In New Brunswick, Mr. Chairman:

"With respect to any bylaw enacted hereunder and any municipal plan, basic planning statement, development, or urban renewal scheme adopted thereby, the council shall apply to the minister for his approval thereof, as conforming with the requirements of this Act."

MR. LAUK: What about Chile? Anything there?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's an offensive statement, I feel, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: You're being offensive to the Legislature.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We're dealing, Mr. Chairman, with provincial land-use regulations in Canada.

MR. LAUK: This is a dictatorship, and you haven't answered that charge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. minister has the floor. only one member may speak at a time. Please give the hon. minister the consideration of debating on this.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You see, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 4928 ]

throughout this debate in second reading, and again today in committee, the inference has been left with the committee – or an attempt has been made to leave the inference with the committee – that this is something unique in Canada and brand new. The members opposite again show their inability or unwillingness to understand local government legislation in Canada by saying it is.

The Nova Scotia Planning Act says: "A municipal development plan ... and every amendment, revision, or repeal of the plan shall be subject to the approval of the minister." In the same Act, section 49: "The minister may. . .

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: They don't like this, Mr. Chairman; they don't like hearing this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. CURTIS: "The minister may prescribe regulations respecting subdivision of land, "

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have the Manitoba Planning Act. We're moving from east to west. This is section 26:

"The minister may, after consultation with the board of a district or the council of a municipality in writing, order (a) the board of a district, or (b) the council of a municipality, to prepare and adopt a development plan for the district or the municipality, as the case may be, within two years from the date of the order, or within such further time as the minister may allow."

Section 26 (2) of the Manitoba Planning Act:

"Order to amend plan.

"Where pursuant to subsection (1) or (4) the board of a district or the council of a municipality has adopted a development plan, the minister may, after consultation with the board or council of the municipality, in writing, order the board or the municipality, as the case may be, to prepare and adopt an amendment to the development plan within such time as he, the minister, may specify in the order."

Under subdivision regulations in Manitoba: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make such regulations and orders not inconsistent with any other provision of this Act." Then there is a series set out, and the final one is "prescribing the locations where subdivisions intended for specific types of development or use are permitted or prohibited." .

In Saskatchewan, Mr. Chairman, quite closely related to section 28 is section 55 of the Saskatchewan Urban and Rural Planning and Development Act:

"The minister may, after consultation with the council of a municipality, direct the council to prepare and pass a zoning bylaw or amend an approved zoning bylaw under this Act, such bylaw or amendment to be passed within one year.-

Section 70 of the same Act in Saskatchewan says: "Where a council fails to prepare or pass a zoning bylaw or to direct development in accordance with an approved zoning bylaw, the minister may exercise any of the powers of the'council under this Act."

Section 109 of the same Act in Saskatchewan, with an NDP government....

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): It's quite different.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Chirp, chirp, chirp from the corner. "It's quite different."

MR. MACDONALD: Well, it is.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, section 109: "The minister shall make regulations not inconsistent with this Act for controlling the subdivision of land." Section 110 of the same Act: "The regulations under section 109 may, among other things, prescribe the locations where subdivisions intended for specific types of development and uses are permitted or prohibited."

In Section 193, a special planning area section of the same Saskatchewan Act, the minister may by order declare a municipality, several municipalities, any part of a municipality or any parts of several municipalities to be a special planning area.

MR. LEA: It's not the same!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Authority is given to the Ministers of Municipal Affairs in several provinces.

Earlier we spoke about the one that has direct bearing on the city of Winnipeg through the Manitoba Legislature. I will not bore the committee by re-reading that one, but I would refer to the fact that I dealt with it in second reading debate when closing the debate.

Mr. Chairman, the debate here can and will go on for as long as the opposition wishes. The fact of the matter is that there will be those instances where regardless of the party in power provincially, the provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will find it necessary to overrule a local council or a regional district in matters relative to land use.

MR. LEA: And rewrite the law.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The interjection can be ignored, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 4929 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have attempted quietly and calmly, Mr. Chairman, in second reading, because second reading dealt essentially with section 28, to assist the members in what was, as far as I'm concerned, quiet and restrained debate. But with respect, sir, I think it is out of control a little tonight.

I tried to point out the similarity. to other provinces of Canada with respect to ministerial control over land-use matters. Ours calls for 90 days' notification of the council – a quarter of a year – an opportunity for individuals, including a mayor and council or chairman and directors of a regional district, to raise the roof if they feel the ministerial position is incorrect.

When we discussed this in second reading I referred to the ability of the media to focus very clearly and carefully on a ministerial order. There would be instances, Mr. Chairman, where if that power were abused, and each minister in turn in any government always has the , possibility to abuse certain authority that is assigned to him, that is recognized. This is not unique in that respect; most ministerial authority is capable of being abused.

But the members opposite, for their own reasons for debating purposes in an attempt to score points last week, when it was discussed before that and again today, have overlooked the fact that there is that three-month waiting period when tremendous public opposition could pour in with respect to a ministerial decision.

Mr. Chairman, we have examined the statements that have been made. We've listened carefully to the statements that have been made by members of the opposition. They, for their own political reasons, have decided that this is a section of a bill that they don't like. I can't delve further into their motivation to oppose section 28. 1 suggest that not all the reasons have been brought out, but they may be before the end of the debate.

I have no hesitation in reaffirming for the committee the need ' for section 28 of Bill 42, its fairness with respect to other provinces of Canada and which under any government no Minister of Municipal Affairs – and I'll overlook the references earlier tonight which I found personally offensive, sir – would very long abuse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before . we proceed, hon. members, the Chair has allowed several members in debate on section 28 of Bill 42 to use the same material to illustrate their points. However, this has progressed to a point where we're indulging in repetitive debate. I would now advise you that the Chair will not permit this any further.

I use as my authority our own standing order 43.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chai=an, you have, in my view, prematurely raised the question of standing order 43, and I think that is an unfortunate thing for you to do.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 14

NAYS - 23

Mr. Barrett requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 28.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard) ; Mr. Chairman, I'm really sorry you're in the chair. I was hoping that the member from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) would come back. He brought back a lot of memories tonight. It's really too bad. I was frankly a little annoyed at the minister when he was speaking, Mr. Chairman. I thought you might get annoyed at him too. He indicated that you were running not a very good House. He indicated to you, or suggested to you in very strong terms, that this thing had gone on long enough so you might invoke a little closure. Then, in order to settle the House down, obviously we had to call a division. Now you have asked that we deal with new material, that we don't become repetitious and tedious like the minister was just before. The fact that he doesn't answer the questions that are put to him is another matter.

Now I remember when this minister was on this side of the House. You know, he said that the opposition is going on and on because somehow they're fired up about this section. Well, of course he used to sit further down than where the Socreds sat in the last parliament, but surely he remembers, as I do, the Minister of Economic Development. (Hon. Mr. Phillips) getting up here, because he was exercised about something, for 14 hours. Nobody has got up to

[ Page 4930 ]

filibuster this bill. People have got up, made their points, asked questions, and got no answers. Now this minister, when he was a member on this side of the House, or further down the street .... The thing is, I'm not sure where, in March, 1975 ....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm not sure how this is relevant to section 28.

MR. LEVI: Oh, it's very relevant because I've got a quote from one of the minister's speeches. Now all I want to know is – and maybe the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) will nod his head -in March, 1974, was he with you or with them?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): 011, 1 must never give out dates.

MR. LEVI: Okay. Now in 1975, during the estimates of the former Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Lorimer) , who left a legacy of good works for that minister to look good on. . . . We haven't got anything so far from him that he looks good on, and on this he looks bad.

Now during the debate in March, 1975, he said: "The relationship between the province and its municipalities is rarely easygoing, relaxed and totally pleasant." Now he is able to say that, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of being mayor of a municipality. His left was not easygoing or relaxed. He had a deal with the previous Social Credit government and he had his moments, particularly in 1970 and 1971. "That is still the case with the NDP government, particularly in view of the fact that the present Minister of Municipal Affairs is obviously not a strong member of the cabinet." He's talking about the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, who created a number of programmes. He hasn't created one programme yet. He goes on to say: "But some of the fault lies squarely with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. , , ." Now we have asked that minister a number of times what the feeling of the Union of B.C. Municipalities is. He goes on to say:

"But some of the fault lies squarely with the Union of B.C. Municipalities which, from time to time, as I well know, is too quiet, too meek in its contacts with the minister, the government, and with other departments of government. Often it would appear that the UBCM is perhaps even intimidated by the province and its various ministers, regardless of the party in power."

Well, we haven't heard anything from the UBCM yet. Then he goes on to say:

"So whether if s the former government, or the present government, or a future government formed by this party, the official opposition, it is absolutely vital at all times that the UBCM speak out publicly when it believes that the province is not dealing fairly with our organized communities and regional districts. It must do so with strength and with well-researched material and statistics."

Now we have by inference from the minister that because they are not screaming about this section of the bill, or the bill in general, somehow they approve of this. We haven't heard anything. I would think that if they agree with the minister that it's a good bill and a good section, then they would produce some well-researched material and statistics to show us that this bill is worthy of being supported. After all, he's a former chairman of the organization. He's not a stranger to it. He needs them right now, but where are they? They haven't come forward to support him which makes me think that, at the least, there's real dissension within that organization about their feelings toward this bill. If there weren't dissension, they would have come forward.

The he goes on to say in March, 1975:

"I say to the Union of B.C. Municipalities -I believe one of their representatives is in the gallery – I also say to the cities and districts, towns, regional districts and villages which form its membership: be strong. Be critical, regardless of the party in power, and when necessary, make your case with as much conviction as necessary. No government in this province, past, present or future, no matter how hard it tries, can possibly score 100 per cent in its association with municipalities and regional districts."

That's his invocation in 1975 to the municipalities, but he's forgotten that.

We wonder about a man who spoke like this just over two years ago, with all the feelings that he has about the necessity to have constructive criticism. Yet before, when somebody raised the question that Mayor Moffat of Prince George was critical, the minister's answer was to produce an unsolicited letter – I mean, he wrote on it, "unsolicited" – from Mayor Paskin. Mayor Paskin was a Social Credit candidate in the last election and I gather in the next federal election he is going to be running for the nomination for the Conservative Party. Another political traveller, a fellow traveller of the minister. They're political tourists, these people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now back to 28.

MR. LEVI: He brings a letter in, which is his only response to the questions we asked about where his support is. I know Mayor Paskmi. I had my moments with him when I was in government. That's hardly a credible kind of support – one letter.

Interjections.

[ Page 4931 ]

MR. LEVI: No. He just talks about the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) . He's very upset about something. I guess he must have gone out to the phone and called the minister and said, "what did she say?" The minister said: "Well, why don't you put it in writing?" So he popped it in writing and then the minister, when he was looking at the letter wrote on it, "unsolicited".

When the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was looking for support for a piece of legislation that he was dealing with, he dumped hundreds of letters on the table.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're not discussing the Minister of Education. I've asked you to return to section 28, if you would.

MR. LEVI: We're discussing the issue of support for a piece of legislation. In this House, we look for material that somebody will produce. Who is supporting you in this, apart from the people in the department? We have not had any indication, other than the one letter that comes from one mayor of one municipality. Now if you want to compare the municipality of Duncan with the municipality of Prince George, and the experience and the drive ... there is a difference in the two mayors of those municipalities and one would tend to give far more credibility to the support that is given by the mayor of Prince George than by the mayor of Duncan.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): There's nobody left, Norm.

MR. LEVI: Well, you're here, Bill. We can still communicate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We do not call hon. members by their name.

MR. LEVI: Well, we've known each other a little while now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that doesn't matter, hon. member.

MR. LEVI: Entre nous, Mr. Speaker, entre nous. Don't worry about it.

Later on in his speech in 1975 – and I'm sure the minister has now forgotten.... That's what happens – he moves from one party to the other; then he becomes a minister and he forgets all of the high ideals that he had. But he does have something to. say about the erosion of the rights of municipalities. He says finally on the subject of local government:

"I. think it's time for the people of the province to recognize that the present government is not friendly to, nor .understanding of, the municipalities. In spite of the grants, in spite of the highly publicized revenue sharing" – they got the money – "that the Minister of Finance spoke of in his budget, it's the government which encourages and condones interference in purely municipal and regional district jurisdictions by the Department of !Highways, the land commission, the ;Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and the Environment and Land :Use Committee."

It was as though to underscore this, that what he does.... He brings in a bill, in which he's there criticizing it, and now agrees. So he brings in a bill which gives him these ultimate powers to interfere in the functions of the municipality.

Here's a man who when he gets up to speak, Mr. Chairman, particularly in this area, is knowledgeable. There's no question of that. He's had great experience as a mayor and an alderman. But the thing is, he has a bad memory. He has a bad memory for the things that concerned him when he was a mayor and an alderman, the kind of things that worried him all the time. He spoke many times on the erosion of the rights of the municipalities, and he was concerned about the UBCM and that they haven't said anything. And I'm very concerned that we've heard nothing from the UBCM about how they feel about it,

Now later on in the same year, the minister had more to say about the erosions of municipal powers. In June, 1975 ... you weren't here then, Mr. Chairman. June was almost the end of a very long session. We thought that was a long session, because we were told today by the Premier that this session is likely to go on forever. But on June 18,1975, he was talking about the erosions of power.

"I think that this is fundamental to the discussion in terms of the minister's vote. We have municipal structure for British Columbia and, depending upon the performance of the individuals who serve on a council as mayor, aldermen or regional district directors, but particularly at the city or municipal level, if that performance is considered by the majority of the residents to be unsatisfactory, then the individuals and elected officers are tossed out. But what honestly concerns a number of us on this side of the House is the continuing undermining and erosion of the authority given, not to a mayor and council, -but to municipalities at the local level, given to citizens who are at once citizens of the province of British Columbia, but also citizens, taxpayers, and tenants in a particular community. He's there again with the same theme, the theme of the protection of

[ Page 4932 ]

the rights of the municipalities, the local government. He was constantly reiterating this in the speeches that he made.

He goes on to say: "This is a fundamental issue, and I trust that the minister will continue to be as candid with the committee this morning. We are uneasy with regard to the interference. I think there's no other term for it." He goes on to talk about what he perceived as interference. But now he has enshrined it. He's written it into an Act which gives him the right – a very powerful right – to involve himself.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has an obligation. Sooner or later the weight of the numbers on that side of the House are going to ram this bill through, But the minister also has an obligation. He should make a commitment to go out, and he should be prepared to debate the merits of this piece of legislation. I don't think he could do any better than to undertake to debate publicly, hopefully on television, with Mayor Moffat of Prince George. Let them get together and have a debate, one and the other, where one sees the merits and point of view of the minister, and where, as Mr. Moffat may see it, one sees the demerits of this system.

We need to have that kind of debate because, after all, one of the things that the minister had when he was in opposition.... Of course, he had time then to write the kind of speeches that he made in this House based on a lot of experience. It was important to constantly remind the government of the day.... He's the one who said that our relationship with governments, whether it's the past government, this government, or the future government, are always uneasy. Yet we are given to understand, as the result of a number of calls we have made and a number of people that we spoke to, that there is an uneasiness. That's why we're here debating this thing.

The minister may feel that after two or three hours you can let it slide through and it's okay. But that's not the nature of opposition, and he knows it. He was in opposition. You don't roll over and play dead. If you've got an objection to a piece of legislation, you get up and you keep opposing it. That's what we're here for. We have a right to expose what we feel are invidious powers that the minister has. He has not been candid with this House.

He's not prepared to tell us.... I would have thought, for instance, that the smiling Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) might have been up on this. You know, one of the things they lack over there.... In the old Socred government they used to have what they called "Ministers of Defence."

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Section 28.

MR. LEVI: Don't worry about that, Mr. Minister of Finance. I remember when you sat further down there and the Minister of Defence.... Oh, they all sat down here, the Ministers of Defence. When a minister was getting hammered, they'd jump up....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, each member of this House will have a chance to debate on this section.

MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Chairman ' I have an obligation as a member of this House to remind the other members that they do have this obligation. You musn't do that, because you're an impartial Chairman. But I can do that. I can remind them that this minister needs some defence. And where are they? We had one member from the north.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, he has to go back home on the weekend. I doubt that he'll get past Quesnel.

So we have a right to oppose this, Mr. Chairman, and we do not need to be reminded by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) or the Minister of Municipal Affairs that the debate becomes tedious, and therefore you should close it off. The best thing they can do is to sit back and listen, and then be smart and answer some questions. But they haven't answered any questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now back to section 28.

MR. LEVI I'm on section 28, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WOLFE. He doesn't know what it says.

MR. LEVI: Oh, that was a devastating attack by the Minister of Finance! My only warning to the Minister of Finance – it's just a warning; it's not a threat – is: "Don't put your button on the computer. You're liable to get sucked in."

Let's ask the minister a couple of questions. He's gone all around the ball park on this thing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: So have you.

MR. LEVI: There's a former member of the other government. Is he going to get up and say something? He can't do that, because he'd have to get up and talk about jobs, jobs, jobs, and there aren't any jobs in this.

Let's ask the minister. What can he really tell us about the kind of support he has within the UBCM? I've quoted from the speeches that he's made. He's on a first-name basis with those people. He knows them. Have they produced a letter of support for the minister? As I pointed out to him, there are some

[ Page 4933 ]

dangers in it. Have they said anything to him? Or, are they, as he suggests. . . ?

I A couple of years ago he suggested that it was a timid organization, that they're afraid to talk to the government, that some ministers scare them. Consequently, have they not said anything? Has he solicited their support? Because that's not unusual to solicit support of organizations, particularly in such a delicate area as this, and it's important. Has he done that? After all, he has apparently good standing with some of the people in the UBCM, but he hasn't done that.

When the minister gets up to answer, perhaps he might make a comment about whether he is prepared to debate this bill at some time in the future with Mayor Moffat. It's important in the interests of free speech, of understanding what is involved in this legislation, and to give Mayor Moffatt an opportunity to talk with the minister about how he really feels about things, He is a man with wide experience, almost as much experience as the minister has, in municipal affairs.

MR. LAUK: Don't intimidate the Chair, Jim.

MR. LEVI: They are doing that again, are they? Intimidating the Chair?

HON. MR. CURTIS: You're not in your seat,

MR. LEVI: We have another mayor strolling down at the back of the House there. Why doesn't he get up and say something?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, back to section 28. Each member will have his opportunity to speak as the time arises.

MR. LEVI: Yes, it is incumbent upon us, Mr. Chairman, to remind those members that they do have an opportunity to debate....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down if you've got nothing to say.

MR. LEVI: Oh, here's the man that never had anything to say all the months that he was in opposition, all the years. He gets up and makes the same speech all the time, and keeps looking at me and reminding me of the overrun. That is his great contribution to any debate in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now back to section 28.

MR. LEVI: Single minded, single brain cell ... that's all he can do. I think somebody once said that you can measure his depth with a micrometer, and that's true.

Now is the minister going to be candid with us about his relationship with the UBCM and whether in fact they have offered to support him on this? If this is all he is going to come forward with, then we simply must continue to debate this bill until he is prepared to be candid and come clean with us on just what kind of support he does have. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 28 pass?

MR. BARBER: I'm afraid it won't pass for a little while, Mr. Chairman. The mayor of Vancouver said in the Vancouver Sun, attacking section 28 of Bill 42, "but if it becomes part of the Municipal Act we can reasonably expect that it will be added to the charter." He's referring of course to the Vancouver charter. I've taken an opportunity to review the charter and I would like to predict the future of section 28.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member. The charter, or the revisions to it, is an Act that is before this House at this particular time, a private bill.

MR. BARBER: That's right. I predict that, although it is not present in the Act immediately before this House, if section 28 passes tonight, then we will see the government introducing tomorrow, metaphorically speaking, i.e. at the earliest possible opportunity, an amendment to section 566 of the Vancouver charter.

I would like to hear from the minister when he expects to introduce the amendment to the Vancouver charter that will give him the same power over the city of Vancouver....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is out of order. We cannot refer to other legislation, the need for legislation or impending legislation. Back to section 28. 1 am sorry, it is out of order.

MR. BARBER. It occurs to us as it has already occurred to the mayor of Vancouver that if the minister wishes this kind of power over every other city, municipality and regional district in the province, then it is not likely he will overlook to exercise that kind of personal power in the city of Vancouver itself.

We predict that if this goes through tonight, tomorrow, next week or next month, if section 28 becomes law the inevitable next step will be an amendment to the Vancouver charter. If it is not we would certainly like to hear from the minister why the city of Vancouver is singularly and favourably being excluded from the grab for awesome powers which section 28 of this bill represents.

It occurs to us that when this section does finally become law, if the minister doesn't have the wisdom

[ Page 4934 ]

to withdraw it as he properly should, then the next step will be an amendment to the Vancouver charter. It if it an amendment to the Vancouver charter, or if they introduce any other legislation....

MR. CHAIRMAN; The hon. minister on. a point of order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The matter has been dealt with at length. The Vancouver charter is not under debate here. It should not be. We are dealing with Bill 42 which is an amendment to the Municipal Act. That member is not in his seat, Mr. Chairman, the member who interjects so often.

MR. LAUK; That is not a point of order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Vancouver charter, or the need to amend it, is surely not part of section 28 of Bill 42.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken, Hon. minister. Would you please proceed on section 28?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a biased thing to do. The Chairman is being partial.

MR. BARBER; I'm concerned about the threat that this bill poses to the city of Vancouver, and so is its mayor. I'm concerned about the extent to which this man will personally be able to rewrite that law too, as inevitably he will want to do. I am not referring to any other bill at the moment. 1. am referring to the clear and transparent grab for personal power made by a man who, when he was in opposition, thought it the most abhorrent thing on earth.

Now that it serves its political purposes in government he finds it acceptable and brings in absolutely spurious and irrelevant references to other legislation in other provinces, to try and persuade us – but he has failed – that what he is doing tonight is somehow consistent with what others have done before. Even if it were so, it's a bit much to hear from this member.

He's been a member of the Liberal, Conservative, Social Credit and, I understand, even Action Canada parties. I was going through the old press clippings and I discovered that one. I had forgotten it for a little while, but even Action Canada was part of that lineup.

.That he should try and use as justification legislation brought in by socialist governments in other provinces is a bit much. The fact is that we, too, have read that material and it does not apply, It is simply irrelevant to the debate we're having here tonight and to the ambitions of this coalition to assume centralized authority over local government in a way no government that preceeded it ever attempted.

That brings me to the next argument I'd like to put forward, Mr. Chairman. This bill represents something that becomes more and more typical of the government as a whole. Whenever this government has had the opportunity to choose between local control and provincial control, they have always chosen in favour of themselves. Whenever they've had the opportunity to choose between the liberty of individuals in a personal and private way and the direction that a centralized, bureaucratic government should take, they've chosen in favour of centralization and bureaucracy. This bill and this section that we're now debating represents another step down the unpleasant road to state control and state interference in the lives of individuals and in the government of local municipalities.

When they were in opposition they pretended to be the fighters for freedom, and now they bring in a section like this which does away with an important aspect of the freedom, integrity, autonomy and liberty of local government to make its own choices and to stand or fall by them. That's what this section does.

It is consistent with the whole approach this government has taken since coming to office. Centralize, bureaucratize and finally what it means is tyrannize, through the majority they control in this House, all of the decisions and this parliament itself.

Taking a look at the record of this government, of which this bill is only one more example, we find that from the beginning they bring in something like the Government Reorganization Act and they speak to the principle in that Act as we do tonight to this. The principle that they adopted from the beginning was that their side, with their majority subject to no appeal and no criticism from this side of the House or any other quarter, shall prevail, When they were in opposition they pretended that was not their philosophy. Now that they're in government, as represented by this section here tonight, they've betrayed the truth.

This is a government interested in state- power, state control and state centralization. It has been from the beginning and it is again tonight, No previous government in this province, be it democratic socialist or private enterprise, until tonight advocated that any Minister of Municipal Affairs in British Columbia should have this power. It was never done.

It is typical – frighteningly typical – of the trends toward more control in Victoria and less at the local level that this government should have the intention and the transparent desire to bring in a section like this and force it through – no matter what the opposition.

My colleague for Vancouver-Burrard has

[ Page 4935 ]

indicated, as virtually all of the other speakers from the opposition, including the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) and the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) , that the minister has, for this particular section, no apparent support from any municipal official except one. Except one!

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point has been made, hon. member.

MR. BARBER. The point that has to be made, the point consistent with this whole debate, is that this bill is consistent with the whole ambition of that government to centralize, bureaucratize and finally tyrannize in the name of their own political ambitions. They bring in a bill like this tonight and it reminds us that they brought in the Government Reorganization Act. They bring in a bill like this tonight and it reminds us of the principles for which they claimed to have stood when in opposition and which the minister now betrays in government. They bring in a bill like this and it reminds them that the next thing they did was set about to kill the community health and human resources centres,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We are debating section 28 of Bill 42 – back to the section.

MR. BARBER. That's right And what I'm arguing, MR. Chairman, is that in a sense none of us should be too terribly surprised by the grab for power represented by this section, because it follows naturally from the course they set on December 22,1975. It is tragically consistent with the attitude of this coalition.

When they have had an opportunity to grab power, they've taken it. When they've had an opportunity to share power, they've denied it and avoided it. They had an opportunity to share power with other levels of government. In this section they refused to do so and in fact assumed power that no previous Minister of Municipal Affairs in British Columbia, Socred or New Democrat, ever had before. They had the opportunity to share power with the community resource boards, and they denied it and they killed those boards. Tonight they are denying the opportunity to share power with municipal governments and, to the contrary, are removing an important aspect of that power from local control, local government and local decision-making.

They have had an opportunity to share power with the Vancouver Resources Board and they have denied that opportunity. Instead they bring in a bill like this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, you're speaking of a bill that's before this House.

MR. BARBER: I'm speaking of a trend – a dangerous, autocratic trend on the part of that government. This bill represents that trend, Mr. Chairman. It speaks to that trend. It betrays the truth.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this member who is on his feet over there has consistently and constantly been out of order during this whole debate, I ask, Mr. Chairman, that you read standing order 43.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed, second member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: Well, that was a typically curious point of order from the man over there,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Stop talking and say something.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Oh, you're not funny.

MR. BARBER: For him, at this time of night, that's funny,

MR. LAUK: Get back to your Jolly Jumper.

MR. BARBER: We're concerned about the philosophic inclination of this government to deny people at a local, at a community, at a neighbourhood level to make free choices in a free fashion. This section clearly indicates that this minister has, in fact, betrayed his earlier promise of confidence in local government. He has betrayed the commitment he made when in opposition and as a mayor. He said it over and over again. I'm speaking, of course, of his commitment to respecting the rights, the liberties, the freedom of choice, the independence and the autonomy of local government in this province. When he's had a choice, did he recognize that liberty, did he allow those freedoms, or did he bring in a bill like this?

I can find no evidence anywhere that since he became minister he'd done anything whatever to enhance the freedom of local government to make those decisions. To the contrary, the minister, wherever he is right now, or wherever he thinks he is right now, has given nothing but notice to municipal and regional government that their days are centrally numbered. The choice they once had, the accountability to their own electorate they once possessed, is over. Section 28 is in instead. It's a new day but it's an old tragedy. It's part of the tragedy of Social Credit ever since it came to power in 1952 in

[ Page 4936 ]

this province. When they've had the choice, they've refused it. They've refused it to regional colleges, to Notre Dame, to the B.C. Buildings Corporation, and to all the rest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member- you're continually transgressing the rules.

MR. KEMPF: He's always out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BARBER: It seems to me important that if a member stands up and claims that a government is following a trend, as illustrated by this bill tonight, that more than just talking about the specific transgression on democracy that this represents, he should talk about the principle underlying it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, in committee we are to speak specifically to the section. This is section 28. Would you kindly proceed?

MR. BARBER: Well, with respect, Mr. Chairman, I really believe that were you in opposition looking at a government such as perhaps our own bringing in such a bill ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

.MR. BARBER: ... you would oppose it as strenuously as I. At the moment, you don't, Accordingly I move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

MR. KERSTER: Oh, what a waste of time.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 14

NAYS - 23

Mr. Barrett requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 28.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I think that I should quit while I'm ahead. I've just come back from attending two days of a mental health conference and really I think that this is where the conference should have been held.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: I recognize my insanity; that's why I went, and I wish the members of the government would because for the minister to try and push through this particular section of the bill shows that he is indeed insane.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MS. BROWN: Oh, I withdraw "indeed." (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, withdraw "insane", hon. member. Please withdraw.

MS. BROWN: I withdraw. After all, Mr. Chairman, I am not qualified to decide whether the minister is insane or not. But in fact, why the minister should....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I did withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER:. It's an insane policy.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. It's an insane policy that the minister would lay himself open to be accused of all kinds of porkbarrelling with this particular section. He has the authority to override the decisions of the municipalities, to override the decisions of the elected representatives of people, and to inflict his own decisions on them. Even the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) leaves the room when this section is being debated. He will not speak in support of it.

Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that any member of the government is going to speak in support of this legislation unless they are forced to do so. Under duress they will speak in support of it, but certainly not under any other circumstances. In fact, the traditional supporters of the government are coming out against this piece of legislation. We find the Province of August 11 in its editorial policy saying that "mistrust of local governments must come with the job of B.C. Municipal Affairs ministers." I'm

[ Page 4937 ]

reading this into the records because I want the record to show that it's not just the members of the opposition who are opposed to this piece of legislation.

Even that great socialist, Mayor Volrich of Vancouver, refers to this bill as intrusion. Taking time off from his battles against pornography and other things, the mayor had to comment on Bill 42. As a representative of a riding in Vancouver, I have no option but to support the mayor on this point, because he is correct. This bill is intrusion – further intrusion – on the part of this government which intrudes on everything that it does.

I am not going to discuss a bill which is before the House. I am not going to make any comments about Bill 65, because I know I will have an opportunity to do so at another time. I am not going to discuss it. I am merely going to say that Bill 42 is in the same spirit of the Act as that bill which I am not going to discuss.

MR. BARBER: They don't trust the people.

MS. BROWN: My colleague says it is because the government doesn't trust the people, and there isn't any question about that. I mean, why should they trust the people, people who believed them when they said, for example, that they would not remove rent increases and voted for them on that point? Without discussing the bill in front of the House, they turned around and introduced, legislation that removed the ceiling on rents. Why should they trust the people who trust them when they have proven continually that they do not carry through with their promises, they do not keep their word, they do not ever mean the things that they say?

We find over and over, more and more, concentration of powers in their own hands. If it's not the Minister of Municipal Affairs, it surely is the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) or it surely is the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . I am discussing ministers under section 28 of Bill 42 because in fact it is not a unique section. There is nothing unusual about it. Every minister, at one time or another, in introducing legislation in this House has tried to concentrate in his or her hands this kind of autonomous power. They have all done it.

Mr. Chairman, this little opposition is going to stand on its feet and struggle and fight against this kind of concentration of power by the government because it is an erosion of democratic principles. That's what it's all about. We are not going to idly stand by, Mr. Chairman, and watch this happen.

Why does he want the power? What is he planning on doing with that power? It is in order for me to ask that question because under section 28 he is taking these very unusual powers into his own hands. Why is he doing this? What is his plan for the future of British Columbia? What are we going to wake up and discover tomorrow morning that he has done with these insane powers which he is taking into his hands? Everyone is alarmed. The Victoria Times is alarmed. Die Province is alarmed, Mr. Chairman. Even the Prince George Citizen is alarmed. I am sure that even those members in governments who at one time or another used to be accountable to their electorate were alarmed, including the member sleeping in the back row there. He's sleeping with his eyes open, and if I were a member of that government, I would sleep with my eyes open too. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair did not put him to sleep. Could you kindly get back to section 28?

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair is never asleep, Mr. Chairman. But in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, we really have to ask this question over and over again, because aside from a little statement made by the minister that there have been a few complaints on previous occasions about some municipalities being irresponsible in their active discouragement of growth, he really hasn't given us any reason why he needs these kinds of power. And when the minister talks about irresponsible discouragement of growth, by whose criteria is it? Who decides that when' those municipalities discourage growth, they were being responsible? By whose criteria? Was it by Block Bros' criteria? Or -was it by the criteria of the people who elected the members and the aldermen in those municipal councils? And what right does the Minister of Municipal Affairs have to override the wishes of the electorate in those municipalities?

I was under the impression, Mr. Chairman, that the divine right of kings did not extend to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, but apparently the minister thinks so.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: This king, not that King. The divine right of that King remains intact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill King, that is.

MS. BROWN: But, in fact, Mr. Chairman, and the day has been a long one.... Oh, there goes the Minister of Heritage (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) because he, too, is embarrassed by this.

The minister, I'm sure, has had ample time to reconsider his position on section 28. So I am going to ask once again that the minister reconsider this section and withdraw it.

I want to associate myself with the comments of the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi)

[ Page 4938 ]

who said that, quite frankly, it's not a bad piece of legislation considering where it's coming from but, in fact, the worst thing about it is section 28. If section 28 were withdrawn the opposition might be willing to take a second look – you know, that famous and proverbial second look that the father of the son used to take when he was Premier of this province, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, Daddy. Daddy used to take a second look when he was the Premier of this province, and we could take a second look at that piece of legislation to see whether it would riot be worth supporting. But we cannot support it as long as section 28 is in it.

There is no support of it from any of the thinking mayors of this province, none of the thinking aldermen and none of the thinking members of municipal councils. Everyone is afraid that local autonomy is being swept away.

Mr. Chairman, I have some notes here about fear of unpredictability of the minister-. I wanted to say a couple of words about the fear of the unpredictability of the minister. Who is going to monitor and control the minister in his use of this particular section? Mr. Chairman, who?

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): He controls himself.

MR. LAUK: Pretty Polly.

MS. BROWN: I thought pretty Polly fired him a long time ago.

But in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, who monitors the minister? Who controls the minister? Once the minister makes a decision to override the people, what then? To whom does one appeal? Mr. Chairman, to whom does one appeal?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: See, the Chairman is not able to answer that question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is here to keep order and to ask you to keep on section 28, which you're doing very nicely.

MS. BROWN: I recognize that, Mr. Chairman, and I recognize the difficulty you have in dealing with the question I have just placed in front of you. I respect it because it is a question which cannot be answered. That is precisely why we will not support section 28 of this bill.

Inteijections.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, my colleague to the right – and as you will notice, everyone is helping me out tonight – has suggested that maybe the minister is just a messenger. Maybe he is just carrying out the wishes of the Premier. I hope that is not true, because I hope that the minister has a mind of his own.

MR. BARNES: No, no, no.

MS. BROWN: No? Oh. I hope that the minister is strong enough that after it has been brought to his attention how irresponsible section 28 is, he will fight the cabinet and he will demand the right to withdraw this section because he knows that it is not right and that it is not a good section,

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair must insist on order in the House.

MS. BROWN: That's fine, Mr. Chairman, because do you know what the Victoria Times refers to this as? "A grave and serious abrogation of municipal authority."

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Was that the Minister of Human Resources' spelling? If we could have some compassion attached to your ability to spell, maybe the poor people in this province wouldn't be in such bad shape. But back to section 28.

Mr. Chairman, the Victoria Times goes on to say that this minister has always been an honourable and fair-minded person.

MR. LEA: They're wrong.

MS. BROWN: No, I know the minister. I sat on the municipal affairs committee with him.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was always a Liberal.

MS. BROWN: No, no. I knew him as a Conservative. I did not know him as a Liberal and I will not recognize him as a Social Crediter. My memories of him are as a Conservative. We travelled together through the Gulf Islands, visiting the Gulf Islands as co-members on the municipal affairs committee. I'm willing to agree with the editorial writer of the Victoria Times. He proved at all times to be honourable, very honourable.

MR. LAUK: Well, his intentions were anyway.

[ Page 4939 ]

MS. BROWN: He was also very fair-minded. This is the reason, Mr. Chairman, why I am so puzzled by this reluctance to withdraw section 28, and I believe lie will. I believe that the minister will have second thoughts. He will begin to see that the centralization of all of this power in his ministry is not worthy of him~ He will begin to see that it is not necessary for him to behave like the Minister of Human Resources. He will begin to see that it's not necessary for him to behave like the Minister of Mines, that's it's not necessary for him to be like the Minister of Finance because they're the only ministers who are even sitting near him tonight. All the others have left.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair must insist on quiet in the House while another member is speaking.

MS. BROWN: May I first of all say thank you very much to the Chairman for his chivalry in protecting my position as a speaker on the floor? I'm glad to know that chivalry is not dead, even in this age of centralization of power, and that it somehow has managed to survive, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: What riding is it in?

MS. BROWN: It certainly is not in Saanich and the Islands. But in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, I really don't believe that the minister wants section 28 to go through. He needs some time to reconsider his position.

Since the Speaker has just come through the doors with his hat in his hand, I am going to move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that when reporting to the Speaker you advise that a division took place and ask leave to have it recorded in the Journals.

MR. BARRETT.- I draw your attention to the clock.

MR. CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Leave granted for divisions to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:03 p.m.