[ Page 469 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act To Regulate Smoking In Public Places (Bill M204).

Introduction and first reading.

Mrs. Wallace –– 469

Oral Questions

Government accounting irregularities. Mr. Cocke –– 469

Mr. Barrett

Termination of Community Involvement Program. Mr. Barnes –– 471

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 9). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 473

Mr. Blencoe –– 474

MONDAY, JULY 25, 1983

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are two very fine people from Edinburgh, Scotland, Mr. R. Kerr and his wife Mrs, J. Kerr, and from Burnaby Mr. P. Robertson, Mrs. J. Robertson and their son Scotty Robertson. I would ask this House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, we have with us today the mayor of the city of Port Alberni; I would ask the the House to extend a warm welcome to His Worship Mayor Paul Reitsma. We also have with us a group of 15 students from Campus Crusade for Christ, and they are escorted by Mr. Tulloch. Would the House please welcome these visitors.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming friends from Vanderhoof who are visiting in the members' gallery today: Bill Price and his wife Leslie. Would the House join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the gallery today is a good friend of mine from North Peace River, Mr. Eli Framst, and I'd like the House to welcome him.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me in welcoming two of my hard-working constituency office workers, Mr. and Mrs. Bob Close, who have moved to Esquimalt from Coquitlam — although I'm not too sure we can afford to lose anyone from Coquitlam.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, from that great land of sanity, New Westminster, the Royal City, I'd like to introduce friends of mine, Frank Shepherd and Janet Pesklevits, who are visiting us.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO REGULATE
SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M204, An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING IRREGULARITIES

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Premier this question, but he's artfully dodging. Look at those empty benches over there — almost as empty as their heads.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we're in question period.

MR. COCKE: I will, however, ask the Minister of Tourism a question or two. Mr. Bruce Johnston, who is the chairman of the board of the Spectrum Group, parent company to both McKim Advertising and Vrlak Robinson, of wide acclaim, has been dispatched out here to Vancouver to clean up the mess, we're told. Has the minister taken action to ensure that copies of relevant documents, accounts and other records pertaining to this matter are not destroyed before a police investigation can get underway?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As I have informed the member several times, the whole matter of the report that he questions is under review not only by my ministry but by the Attorney-General, and a report will be brought back in due course.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the shredders are moving quickly, and as long as this....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Do you know that?

MR. COCKE: Yes, I know that. Has the minister decided to halt the government's obvious stonewalling of this matter, on the grounds that it can only result in vital evidence being destroyed?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To the best of my knowledge, nothing pertaining to this report has been destroyed, and I can assure the member that nothing will be, as far as I'm concerned.

MR. BARRETT: I would ask the Attorney-General to explain to this House what is necessary for review when the facts are that double accounts have been kept in one department and documents indicate that double payments have been made. It's not a question of review. When are you going to call the police?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, this member may prejudge that report, which is report number two. We have been promised that there will be a further report. In the meantime my officials will examine both the first and second reports and the vouchers and documents on which they were based. No further decision will be taken until those examinations are made.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a document has been filed with this House which states categorically that separate accounts were kept and that bills were paid twice. Are you saying that Mrs. Morrison did not do her job properly, and you have to review that? The question is this: does this Attorney-General attempt to maintain the record of one Robert Bonner and hide this material from the police for 700 days, or is he going to call the police? There's been theft here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind hon. members about the rules of question period.

[2:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, despite the flamboyant demonstration of the Leader of the Opposition, criminal intent is a matter that still has to be proved, and has to be thoroughly investigated when all the information is in to determine whether or not there is a case to examine further from that standpoint. You do not have a prima facie case of criminal intent simply because you have the kind of information that appears in that report.

[ Page 470 ]

MR. BARRETT: Considering the record of this government in similar situations, is it the job of the Attorney-General to determine whether or not there is criminal intent, or of the public prosecutor through police investigations, as take place in every other situation? I ask the Attorney-General why there is not an immediate police investigation, with hands off from this government, right now in this case.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have said before and I repeat it, that there will be a police investigation if the facts that my officials are examining...when these reports are completed and if examination by my officials of the documents warrants it. There will not be a police investigation simply because the Leader of the Opposition thinks that might be politically opportune.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, some very threatening statements have been made in that report by Mrs. Morrison — unequivocal accusations with documents to prove that double-accounting, overpayment and irregularities were taking place. With that evidence in front of us, every citizen in this province who is not a nincompoop or afraid to hide something would say: "Call the cops." I want an answer in this House why the police were not called immediately in this situation, where there is obvious hanky-panky and criminal intent to anybody who's got any brains to see that report. I ask the Attorney-General, why the stall? What is going on here? What is attempted to be covered up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Two weeks have gone by and it's a coverup.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, you have already posed a series of questions. This is question period, and the Attorney-General must be given an opportunity to respond to the questions one at a time. We are not at speech time, hon. member.

HON. MR. SMITH: If the Leader of the Opposition has any additional information or reason for believing that this matter should proceed beyond the investigation stage of officials in this ministry to some other stage, he can bring them forward. I'm interested, though, and somewhat bemused at his delayed-action rage to this, two weeks later. Following the report being filed in this Legislature, he has now, by benefit of the lamp, managed to get up a good deal of rage that he didn't have two weeks ago.

MR. BARRETT: For two weeks we have politely waited for the Attorney-General to make that move. For two weeks of coverup we've waited. I ask the Attorney-General: does he approve of double-bookkeeping? Does he approve of double payments? Does he see no wrong in the two weeks that he's studied it? Thirdly, I would ask the Attorney General: does he advocate that if municipalities or school boards encounter the same situation, he would not move on them as well?

MR. BARRETT: I ask a final question of the Attorney-General: how long will he condone this obvious criminal action that has taken place in that department?

HON. MR. SMITH: As the member knows, no criminal activities will be condoned. But he implies criminal activities when the evidence does not establish criminal activity. If the evidence prima facie does establish criminal activity, he can be sure that there will not only be a full investigation but that appropriate charges will be laid.

MR. BARRETT: Why were staff suspended if there was no wrongdoing?

HON. MR. SMITH: Again, this member implies criminal conduct when there may well have been administrative or financial error made in a ministry. He implies criminal wrongdoing. In this country people are still entitled to have all the evidence examined before they are put to a police examination and also before they are accused in this House of criminal wrongdoing. I'm appalled at the Leader of the Opposition,

MR. BARRETT: How can the Attorney-General justify the suspension of people from their jobs if a case against them has not been proved?

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: It seems that they've been suspended on a whim, the very argument that the Attorney-General said shouldn't be allowed. Now I will repeat this question to the Attorney-General: how can civil servants be suspended without a case being proved against them?

HON. MR. SMITH: Again, this member continues to confuse a criminal case with a matter of administrative and financial and rule irregularity. One may become the other, but one doesn't become the other because of speeches of the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the Attorney-General: if such double accounting were found in his department, would he suspend staff and let it go at that, or would he call in outside police?

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Is it not important in cases like this that these matters go out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of a public prosecutor for the answer?

HON. MR. SMITH: It is not in the hands of politicians, Mr. Leader of the Opposition; it is in the hands of loyal and dedicated public servants in my ministry with experience in the prosecution of criminal law. If it goes further from there, it will go into the hands of the commercial crime department and then into the hands of a prosecutor to decide and advise whether criminal charges will be laid. That would happen with any citizen, not just persons or organizations that may be mentioned or referred to in this report, and the Leader of the Opposition well knows that.

MR. BARRETT: Is it not common procedure for an ordinary citizen, if double bookkeeping has taken place with public accounts, that the commercial crime squad is called in first? Why the delay in calling in the commercial crime

[ Page 471 ]

squad, as would happen with every citizen outside of government?

HON. MR. SMITH: If the commercial crime squad were called in every time there were bookkeeping irregularities in the private sector, I daresay that downsizing of government would not only be impossible; we'd probably have to multiply their numbers by six or seven times.

MR. BARRETT: If the Attorney-General is telling us there are other kinds of irregularities that are keeping his staff busy, let him say so. We are dealing with a specific case proven by the statements of the auditor-general. If those statements and the facts are there and the auditor-general is incorrect, let the government say so, but for two weeks we've waited for action. I ask this question of the Attorney-General: when will he tell the people of British Columbia that the police are going to be called in on this matter, either to prosecute or clear it up?

HON. MR. SMITH: At the risk of being repetitive, I will refer to page 5 of the auditor-general's second report: "I have now reported on the serious weaknesses found to date in this ministry. Our work continues and if circumstances warrant I will present further audit findings either in another special report or in my next annual report as may seem most appropriate." There will be a further report. There will also be, and there is being, an examination of these documents and these allegations. That is taking place, and appropriate further action will be indicated as soon as that has been completed.

MR. BARRETT: To the Attorney-General: can you guarantee that every other citizen would have this same protection, or is this a protection for a former minister? How much more evidence do you need? There was double bookkeeping, overpayments and civil servants suspended. What is the nature of this coverup and how long do you intend to keep it going?

TERMINATION OF COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

MR. BARNES: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Speaker. The minister has destroyed the community involvement program which provides $50 per month honorarium for disabled persons on social assistance doing volunteer work. She has been quoted as saying: "I don't think $50 a month is going to make much difference." Has the minister made allowances for the fact that $50 per month means more to a social assistance recipient than to the minister, who receives $71,330 per year public service salary?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will ignore the language in which the question is couched, but I would be pleased to respond to the cessation of that particular program. It was a program which has been in place in the ministry for some time, but we have discontinued it in the interests of keeping the core programs of our ministry intact. As you will know, the core programs in our ministry involve some very important programs, and I do not take away from the importance of the one that the member brings before the House today. I'm sure that if he is quoting me, he is not quoting me in the full context. I'm saying that in relation to other programs that we have in place, this was not the highest priority in our ministry.

Therefore the decision to cease this program was made by the ministry and by the government. We believe that keeping the other programs going was a decision which was done with the best of care.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at the commencement of the last sitting of the House the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) sought, pursuant to standing order 35, to move adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, reduction in funding for a specific community service. The matter of supply for all government services has been appointed for consideration by the House on the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to enter Committee of Supply. As standing order 35(6)(d) provides that a motion under standing order 35 must not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the House, the application by the hon. member must fail, particularly in view of the fact that the House has given the question of supply priority over all other business of the House except introduction of bills.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 4, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order with respect to calling a bill other than Bill 3, to which is attached a want of confidence motion, namely a six-month hoist. As we all know, a six-month hoist is an amendment designed to kill Bill 3. I submit to you that the government has an obligation to deal with matters of want of confidence about its ability to run the affairs of this province before it proceeds to any other business. If the government is hiding from the challenge and is, in fact, saying to the House that it is putting Bill 3 to one side, then it has an obligation to withdraw that bill completely. Get rid of it. Get it off the order paper. The government interfered with the budget debate in order to introduce what it called an urgent matter, namely Bill 3. I submit that now that they have backed off from that, they should withdraw the bill and get rid of it. Then we can get down to Bill 4.

HON. MR. GARDOM: As the member well knows, and as every member of the House well knows, it's the responsibility of government to govern and to call bills in such order as it sees fit. One cannot anticipate, as the hon. member suggested, that Bill 3 will be disappearing. I've called Bill 4.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 4 has been called, hon. members....

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I raised a point of order; I have not yet heard any ruling about the validity of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the ruling would be that the government does have the right to call those orders. That will be the ruling of the Chair.

[ Page 472 ]

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move second reading of....

MR. HOWARD: I want to rise on another point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the time to rise on a point of order is hardly during the opening remarks of the minister. Nonetheless, the....

[2:30]

MR. HOWARD: The Minister has now taken the course of moving second reading, and I indicate to you that we are not entitled to proceed to deal with a taxation bill, which is what Bill 4 is, and what it's identified as — the Income Tax Amendment Act — so long as the budget has not been dealt with and completed. I think if Your Honour will take that matter under advisement, you will see that we are involved here with the blocking mechanism of debate. We cannot proceed now to be asked by the House to deal with a matter of taxation and by doing that prevent ourselves from discussing the same matter when the budget is brought back before the House.

I draw Your Honour's attention to a ruling made on March 24, 1932, by Mr. Speaker Davie, in which he held precisely that. He said: "I am accordingly obliged to rule that the effect of introducing the Amusements Tax Act" — it was a tax act; it doesn't matter what the tax — "will be to prevent discussion on the amusements tax during the budget or any other debate other than in the debate on second reading of the Amusements Tax Act. In order to remedy this situation, it would be a convenient practice in the future if the Finance minister would delay introducing taxation legislation until after the conclusion of the budget debate." I submit to you that he can't have it both ways. I think if Your Honour examines that, you'll find that we cannot proceed with this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. One moment, please.

Without prejudice to the point of order raised by the member for Skeena, and as has been the practice of this House on previous occasions, I will allow debate to continue at this point. I will take this immediate opportunity to look into the point that was raised by the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I submit to Your Honour that by doing that you are prejudicing the case, and we are permitted to engage in a debate which should not be allowed. I think Your Honour, if he wants a moment or two to examine this particular fundamental question of a move to prevent debate on a subsequent occasion.... Perhaps the proper course — and I say it with respect — would be to declare a short recess and not permit the Minister of Finance to proceed with a bill which I submit he is not entitled to proceed with. That was the decision of Mr. Speaker Davie.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as I stated at the beginning of my remarks, I would permit debate without prejudice to the member's point. Therefore, if the Chair should rule in favour of the member, the debate would then be rescheduled.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could read for you our standing order 27(2): "Whenever government business has precedence, government orders may be called in such sequence as the government may think fit, and the right is reserved to the administration of placing government orders at the head of the list on every day except Wednesday and Thursday."

The proposition of the member for Skeena, Mr. Speaker, is a very clear violation of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, and specifically standing order 27(2). There is ample precedent in the House for government calling business at such times and in such order as it deems fit on government days.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications has just said proves that he can read accurately from the standing orders, because what he read was word for word from those standing orders. Let me draw your attention, Your Honour, and his attention as well to the standing orders in effect in 1932 when Mr. Speaker Davie made that particular ruling. I will read them. It says exactly what they say today: "Whenever government business has precedence, government orders may be called in such sequence as the government may think fit, and the right is reserved to the administration of placing government orders at the head of the list on every day except Wednesday and Thursday." In that regard, Mr. Speaker Davie had that under his consideration and decided — contrary to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications — that it was improper to permit the Minister of Finance to proceed with the taxation bill in the absence of having dealt with the budget.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it is an intriguing point that has been raised by the member opposite. I think that in order that you could spend some time addressing the issue, the government would be quite prepared to move to second reading of Bill 9.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in that case could I ask the Minister of Finance to adjourn debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate on Bill 4 until later today.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, you are permitting, by that very process, debate itself.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, we're just moving along. At some point we have to conduct an orderly frame of business if we are to get into that particular motion.

MR. HOWARD: I rose before the Minister of Finance got to his feet to move the particular motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there seems to be some slight confusion at this point that the motion was made prior to the interjection of the point of order by the member. We have to clarify that point, hon. member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, if it assists the Chair I believe Hansard will show that I said: "I move second reading of Bill 4." That has been the pattern on the part of some ministers over time. I was then about to commence

[ Page 473 ]

remarks opening second reading of debate. It was not my intention that the motion would stand by itself; rather, I was about to move second reading and then explain features of the bill.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the whole force of the point of order that I raised originally was that the Minister of Finance is not even entitled to move second reading. The very motion itself becomes debatable. To ask the Minister of Finance to move some other subsidiary motion about adjourning a debate that was not supposed to have taken place in the first place is, I think — pending Your Honour's decision — improper as well. I think the proceedings at that point must be treated as not having occurred.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, referring to the point raised by the member for Skeena, and following through on the example that he gave, he will see that the debate was adjourned until the next sitting. Therefore, hon. member, in keeping with the tradition to which the member himself referred the House, I would now entertain the further motion on the adjournment motion from the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I understood that I made the motion to adjourn until later today.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion was made, hon. members, but it was never put. You've heard the motion. Those in favour say aye.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, if we're going to raise points of order, can we please do them at the appropriate time and not when we're into....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the citing that was raised was about an adjourned debate until the next sitting. The minister....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I know what he's moving, but the citing brought forward by the Speaker, through the Clerks, was about an adjourned debate until the next sitting of the Legislature. The minister is moving an adjourned debate until later today. I think that there is a significant difference.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the propriety of the adjournment is the key thing, not when debate is adjourned to. The question, hon. members, is adjournment of debate until later today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 9.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Before moving second reading of Bill 9, I wish to make the following remarks. This legislation is being introduced to support the government's objectives for economic recovery by applying deregulation principles to the planning and development approval system in British Columbia. The legislation is based on parts of the previously proposed Land Use Act, which has been the subject of extensive consultation over the past year with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and representatives of the development industry.

Specifically, the legislation provides for the removal of the power of regional districts to enact and enforce official regional plans. These plans have become an unnecessary level of land use control, particularly in view of the number of comprehensive municipal plans now in place. The government also wishes to strengthen municipal government, and this legislation reinforces the primary role of municipalities in determining the land use pattern of local communities. The regional district will still continue to play a role in official settlement planning in the rural areas of our province.

[2:45]

The legislation also eliminates the technical planning committees of regional districts as a further streamlining measure. Now that regional districts have matured as a form of local government, and provincial agencies have developed efficient procedures for the review of development proposals, these committees constitute an unnecessary cost to both local governments and the province.

The legislation will also remove a financial burden from local governments and their taxpayers in relation to notifying residents of a public hearing for zoning purposes. A provision of this act enables local governments to advertise a public hearing in local newspapers when the subject of a zoning bylaw change involves ten or more parcels of land owned by ten or more persons. Existing legislation requires every owner and occupier of a parcel of land to receive a mailed notice of a public hearing if the land is in any way affected by a zoning change. Where a zoning bylaw would affect a large area such as the entire municipality or regional district, the current notification requirements can result in extensive mailing costs and legal risks.

Members will have noted the impact of this proposed legislation on regional districts. With this in mind I want to lay to rest a number of concerns about the concept and future of British Columbia's regional district system.

I'm convinced that regional districts have a useful role to play. This bill removes and modifies some regional district planning functions, not with a view to destroying the usefulness of regional districts but with a view to making the system more efficient and focusing on the services that they deliver best. This legislation should not be interpreted as a signal that regional districts are on the way out; quite the contrary, they are here to stay, but in a more streamlined, cost-effective form. Their growth will be brought under control in the process.

I am sure this legislation will be greeted constructively by local governments. Since becoming minister I have been encouraged by the attitude of our planners, our partners in restraint, the elected members of municipal councils and regional boards throughout the entire province.

I believe that in an atmosphere of cooperation and good will we can make even further progress towards the goal of effective, efficient and low-cost government. We have the appropriate atmosphere. We at the provincial level share a common goal with our local counterparts: that is to enrich the lives of all British Columbians through the delivery of essential services efficiently at the least cost to the taxpayer.

[ Page 474 ]

I'm proud that this legislation will contribute so significantly to our objectives. Mr. Speaker, I move that this bill be now read a second time.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I'm learning very fast that one has to fly by the seat of one's pants around here and be prepared to speak very quickly to a piece of legislation; one never knows when it's going to be introduced. Clearly, what we're finding out from this government is that they are all over the map in terms of what they're going to be doing next, and what pieces of legislation. We haven't even finished the budget debate yet. Now they're going to try to push through a piece of legislation that is indeed extremely controversial in the province of British Columbia.

We all recognize what this really is. It's technically called a change to regional government and regional planning. But by all accounts, what it really does is allow the Spetifore property to be rezoned and changed around. A better term is "the Spetifore amendment to regional planning"; that's really what we have before us. Let's be honest and candid about that. We've already heard various members of the government express their views about regional government and regional planning. We've heard their concerns that if a particular level of government does not espouse the Socred philosophy in terms of planning, that government has to find some other way to get what they want.

I would like to say right off the top, before I get into any particular details, that this bill is a fundamental violation of local democracy and local civic government. It violates the basic principles of local democracy. Municipal governments are indeed extremely democratic institutions. There is a process at the local level whereby if there are to be zoning changes or amendments to particular land-use categories, those municipalities go through a very detailed process, I think one that's been developed over a number of years, and one that all along tries to involve the public as much as possible. As you and my colleagues across the floor know, I have been involved in municipal affairs for a number of years. The process is a good one; it's democratic; it allows lots of public input, and it has been developed over a long period of time. What this bill does today is to upset that democratic process which has been established over a long period of time.

I've already said that what you are doing is finding a back door to get through a zoning on agricultural land that you know darned well you cannot get through the normal procedures and the normal regional government level. That's what you are doing. Why don't you admit it and be candid with the people of British Columbia? That's what this act is all about.

Last year we had the Land Use Act before us, which we know was extremely controversial. There were a number of public meetings, and municipality after municipality indicated to the provincial government that what you were doing through the Land Use Act was interrupting a long-standing tradition of local land-use planning, local land-use decisions, with democratically locally elected people making those decisions on behalf of their electorate. This government took a lot of heat and criticism over that Land Use Act. They tried very hard to convince the people and the municipalities, and the elected officials in the local municipalities, that it was a good act. We know what happened to it, however. You finally had to withdraw it because it violated local autonomy, local decision-making and local planning.

We have seen in the last few weeks a lot of moves by this government to get involved in local decision-making and local processes. We've seen the government move in and talk about making decisions for local school boards. We've seen Bill 3, which is not being debated today, as a move to affect local governments in terms of how they deal with their own employees. Clearly — and this has been very well demonstrated — what this government is doing, or is determined to do, is to centralize many of the democratic institutions in this province into their hands and into the cabinet. That is something that I think is of concern not only to this side of the House, but to many elected officials of all party stripes. I would remind my colleagues across the floor that indeed the Land Use Act was criticized by people of all political stripes.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Just by the commies.

MR. BLENCOE: No, Mr. Speaker, it was criticized by people of all political persuasions.

If there is something that local government wants to hold on to and believes is fundamental, it's the power of local governments to make their own decisions.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: We know what this bill is. It's a way for this government to erode a valuable piece of agricultural land reserve and to find a way around what the GVRD has said to this government.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: That regional government, made up of representatives of the whole region, doesn't support your desire to see that piece of land removed from the agricultural land reserve. That's all you're doing. You're bringing this in.... We heard certain members and representatives of this government say they'd find some way to get that Spetifore land out of the agricultural land reserve. Well, you have found it in Bill 9.

1 go back again to local governments and why local governments get together in regional planning to look at a total approach to problems.

MR. REID: I thought you were talking about local government. That's not a total approach.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, yes, it is. When civilized societies — which hopefully we still are in British Columbia despite this government — decide to collectively....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps the other members can come to order so the second member for Victoria can continue.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When civilized societies decide to collectively amalgamate in urban areas, and when you have large municipalities adjacent to others, particularly in urban ridings such as Vancouver and Victoria, there are some problems that cannot be approached just by one municipality or another. We have all

[ Page 475 ]

sorts of examples in other parts of the world and in jurisdictions where you have the balkanization theory that you're so independent and determined to get through and do what you want that you pay no attention to your adjacent municipalities. That leads to chaos. When you have literally millions of people who live in adjacent municipalities, there comes a time when those municipal governments have to talk to each other and work together. It's a known fact. All progressive, well-known planning procedures now recognize that when you have adjacent municipalities with common problems it makes sense to talk about those problems in a common fashion. You have then the making of what's called regional planning.

I was on the regional planning committee of the CRD.

[3:00]

MR. REID: That's why it's a failure.

MR. BLENCOE: It's amazing how these members can accuse something of being a failure, because very few of them really understand the municipal operation and the intricacies of trying to democratically plan for municipal government. Municipal government is not removed from the people like this government is. They have to make decisions on a daily basis that have to stand up in council meetings every two weeks, and those electors can get to those members just like that — very fast.

What we're doing here is to allow regional planning to be done by cabinet. The minister shakes his head, but what he has decided is that local municipalities which want to get together are no longer able to do that over planning matters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Government back to the people.

MR. BLENCOE: No, it's not government back to the people at all.

When this bill comes into force — and I would hope this government will consider that, because you're going to create some chaos in local planning — all existing official regional plans will be cancelled. Let's talk a little bit about that. For a number of years, local municipalities and regional districts have spent a lot of time and effort studying the particular regional planning problems of their area. Many hours have gone into that process; many public hearings have been held about how to develop the regional plan.

MRS. JOHNSTON: And much money has been spent.

MR. BLENCOE: Democracy can sometimes cost you a few dollars, hon. member. I know that perhaps to you democracy should be eroded fast and quickly, but democracy can sometimes cost money.

Those local governments have held many hearings on how those communities should be planned. That's very important. If there's one thing the people relate to in a local and civic government, it's the fact that they have the opportunity to plan together with their elected officials. That's very important; it's fundamental. The zoning and planning process creates the environment that thousands and millions of people have to live in. That process determines the quality of life, the lifestyle, the kind of neighbourhoods we live in, how our families are going to grow up, what our schools are going to be like and where the schools are going to be. That's what a regional plan does. One of the things it pays attention to is where schools are going to be and how they're going to relate to the municipality. It's very important. Yet this government is saying to the people of British Columbia: "We don't believe in that kind of planning. We want to eradicate it and eliminate it." For instance, in the Capital Regional District, this beautiful part of British Columbia and Vancouver Island, we now say that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that all you think there is — Vancouver Island?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you ever been past Hope?

MR. BLENCOE: You're beyond it.

I will use the example that I know, because I happen to be elected here in this region, In the Capital Regional District we have a number of municipalities and a number of unorganized areas. We're proud that we have a very beautiful Capital Regional District. One of the reasons it is beautiful is that those member municipalities and unorganized areas have gotten together and planned accordingly. They've shared their regional concerns and aspirations and what they would like to see happen with the local economy. They've tried to share, for instance, what should happen with the shopping centres. We have a classic example up-Island, in the Nanaimo area, of the shopping centre syndrome, and the highest number of shopping centres per capita virtually anywhere in Canada, because there has not been a tight regional planning process.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Those people in the private sector, Mr. Minister, are beginning to wish they had not built as many regional places up there, I can tell you that right now.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...a donkey like you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll ask the hon. minister to withdraw the term. It is offensive as applied to another member,

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I withdraw the offensive word or words.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm quite used to that member's comments. I'm glad you asked him to withdraw, but it doesn't bother me one little bit. We all know what kind of member he is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I had the member withdraw because I found the term offensive, and I find many terms offensive. Will the member please speak to the bill.

MR. BLENCOE: We have an example here in the Capital Regional District which happened a number of years ago: the Tillicum shopping centre. Deep concern arose when Saanich was going to permit an extensive centre to be built out where the current centre is — a massive development. What that did was throw doubt on the survival of the downtown area. There

[ Page 476 ]

is no question that the core area of Victoria, the CRD, the downtown community, is a very important part of this region. Its survival is essential to the whole capital area. Its very uniqueness is an integral part of why this city draws thousands of tourists here. Its viability has been maintained sometimes at the expense, I would say, of entrepreneurs who wanted to develop Tillicum to the extreme.

The reason I'm giving the example, Mr. Speaker, is that the Capital Regional District, in its wisdom, decided to challenge Saanich that the shopping centre would not be in the interests of the community at large; that it would threaten the very existence of the downtown business community and you would start to see the results of a dwindling economy downtown. We all have see the results of that in other jurisdictions, other parts of North America. You've only got to go to Portland, Oregon, to see what happens to a downtown community when regional planning isn't tight and local municipalities take into consideration the problems of other municipalities. We have a classic example right here in the capital region, where the regional plan was upheld and the Tillicum project built, but it was not built to the degree that the entrepreneurs in Saanich wished it to be; as a consequence, the viability of our beautiful heritage downtown was maintained. That's very important.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

There seems to be, in this government, an attitude that anything that has regulations attached to it, or anything that might be a check and a balance to rampant free enterprise, or whatever you want to call it, must be removed as quickly as possible. That's what we've got here. Municipal and regional planning procedures have been developed over a long period of time. They are basically developed so that local municipalities can try to plan on a regional basis, sharing the concerns of their particular neighbouring municipalities and trying to develop a regional approach. That's very important. You cannot see a local economy, school planning or economic development....

Let me give you an example. It's like saying that in the Capital Regional District each municipality should have an economic development commissioner. Let's think seriously whether that would be feasible either financially or otherwise. No, of course it isn't. I should say that this government was a major supporter of that economic development commission. It was supported by a well-known local Socred, Alderman Frank Carson, who said that regional economic planning in this area should be done on a regional basis. He said, and I'm sure many of these members said the same thing, that it would be ludicrous for each member municipality and unorganized area to hire an economic development commissioner and appoint an economic development commission. It made sense, and the government supported it and funded it on a regional basis. I won't go into the fact that they're trying to eliminate some of that funding now; that's for another debate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that this government supported a regional approach to economic development. It worked through regional planning at the CRD and it was local Socreds who supported that. If the government supports that local regional approach — and I'm using only one example in the CRD — then really they should think most seriously about this approach to regional planning. For instance, regional planning in local Victoria provides extremely useful statistical information, background studies and analyses for that economic development commission. Nobody else is doing it. No other planning department has a regional approach. What you're saying now is that each municipality will take the responsibility for planning their own area, but nobody is going to take the responsibility for the whole Capital Regional District or the GVRD. It's going to be one mess. You're going to have no one coordinating regional planning processes. You're going to have municipality fighting municipality,

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, you are, Mr. Minister. If you take away the regional planning process, whereby you at least try to have some semblance of order in regional planning, regional matters, you're asking for chaos, particularly in the greater Vancouver and greater Victoria areas.

Interjection.

[3:15]

MR. BLENCOE: We hear, "Let's give it a chance." We hear them talking about Bill 3, saying, "Give it a chance, " If we give this a chance, if we give Bill 3 and a lot of the other pieces of legislation a chance, there won't be much left in this province; there won't be much left at all. You are trying to dismantle every civilized principle and ideal, which has taken years and years to develop. You are on a course of dismantling the fundamental institutions of this province.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh yes, you are. You are in a dismantling mood, and you're going to take apart things that people have accepted for years and years, things that keep a civilized society alive and well. You are bent on a course from which you don't know yet the storm you are to reap.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: When you scratch that minister over there, he sure responds.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I respond to free-thinking free individuals who want to function in a free society.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, sometimes the truth hurts that minister over there. We've seen him respond over the last few weeks. Of course, that minister has yet to step up and speak to.... I don't think he's spoken to anything yet.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Has he? What's he spoken to?

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: But he hasn't gotten up and given any intelligent debate yet.

[ Page 477 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. We're debating a bill, not a minister in this House. Be so kind as to get back to the principle of Bill 9.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, there are lots of friends here. I don't see many Socreds in this audience, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that. There aren't many of them left in this province. Even your own candidates are bailing out. Even your own members.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Back to Bill 9. I will have to give credit to the government. The government has yet to dismantle official settlement plans; they're going to leave those intact. But they are virtually worthless when you don't have a regional planning component. They don't mean anything they're written on.

Let me give you some more examples of why regional planning is essential, and again I'll speak from local experience. We have in this region some very beautiful areas out at Sooke and Metchosin, which I and many residents out there believe in preserving in some form of natural state. The Sooke area is represented by Mr. Don Rittaler, who is opposed to regional planning, opposed to the agricultural land reserve; he wants to build everything he can out there in that beautiful Sooke area. Now you have only one member, having gotten rid of regional planning where there's some sense of order and civilization, with some members controlling people like Mr. Rittaler, who would build over everything. That one member is now going to have the power, because of no regional planning and regional coordination, to do virtually as he will with agricultural land and beautiful areas in Sooke.

That's very serious. What happened in the regional planning process was that if in one particular area, like Sooke and Metchosin, that representative was bent on a course that was detrimental to the health of the region as a whole....

When I say "health, " I'm not talking about just physical health; I'm talking about social health, environmental health. As we all know, this region is the retirement community of Canada. There are good reasons why people come here. It's because it has been planned properly, and regionally planned properly. If you do away with that, I would say that this region will very soon not have that reputation in this country. You're going to get those wheeler-dealers, the fly-by-night developers who can get hold of one particular member in a region, and not any more through the regional government, where there is some discussion and democratic debate and a vote. There's one member now. In walks your fly-by-night developer, who will turn Sooke and Metchosin into the Scottsdale, Arizona, of the Capital Regional District. I predict that, Mr. Speaker. That's what this bill is all about. This bill is to finally do what they have wanted to do for a long time: allow their special-interest developer friends and development companies a free rein in ruining some of the most beautiful countryside and regional districts in this province. It's the Spetifore amendment, as I said earlier.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, it's not nonsense and you know it, Mr. Minister; that's why you've introduced it. You've had many members of your government saying: "We'll find a way to bring Spetifore out of the agricultural land reserve." Well, Mr. Minister, you're the guinea pig. They're getting you to do it. You are to be the guinea pig for your government's friends in the development business, and you're going to find a way around the democratic zoning and public hearing process any way you can.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is that the only argument you've got?

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, no, I'm here for a little while longer; don't worry.

I wouldn't want to let the House think that we don't think this is an important bill, Mr. Speaker. It's a very important bill. It shakes down some of the important precepts about local government and regional planning. I'll come back to the CRD, but I want to give my colleagues across the way some insights into what other people think about what they are doing.

One of this government's biggest supporters has been the organization HUDAC. They've supported this government; they're a good organization.

MR. REID: They've got good leadership too.

MR. BLENCOE: I have no argument with that. They're a hard-working organization that has supported this government. That's fine. I have no problems with that. People will support whom they want to.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: If that member is saying that they supported good organization and they supported the NDP, he's absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker. I think that's what he said.

HUDAC has always recognized the need for regional coordination of municipal plans within the GVRD and CRD. They are on record as saying that. I think you should perhaps have a further meeting with HUDAC. They support regional planning. They know it brings a semblance of order, decorum and agreement, and a sharing of concerns.

MR. REID: Are they for this bill or not? They're for this bill, you can bet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll remind the second member for Surrey that this is not a coffee klatch. This is the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Every member has ample opportunity to speak when his turn comes.

MR. BLENCOE: In a letter to Mr. Heinrich, dated December 3, 1982, when they were dealing with the Land Use Act, which this particular act has some similarities to in terms of removing regional planning, HUDAC said: "Indeed, we are now convinced that there would be some major disadvantages associated with the loss of regional plans within the lower mainland and the CRD regions." They're not an organization that says things lightly; they're very serious. They've generally been supportive of this government. They have a vested interest in the free enterprise system and how it works, where they can get their homes built, and where they can get their planning done. HUDAC are saying that they think there

[ Page 478 ]

are some major disadvantages associated with the loss of regional plans in the lower mainland and the CRD regions. That's a very important statement, because one of the major criticisms and one of the major reasons why we see this bill introduced is that the planning for it....

Mr. Speaker, I will have to let you know that I will be continuing to speak to this bill; I am the designated speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member designated. Thank you.

MR. BLENCOE: I've lost my train of thought.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: We've got lots of time, Mr. Speaker, and we'll be here quite a while on this particular bill.

Oh, yes, HUDAC. One of the reasons this government tried to introduce the Land Use Act and is now introducing this particular bill is that there is a general accusation that municipal governments are too slow with development proposals, that the zoning procedure holds them up in some way, that the local democratic system of land use zoning and public hearings thwarts their friends in the development industry. I have to agree, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes the process is a little slower than it should be. When you are dealing with land use matters that affect the way people live, how they live, where they live, what's going to happen in their neighbourhood, how their communities, cities or regions are going to look or what's going to happen with their families or their schools, that does concern people. The process may sometimes be a little slower than some would like it to be. Regional and urban planning and how it is emphasized and supported is a measure of a civilized and progressive society, Mr. Speaker.

If you eliminate those ways of pulling people together and sharing common concerns in trying to come up with regional solutions, you invite all sorts f problems and all sorts of chaos. HUDAC have said in the past that municipal processes are a little slow and they want the zoning process to be much quicker, yet they are convinced that there are major disadvantages associated with a loss of regional plans within the lower mainland and the CRD regions. HUDAC has criticized local government and municipal planning procedures for years and years and they're well known. I have not always agreed with their positions, because I know that they want to get on as quickly as possible, and the local official, of course, has other considerations and things he or she has to take into account.

When you're planning a region or a municipality, and this is probably the most democratic, accountable and accessible level of government there is, you have to allow people, through the public process, the APC public process and the public hearing process, to speak up on their concerns over a particular aspect of land use zoning or rezoning. That is slow, I agree, and it takes time. But as I've said just a few minutes ago, there's nothing more fundamental than someone's own particular area they live in — maybe it's two or three blocks, or maybe it's a neighbourhood. Their family has to live there and their children grow up there, and it really impacts on how that family develops, where those children go to school, what that community is going to look like and what the physical and social environment will be. It's very important in a civilized society. There has to be some order and some rationalization of aspirations of hundreds of thousands of people who want to see something happen in a particular urban or regional area. Somehow there has to be a clearinghouse or a method to sort through all those aspirations, concepts and ideas to come up with a plan that tries to take a measure of the common good will, if you will, of that particular region — a consensus, if you will. If you eliminated regional planning — and by this bill you will be doing that — you will no longer have a way to achieve consensus in large urban or large rural areas. You won't have it. How are you going to do it in rural communities? How are you going to do it in areas that don't have local municipalities?

Interjection.

[3:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Well, you know, I keep hearing these words "have faith," Mr. Speaker. I keep hearing it on all sorts of pieces of legislation, and I have no rationale for why they want to do things. All we hear is "have faith." The people don't believe that anymore. They don't have any faith in you anymore. They don't have any faith because you keep introducing things that scare people and you keep saying: "Have faith. We know what's best for you." But you don't tell them how you're going to do it. The people can't have faith any more in this government. In the last month or so they've seen what happens when they put faith in them.

Regional planning and that process is very important to the civilized, orderly development of regional areas, both urban and rural. That's a fundamental truth, and you even have HUDAC saying that, Mr. Speaker.

Official regional plans are prepared by the regional boards and applied to the regional district as a whole, including member municipalities. Let's talk a little bit about that. One of the things that we have problems with in the Capital Regional District — again, I refer to the Capital Regional District because it's an area I know well; I'd like to try to give my concern for this bill through living examples — is that we have the largest unorganized area in Canada: Colwood, Langford, View Royal, Sooke and Metchosin. That's a known fact; it's the largest in area. For those unorganized areas and their representatives the CRD board is their local council. We know that there are problems with regional governments per se, and we're prepared to talk about some of those problems and try to work with you to resolve them. We don't believe that eliminating a particular function that tries to hold things together is the way to do it.

For that largest unorganized area in Canada, the regional planning process is the only way that they have some semblance of order and approach to their area. We've had discussion about amalgamation of those areas and that they should get together and all have their own municipal government and their own elected council. There have been some studies on that, and nothing's happened yet, and I don't know whether the minister has something in mind for us on that particular unorganized area. Maybe he does. Maybe he's going to give them a couple of years to amalgamate or get it together.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Have faith.

MR. BLENCOE: Have faith, he says. Well, we'll wait with bated breath to see what you're going to do.

That area is an extremely large area, and the regional government and regional planning process are very important to it. Take away that regional component and regional planning process for that unorganized area, and you've taken

[ Page 479 ]

away one of the fundamental roots of that region's orderly development. It's ludicrous. You can't do it. They're wondering where they're going to go. Who's going to do the planning for View Royal and Langford, or Sooke and Metchosin? Have you thought about that? Do you know who's going to do it, Mr. Minister?

I know darned well they don't know. They haven't got a contingency planned for those unorganized areas. In those unorganized areas the regional planning component through the technical committees is the only technical advice that those elected officials have — their only way of obtaining some help in orderly development of their regional areas. That's the only thing they've got. Where are they going to go? What are they going to do? They're not going to have a planning process. You know that when you take away some semblance of order.... It's like in the legal profession: you take away the laws and the rules, the legal practice, and what do you get? You know what you get; I don't have to answer that. In the unorganized areas, you're doing the very same thing. You are going to get thousands of people in those unorganized areas, but there is going to be no way of organizing the planning of what's going to happen in particular areas of those unorganized rural areas. I can't believe even this government would do that.

In the urban areas, we do have municipal planning departments. They are very good ones with dedicated staff, developed over years and years through very good professional schools of planning. I know many of them personally, from the Waterloo school of planning. We have many dedicated planners who work in the GVRD and the CRD with lots of experience. Despite the politicians who tend to meddle in the planning process too much sometimes, we do have in the province of British Columbia a fairly healthy planning community. Local municipalities have maintained municipal planning departments.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The theory behind this particular bill is that the local municipalities, because they have their own planning departments, don't need regional planning. The mandate of a municipal planner is that municipality, that's all. Nothing else. They don't have a mandate....

MR. MOWAT: Get on with it.

MR. BLENCOE: Get on with it! That's the very thing I'm saying. Get on with it and have regional planning. That's why you have it. But you are going to vote for this bill, I presume, to eliminate that thing which you just suggested we get on with. That shows how illogical this government and some of its members are. He just said: "Get on with it." Get on and do regional planning.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: We all know there's a government Socred vendetta against the GVRD. We know they want to eliminate the agricultural land reserve in Spetifore. This is why this act is here. I am trying to stay away from that nasty piece of Socred trickery. I don't want to talk about why you want to do that. That's not my intention, but you keep bringing it up.

I've tried to outline that local municipalities have municipal planning staffs. Those municipal staffs only have a municipal mandate. Somewhere along the line somebody has to take responsibility on a regional basis. What's the population in Vancouver? A few million? When you've got that many people living as close together as you have in the GVRD, you're going to need some approach and some way of pulling those member jurisdictions together to do a regional plan and plan for the region as a whole. It makes sense. If the Greater Vancouver Regional District has no regional planning component, how does this government intend, for instance, to manage major sewer proposals that link one municipality to another? That's an important planning process. You have to have those various links, and you have to have people plan that communication and contact between each municipality. But you're going to eliminate the fact that you even have to have a regional plan, either in process or actually currently developed. It's gone.

MRS. JOHNSTON: So you eliminate regional districts.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, now we've got it — eliminate regional districts. Well, I presume that's the next move, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps, Mr. Minister, you could confirm or deny that. Is that the intention of the government?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Did you hear my speech?

MR. BLENCOE: Regional plans are particularly important to the GVRD and the CRD. Section 812 of the Municipal Act, which is to be repealed, states: "A regional board...of a member municipality may not enact a provision or initiate works which would impair or impede the ultimate realization of all or part of the objectives of an official regional plan." Thus the GVRD blocked the proposed housing development on the Spetifore lands in Delta, and the CRD was successful in reducing the proposed size of the Tillicum Mall in Victoria, because these proposed developments were contrary to the overall objectives of the regional plan.

There are two examples — and I've mentioned them earlier — of why, indeed, we must have a serious, thoughtful approach to regional planning.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, these members would like to speak. Many of them haven't spoken at all since we started any debate in this House, but they want to debate now.

Regional planning will be totally eliminated by the amendment. The minister has yet to answer what will happen in particular rural, unorganized regional districts. Where will they go for planning functions? They won't have any at all. There will be no semblance of order in those particular unorganized areas.

[3:45]

1 would like to quote from some local politicians who have attacked this particular act. The chairman of the Capital Regional District, Howard Sturrock, has called upon the minister to recognize and accept that there must be a regional overview. He asked that the minister instruct his staff to bring four proposals on how this can be recognized on an individual regional district basis.

[ Page 480 ]

Local governments really would like to work with the government on this particular aspect. They had the Land Use Act introduced to them through the back door. They said it was going to be dumped on them; it was going to be law. Now they have this act, and they've sent hundreds of people scurrying to find out what it all means and what is going to happen to regional planning. It's too bad this government doesn't enter into a consultation process with local government. It might be to your advantage to actually discuss with local and regional governments what your intentions are vis-a-vis municipal and regional planning. It might be useful. You have the UBCM, for instance, at your disposal. It's too bad the minister — the new minister, at that — did not decide to ask the UBCM to call a special meeting to deal with municipal problems rather than dumping it on them just like that. Maybe a consultation process would be extremely useful, Mr. Minister.

It's unfortunate that unlike the local level of government, whereby you introduce something like a zoning thing.... It goes through the channels, and there's a public hearing process where the people can give their concerns about a particular piece of legislation or zoning. Unlike that process, local government doesn't have that here at the provincial level. What has to happen is that they have to react and find some ways to affect the government through the back door, or to make a lot of noise, create confrontation, get people upset, get planning departments and municipalities and regional districts to spend hundreds of hours with their staffs analyzing what all these various things mean, costing taxpayers thousands and thousands of dollars in order to react to your legislation in terms of what it means for the local planning process, the local municipality and the local taxpayer. I would urge that minister to work with local government, to consult with local government. They are open; they are accessible. They wish to work with government, despite who's there. I believe that if they had consulted local government and the UBCM, they would have discovered that the reaction to this bill would have been virtually 100 percent negative.

I would suggest that if this government is serious about trying to improve the planning process at the local and regional levels, it take some time to rethink this particular bill. You're going to have some time, because we're not going to be debating this bill for the next few days. We're going to get back to other things, I'm sure. Take some time, perhaps to check this bill out with some of your Socred members who sit on local government. Check it out with them. Like HUDAC, you will find that they have some deep concerns about what you're doing with regional planning. You'll find that out.

It's unfortunate that the government did not decide to consult with those regional governments before they introduced the bill. What's happening is that you have once again created all sorts of fear and concern in planning departments, and in local unorganized and organized areas, that they're going to lose a regional plan that gives some semblance of order to what happens in zoning and to how those member municipalities develop over the years.

Once again, through your inability to communicate with those you are supposedly governing, you have failed to share with them before you dump a piece of legislation which will radically alter regional planning. You have failed to check it out with many of those municipalities. The reaction, like last time, has been to send people away to try and find ways to.... How can we affect this government to look at the fact that regional planning is a useful function in British Columbia?

I would hope that the minister — because he's going to get a few days to reconsider this — will consider that perhaps he should meet immediately with the UBCM and the CRD and perhaps with regional chairmen. He should meet with them in the next week or two, and sit down with them. If you do have concerns with that particular level of the planning process, is there some consensus you can reach on regional planning?

Mr. Speaker, what I'm trying to do is to take this issue a little bit out of the partisan and out of this chamber, because I don't think it really belongs here at this point. We're a little before the fact. There should be a lot of discussion before this act comes back. It should, Mr. Speaker, be a consultation process.

I think that minister is a reasonable man. He's open to meeting with those elected officials. I think what this does today, Mr. Speaker, is to allow the government.... As I say, they're probably going to have a few weeks or a few months before this comes back to reflect and to hear what some of the concerns might be from this side and from the community as a whole. I think that would be to your advantage. And who knows, Mr. Speaker? If that government does a democratic consultation process and supports those people who are locally elected and who believe in some sane and sensible approach to regional planning, and they discuss with them in a framework which is non-confrontational but is problem-solving.... God forbid that we talk about problem-solving in this chamber, but maybe that's what that minister should talk about with some of those member municipalities and member regional districts. Maybe he could come back in a few months with something as achieved consensus with the UBCM, other regional chairmen, and regional planning departments. Maybe that's possible.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Professional politician.

MR. BLENCOE: Did I hear right? I understand that minister is applying for tenure, Mr. Speaker, and he talks about professional politicians. Interesting! I really want to carry on with this course to the minister.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I did a little work before I came here.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, he came here on May 6 and he's yet to get up and speak to anything. I'm waiting for him to speak to something in this House and prove that he is the workaholic that he tells everybody he is. We're waiting for it. He says he's very hard-working, but we haven't seen him speak to it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I did a little work in the private sector before I came in here, my friend.

MR. BLENCOE: Before that member gets into a personal attack, I'll send him some.... There happen to be some areas in the private sector I've worked in myself. Maybe he'd a little homework. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that member tends to attack people without really knowing the background.

I am trying to speak to a reasonable minister, a man who's prepared to consult with the community, and I'm appealing to

[ Page 481 ]

that minister because he is perhaps one of the few members on that side who will be reasonable and will talk about a piece of legislation that needs some consultation, that needs another look. I think he should. I see him nodding, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps he would like to adjourn debate on this particular bill and bring it back when he's done some consultation. I'm quite serious about that consultation process.

One of the things that regional government does.... I admit that there are problems with regional governments. I was involved for two years, and I have to admit it was one of the most frustrating times in my six years at the local level. But just because you have particular frustrations and concerns and problems, it doesn't mean you have to gut and eliminate something. This seems to be the attitude of this government: "Oh, dear. We can't resolve something through the democratic system of consensus or conciliation. We'll just stomp all over it and eliminate it." That seems to be the approach. We're certainly seeing it with other pieces of legislation that we've had the privilege to debate on this side, with nothing from that side. It's unfortunate that we get to extremes like that, and I want to talk a little bit about those extremes and why local government is an extremely valuable resource from which perhaps we can learn something. That's why I hope that minister will consult with those regional leaders.

One of the things that happens at local levels of government and regional planning is that when you have a particular regional concern of a planning nature you have a regional planning committee. Rather than having one municipality get on its high horse and say, "Somehow we're going to take that municipality to court and kill something or fight it," there's a process under the regional planning procedure whereby you get together and say: "We have a concern. We have a problem. Let's work it out." I think we could learn a lot from that process.

There may be a lot of criticisms of local government that we all could give them — I certainly could — but one of the things that they're able to do is work problems out. It's done through discussion at the local committee level, and certainly at the regional level you do have people from a number of municipalities who have particular hidden agendas or vested interests, but somehow or other they manage to get through that haze of special interests and try and come up with a decision that's based on the common good of their particular regional district.

I think this government needs to do this with this particular bill. They need to do it with a number of other pieces of legislation, but I'll deal with the bill. I would really urge this government to take this bill to UBCM. UBCM is coming up September 14 to 16. Maybe that minister, if he does not believe that it is the Spetifore amendment and he isn't the guinea pig for his friends in government who want to see that particular proposal go ahead, and friends of government who make astronomical profits out of the agricultural land reserve.... If that minister does not believe or support those accusations, then he should show the province and the Greater Vancouver Regional District that he's serious about trying to improve local planning and the local regional district planning process. If he insists on pushing this bill through as it is now, all he and the government are doing is proving to the province of British Columbia that they want the Spetifore land for development, with all the various accusations and statements about who's involved or not involved along with it.

[4:00]

I urge this government and the minister to separate the regional planning and its usefulness from that whole messy, diabolical Spetifore issue, which has drawn a lot of shame on this government. If he believes that his tenure in Municipal Affairs is to have any credibility at all, he will recommend withdrawing this piece of legislation and he will start a process of consultation with the municipalities that he supposedly tries to help in his role as minister. If he doesn't do that, I would say that his credibility as the Minister of Municipal Affairs is finished tomorrow. He'll have no credibility because most people know why this bill was introduced so quickly. They know why it's on the books. They know why, like Bill 3, they suddenly try to slip it through today. They didn't let us know they were going to put this on the books today, and I would like to tell the people in the gallery that we had no notification today of this bill.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I think that's important. We were not notified that this was coming up. It was done without notification of the opposition. So consequently, this bill, like Bill 3.... This government has dumped 26 pieces of legislation that they want to get through as quickly as possible, because they know darned well that if there were an election next month on what they're doing in the legislation, they'd be lucky to get 10 or 15 percent of the vote of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I was hoping that somehow that minister would have heard those words and perhaps recognized that it would be in his interest to withdraw this bill or ask for an adjournment so he can reconsider this bill, but clearly he's not going to do that, so I'm going to have to pursue a different tack.

Bill 9 does all the damage that Mr. Vander Zalm's land use bill would have done and a lot more. The amendment to the Municipal Act proposed by Bill 9 will strip all 28 regional districts of their power to formulate regional plans. We know — and I ask the minister to consider this — that it has been introduced to try and rationalize the government's position on the Spetifore amendment. We know the GVRD has blocked that particular zoning change on the agricultural land removal. Yet this government continues to be transparent with their intentions. You are trying, in my estimation, to do an end run around the established procedures for regional land use planning and intermunicipal planning. The government would like to pretend that zoning and planning prevents sensible land use. What they're really trying to say is that an orderly planning process prevents sensible land use.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: That's what you're saying, hon. member. By the fact that you want to get around the GVRD's decision, you're saying that the planning process stops sensible planning. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that if they remove the planning component of regional governments, there will be no sensible land use decision-making at the regional government level. It will be gone. The government prefers that zoning and land-use decisions remain entirely at the level of the individual municipality, without

[ Page 482 ]

regard to its neighbour or regional impact. That's not possible — I've already said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've said it seven or eight times.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I've got to get the message across to you people. You don't understand, do you, that the municipal planning department mandate is not to go beyond the bounds of that municipality. That's the mandate, and you don't understand that.

The real intent of the bill, however, is not to facilitate planning or zoning but to prevent it, because there is a feeling from this government that civilized planning procedures, planning departments and analysis of particular problems, whether they be social or physical, stops the development process. What this government is trying to do is rationalize, under the name of saving local taxpayers' money by eliminating a particular section of its planning procedures, the fact that they're going to save a lot of money under the guise of restraint. But all this government's trying to do is ensure early and quick passage of controversial land use development proposals on behalf of many of those development corporations and landlord organizations that contributed to their campaign. We've seen that with other bills; Bill 5 does the same thing. You eliminate those areas in a democratically elected government that hold up your friends in making a few quick dollars on development proposals.

This bill is a developers' bill. That's what it is. It helps the friends of government who want to get development proposals through local municipal and regional governments without having sound analyses of those proposals. This government does not believe in sound analysis. It doesn't believe in it at all, because what happens when this government gets sound analyses of proposals is that nine times out of ten that sound analysis tells you you're wrong. So what happens? You shoot the messenger. Shoot those regional....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Shoot the messenger. Well, that's what this bill will do. It will eliminate a very important function of regional districts which allows for sound analyses of particular proposals and development proposals from the private sector. What you want to do is ensure that your friends in the development industry — the ones who can't stand scrutiny and analysis, the ones who cannot stand to go through the public process and the democratic process — find a back door. That's what you want to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're giving them a front door.

MR. BLENCOE: You're going to find a back door for those people. That's what this bill does. Mr. Minister....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're against free enterprise.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, no, no, no.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: I will try to continue, if the member here can control himself. He does have problems, I know.

Even Mr. Vander Zalm's Bill 9 retains some provision for encouraging intermunicipal cooperation of land use. Even Bill Vander Zalm's land use act had some provision for intermunicipality. If that new Minister of Municipal Affairs wants to be known as being worse than Mr. Vander Zalm.... We all know what happened to Mr. Vander Zalm in cabinet with his land use act. Hopefully that minister, Mr. Speaker....

[4:15]

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: That's right, the right rump!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I think we've had quite enough, hon. members. The House will come to order.

MR. BLENCOE: Even Bill Vander Zalm retained some provision for encouraging local municipality cooperation with Bill 9. That's a very important aspect, because Bill Vander Zalm's land use act was torn apart by literally thousands of municipal representatives. Hopefully this new minister will think and contemplate that his new act does not encourage any intermunicipal cooperation over land use none at all. It's gone.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Don't be so negative.

MR. BLENCOE: I tried earlier not to be negative, Mr. Minister, by suggesting that you.... I gave you the opportunity to live up to what some say — that you are reasonable and understanding and believe in communication with other levels of government. I gave you the opportunity to take this act today — adjourn and go away — and meet with the UBCM and say: "Look, we may have a few problems with ths act. We would like to listen to you. We'd like to hear your concerns before we introduce it." It's an act that will affect every single British Columbian in a very dramatic way, because what they're losing is a regional approach to local planning. In this particular area, in the CRD, the regional planning component is extremely useful and experienced. That local regional planning unit manages to pull together disparate, distinctive and unique municipalities to try to resolve some of their regional concerns. But this bill, unlike Mr. Vander Zalm's bill, does not even allow for that any more. I'm going to say this again because I want the minister to consider it: even Mr. Vander Zalm allowed for some intermunicipal cooperation over land use; we won't have that at all now.

So what you're going to have is.... If, for instance, Esquimalt wanted to build a steel mill or a sewage treatment plant right in the middle of downtown Esquimalt, without any reference to their other municipal colleagues in the area, they would be able to do it. There'll be no reference at all to the other municipalities in the Capital Regional District. What I'm saying is that if a municipality decides to do something that is obviously offensive to the regional area, they will be allowed to do it. One thing that the local regional committees have been able to do, if they have something that is clearly going to be offensive to the local regional area, is

[ Page 483 ]

develop a land use pattern they can all live with. This government is removing that.

Before I go back to some of the specific useful things about regional planning, I'd like to go back to some of the things I've been trying to say to the new minister. If he's not careful, he's going to get identified as the guinea pig for getting the Spetifore land out of the agricultural land reserve through the back door. This is really not to improve local planning. It's basically a Spetifore amendment that will allow this government to get around the GVRD, a democratically elected group.

I want to read from the Province, July 5, 1983. The headline is: "Speaker Wants GVRD Scrapped." That's what it says. Let's just read this and think about perhaps another reason why we've got this Bill 9 before us. The story reads: "'The Greater Vancouver Regional District should be scrapped,' said Socred MLA and House Speaker Walter Davidson."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would remind you now that standing orders are specific about drawing the Speaker into any debate. That can only be done by substantive motion. The member will have to discontinue any reference to the Speaker.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to refer to him directly, but these are direct quotes. Perhaps I could refer to the MLA for Delta. Would that be more appropriate?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would also be inappropriate, hon. member. In our standing orders it's clear, and it's in Sir Erskine May, that the Speaker may not be drawn into debate, except on a substantive motion.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me say then: "'The Greater Vancouver Regional District should be scrapped,' says a well-known Socred." How would that be, Mr. Speaker? We all know who they're talking about.

Just days after calling members of the GVRD a communist-socialist coalition, that member said they should stop gloating over their vote against excluding rural land for subdivision in Delta. In a newsletter to his constituents, that member said: "It is my determination to continue to press for legislation disbanding the present makeup and responsibility of the GVRD." Well, that's what we've got right now; it's Bill 9, which will see a very beautiful piece of agricultural land destroyed for the friends of government who want to develop it.

Mr. Speaker, the story goes on to say that that member came under fire for his comments. Because of certain traditions, that member should really try to be somewhat impartial in his role. That has serious implications.

That same well-known member said that while there may be some substance to such criticism — he admits there is some substance — "I feel that my reaction to the Delta situation, while appearing partisan, does not in any way affect my objectivity towards my duties." That member went on to say that the people of Delta, through their council....

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House strictly provide that the Speaker cannot be brought into debate in this House, either directly or indirectly, and I think the reason for that ruling is simple: he cannot stand in debate to defend himself or any of his statements. Therefore I would remind the Speaker of the rules and perhaps encourage him in the implementation of the same.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order as raised by the Minister of Agriculture and Food is correct. Your current Speaker has advised the member about the rules of referring to the Speaker indirectly or directly; that can only be done by substantive motion. I'm sure the member understands.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for those points of order. That member, though, has always insisted that he is also the member for Delta. He has made that very clear.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, outside the House, that is correct. I want to read some other reports on the regional planning function and the elimination of it, this from the Times-Colonist, which at times has had some harsh words to say about regional government:

"Bill Vander Zalm is long gone from municipal affairs but in the provincial cabinet his spirit lingers on, continuing the task he began of sterilizing regional districts."

That's what they're up to. They're continuing with the Land Use Act, except that Mr. Vander Zalm did allow for some sort of intermunicipal liaison over land-use matters.

"A bill introduced this week by rookie Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Ritchie effectively abolishes regional planning in British Columbia, by removing regional districts' powers to enact and enforce regional plans. Ritchie claims the move will 'streamline the development process and strengthen the autonomy of local governments.'

"No doubt, but it will also turn the clock back 30 years to an era of uncoordinated growth, when municipalities did their own thing regardless of the impact on neighbouring municipalities or the region as a whole."

This is very important, Mr. Speaker. The Times-Colonist, in its wisdom, has managed to hit on the nub of the whole problem: this act removes the ability of local municipalities to collectively share their concerns at a regional level over regional issues.

"The tangible results of that chaos are still with us. It was the need for a better system that led to the creation of regional districts in the 1960s, and to make one of their prime functions the adoption and enforcement of regional plans. These plans established the direction of growth and defined the services needed to accommodate that growth."

Those are all pertinent, useful descriptions of the regional planning process, and they are all to be eliminated by this particular act.

"While the drafting and implementation was often a painful, contentious and cumbersome process, (especially in the Greater Victoria area) the concept itself was — and remains — sensible."

The operative word is sensible, something we should perhaps try to use a little more often — a little common sense.

[ Page 484 ]

The regional planning process allows for some common sense to enter into intermunicipal rivalry and bickering. It allows for sensible, sane discussion over matters that pertain to regional interests and concerns. By eliminating this particular aspect of regional government, you eliminate that sensible approach to regional planning. It's common sense to take issues between municipalities out of the political arena and the newspapers and take those particular contentious issues to a regional planning component and technical assistance group to study and analyse them and come up with a solution that has half a chance of receiving regional adoption, which is very difficult, I might add.

[4:30]

Regional government is very difficult — we know that — because all municipalities and their mayors and aldermen think they are the centre of the universe in terms of their particular region. That's natural that that would happen. But despite what they might think, there are other neighbouring municipalities with their own mayors and aldermen who think very similar kinds of things. At times individual municipalities cannot pursue a particular course of action that offends the common interests and good of a particular regional area and its development. We have learned through many years, often the hard way in Europe and other parts of North America, that without a coordinating regional group to pull together member organizations in regional areas, particularly in urban areas, you get unplanned sprawl. You get municipalities putting in particular kinds of developments that really don't fit or meet the needs of that particular regional area. What you're doing with this act is taking away the ability of regional governments to have a community plan that tries to create a sensible overview of regional needs, aspirations and goals. That's what you're eliminating.

I'll go on to quote an analysis from the Times-Colonist, which I think is very good. It says:

"One of the basic tenets of the regional plan for this area recognizes the need to protect the economic vitality of downtown Victoria. But whither the commercial core now that the regional plan is eliminated? Saanich has long envied the city's shopping malls situated tantalizingly on the Victoria side of the border. Once the legislation is adopted, there would be nothing to stop Saanich from a major expansion of its own — either by permitting a second major department store in the Tillicum Mall or a similar-sized development elsewhere in the municipality. How long could downtown businesses fight that kind of suburban competition?"

It's the regional approach and the ability of the regional government, particularly over examples like the Tillicum Mall, that allows the regional government in a collective decision to say, for instance, that a development proposal is going to be detrimental to the common good of that regional area. In the Victoria situation, I think all people now agree that what we've got at Tillicurn is virtually acceptable. If it had gone any further and the regional district had not fought and said it violated the regional community plan, the impact on the downtown Victoria business community and the delicate economic base, not only in financial terms but in terms of its heritage significance and its viability as a central component in the tourism of this region, would have been radically altered and affected by a major development at Tillicum. What you're doing now is allowing each municipality at will to bring in developments that clearly will have a serious implication for the economic, social and physical viability of other adjacent municipalities. What you're creating is balkanized states in critical areas of British Columbia. You're creating the attitude: "I'm all right, Jack. My municipality's fine. I don't have to care about my neighbours and other municipalities and what happens to them. I can go ahead and build a huge shopping centre and affect the downtown area, which has a direct bearing on how this whole region develops." What you're saying is that any municipality can do what....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On standing order 43, Mr. Speaker: I think you should draw to the member's attention that the Speaker or the Chairman after having called the attention of the House or the committee to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members, may direct him to discontinue his speech. I've listened to this member be tedious and repetitious here for about three hours this afternoon, at great expense to the taxpayers of British Columbia, and I wish you would bring it to his attention.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the same point of order the chair recognizes the member for Rossland-Trail.

MR. D'ARCY: I personally do not find the member tedious or repetitive, but I do find it amazing that the member for South Peace River, who spoke for 14 tedious and repetitive hours in this House, should be casting aspersions on anyone else, whether or not he finds that member tedious and repetitive.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Both points of order are well taken. The second member for Victoria will continue and, I'm sure, will make his speech relevant to the matter before us.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: Try and not be so repetitive. Make it sound better. Talk about something good and positive: leadership and good government.

MR. BLENCOE: The member to my left talks about being positive. If indeed he wishes to be positive with this piece of legislation, if he has any influence over that minister, he will allow him to pursue a positive course of consultation with those municipalities which are to be affected by this legislation.

Before I was interrupted by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, who has conducted some long debates in this House himself, I was discussing the impact of removing regional plans. I was trying to read into the record some thoughts that have been given by an editorial in this community. I will finish off, if I may, some parts of that editorial: "Looking at other parts of the region, what happens to the principle of preserving farmland on the Saanich Peninsula if a development-oriented peninsular municipality decided on hell-bent growth?" Now, Mr. Speaker, let's take a look at that one.

[ Page 485 ]

One of the things that regional plans do is take a direct look at the agricultural land reserve. They make decisions on the agricultural land reserve and whether they should make a recommendation to the commission as to whether land should be removed. What you're doing is virtually eliminating the regional planning process and procedure vis-a-vis the agricultural land reserve. What the editorial is alluding to is quite true. We could, for instance, now have municipalities that have no time for the agricultural land reserve quickly move on that particular aspect the majority of British Columbians accept. It's quite accurate. In this region, for instance, the regional planning committee has taken a strong stand on agricultural land reserves, and any move by this government to allow that to be tampered with — which this act will do will bring strong reactions from local municipalities.

The Times-Colonist concludes: "The bill to abolish regional planning is a bad move deserving all the criticism the official opposition and municipalities can muster." Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is. I have urged that minister that if he wants to start his term as Minister of Municipal Affairs on a good footing, he should consult his member municipalities and see if they can find some consensus on this particular issue.

I want to read another piece that comes from the Vancouver Sun for July 8, 1983 entitled "Act Opens the Door to Chaos." Some people wonder why the opposition is referring to many editorials and articles being written, not only in British Columbia but across the country. I think it's very important that we do that, because this government is being attacked from all areas, from all sides, in all papers by editorialists of a number of party views. It's very important that that be known and that this government gets the message. The Vancouver Sun says this act opens the door to chaos. I'll read from the article:

"While Finance Minister Hugh Curtis was making his budget speech yesterday, he managed to slip in a promise that has less to do with the province's finances than with its political goals and those of the Legislature's outspoken..." — a certain member whom we can't refer to.

"The Municipal Amendment Act will take away from regional districts the power to enact and enforce official regional plans. It was the zoning under the Greater Vancouver Regional District's official plan, after all, that recently deprived Dawn Development (Canada) Corporation of its opportunity to stick housing on a parcel of prime agricultural land in Delta."

That well-known member "has already made clear his feelings on that decision.... " This article goes on to quote a number of well-known phrases that we have come to know in this House. The article goes on:

"Taking away the major part of the regional district's planning and zoning function isn't quite as sweeping a measure as abolishing them altogether, but it accomplishes the same end. Now Dawn will be able to go to the Delta municipal council and get its rezoning, and that will be that."

That's exactly it, Mr. Speaker. When the government passes this bill, and they immediately go to Delta council, they violate all the various decisions they've been given against taking this out of the agricultural land reserve. They violate them by passing this bill that allows Dawn Development to proceed, contrary to the wishes of the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

[4:45]

"According to one planner, the Dawn project is as good an example as any to demonstrate why getting rid of regional planning is a bad idea. A housing project of the size Dawn proposes would put something like 2, 000 more cars through the Massey Tunnel at rush hour. The tunnel is already overloaded, and the additional traffic will result in longer and worse traffic jams on the Deas Island freeway. That's an unnecessary burden when the province is considering a rapid transit system and an Annacis Island crossing that would open routes into the city from Surrey.

"The Dawn land is zoned rural in the GVRD's regional plan."

Under the regional plan it is zoned as that.

That was done democratically, Mr. Speaker, and was done through due process, public hearings, analysis and participation by member municipalities in that regional district. They made the decision to make the Dawn land zone zero under the GRVD's regional plan. A clear and sensible decision was made. Now what we have is a way around that process. I keep saying that, Mr. Speaker; I keep repeating it. The members don't like to hear that, I know. They say: "Why don't you say something new?"

There is nothing much more clear than what this bill is all about. It's a way, particularly with the Spetifore property, to get around duly elected bodies — elected by local municipalities, voted in by local constituents in the local municipalities to make decisions on local matters. Those constituents in local municipalities take very seriously what happens in local government. They already know that they're far removed from the provincial level of government — witness what it's been doing in the last few weeks and the lack of support which has developed for your legislation. But now what this government is intending to do, through the back door, is eliminate one of the very basic and fundamental procedures: that is, regional planning decided by local municipalities at the regional level — what should happen for the common good in that regional district. You are eliminating that.

There is also another, less obvious side to the changes that the province intends to make. In many ways, the GVRD's planning function — to take that district as an example — held the GVRD together. Municipalities had to get together and decide regional development issues. Think about that. The regional planning process encourages people to get together. It encourages intelligent debate and discussion over regional issues and regional matters. That's important. It's something which should be encouraged, not destroyed. This is what this act does: it destroys that discussion. That discussion — and I quote again from the Vancouver Sun — "gave them an opportunity to dicker with each other over planning issues that were not regulated by the regional plan but nonetheless had far-reaching effects." So, Mr. Speaker, through discussion and negotiation, and sometimes a little bit of confrontation and threats on one side or the other, nine times out of ten those constituent municipalities and regional governments resolved their common problems through a regional plan. And that's a statement that they support. That's a statement of the aspirations, goals and objectives of that regional area — a collective statement of the people of those regional areas.

It's a very important collective statement, because today, more and more, it's becoming very difficult for people to

[ Page 486 ]

collectively state or support something which involves general principles. Regional plans allow people to collectively indicate the way they wish their region to go; where they want their parks, their stream enhancement. Well, no longer will we have the requirements or those regional plans to ensure there is an orderly development of such things. It's gone down the tube, all because this government wishes to ensure the Spetifore land is removed from the agricultural land reserve so it can be developed as quickly as possible.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's already out of the agricultural land reserve. Why don't you tell the truth?

MR. BLENCOE: Truth! Coming from this corner is.... Well, it certainly needs some discussion,

Mr. Speaker, the GVRD has said they don't want this land developed. They've said that clearly and deliberately by a clear majority vote. They've said that's not what they want to happen and they've said it twice. And do you know what? If the people of that region don't like that decision, they have elections coming up. Democracy, I think, will still be alive and well at the local level. Those people will have the opportunity to voice their concerns with those who made that decision and said no to the Dawn developments. That's the nature of the democratic system at the local level.

What you're saying — and I want to emphasize this now, clearly — is that from now on, at least until you're kicked out of office in four or five years, because you will be.... From now on, every time there is a particular development proposal, or something that somebody wants to get done at the local level, this government will try to find a way around it for them. You're saying that if the democratically elected procedures and institutions at the local level offend what you wish to do, you are going to find some way around it. That is a fundamental attack on the municipal and local democratic process.

I would remind my colleagues that municipal government, although perhaps a junior level of government, is a very traditional and respected level of government. It has evolved over time, long discussions, procedures and often, Mr. Speaker, through a process that is consultative rather than legislative, a process that people have supported for hundreds of years. It has been allowed to develop.

The public process, input and consultation has grown to the point now where in many municipalities people really do have the feeling that if they have a concern over a local, municipal or regional problem, they have direct access to the elected officials to try to bring some changes about. That's very important. That's developed over a long period of time and it still remains and it must not be tampered with.

The cynicism of senior government is incredible, but if you affect the work of local government and its ability to act quickly for its residents and taxpayers and its ability to have public discussion over things like regional plans, then you are really starting to change the fundamental traditions in terms of three of the four levels of government we have developed in this country. You are moving into a sacred area where local officials listen to local concerns in the public hearing process and make their decisions accordingly. What you're doing with this particular act is removing that longstanding tradition.

The minister is about to leave, I think.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I will go on to quote from the Vancouver Sun article, which calls this act the open door to chaos: "Although it wasn't always successful, the consultation process demonstrated the interdependence of municipalities." I want to emphasize that a little, Mr. Speaker. When municipalities border on each other — like they do in Vancouver and Victoria — there is and should be a sense of common interest, common sharing and common help in times of need. We do that, you know, and this government supports that in a very important area. An example is the emergency planning program.

Let me just go off on a little tangent here, Mr. Speaker. The emergency planning program is not coordinated on a municipal basis, although if we used the logic that this government is using behind Bill 9, emergency planning would be the total responsibility of local municipalities. This government and those members know that when a disaster happens in a regional area, often it goes across the borders of municipalities. One of those municipalities doesn't say: "Oh, well, that's not my responsibility; it's not in my borders, Therefore no help should go toward that municipality." No, there's a sense that when it's a common problem or disaster affecting a number of municipalities adjacent to each other, there's a common approach to resolving and helping. It's basic to human nature to help each other, you know, which this government sometimes seems to forget. There is a sharing, and that particular emergency program is something this government has supported and funded.

I use this example because it applies to local municipalities and regional districts. If we use the logic behind this, they would eliminate the provincial emergency program in terms of coordination of problems. It's a planning unit. If they believed in what they're doing with Bill 9, they would move to eliminate that provincial emergency program, or they would say: "Well, if there's an emergency, let the local municipality respond." Local and municipal independence is the big cry that they're trying to sell this bill on, Well, we know how ludicrous that is, because when there's a common problem, a common enemy or a common disaster, there is common action on behalf of the common good.

[5:00]

That's what regional planning is about. This government is totally illogical in its approach to this particular segment of planning. There are lots of examples of collective action at the local level on common problems. The local provincial planning utilizing local municipalities is the best example. If this government goes ahead with this bill and if they are consistent — and heaven forbid they might be consistent — they would take a look at all sorts of areas where there is collective action for the common good, and they would say: "Well, either we're going to privatize it or we're going to make it the responsibility of each local municipality." We know what would happen. You would break local municipal taxpayers. You'd bust them. You would finish them off. What you're trying to do with this bill is to say you're supporting local autonomy and local municipal decision making and that process. It doesn't stand up, because if that was your view, you would move ahead to eliminate other functions that you support.

"What one municipality does affects another or several others, and that realization strengthened municipalities' perception of their shared interests." I've used some very important words today: sensible, common sense, interdependence,

[ Page 487 ]

sharing, collective action, common good, conciliation, consensus, communication, consultation. This government, with this particular act — and, I have to say, with others — seems to be prepared to eliminate those key words in the governmental process. That's sad, because despite all our problems in this province — and we've got many — there is, within that local network, a framework that's been developed over the years that allows people to resolve their problems in a collective way.

"There is no quicker way to break up the political unity of municipalities than to free them to develop on their own, without regular formal consideration of each other." You take away the responsibility — and that's what you will do with this act — to consult with your neighbour municipalities on particular items that may be of regional interest or concern, and you're asking for serious trouble. "Without a sense of common cause" — there's another one; there are a lot of "C's" today — the municipalities will be saying, as I said earlier: "Well, I'm all right, Jack. I don't have to worry about the other municipality. If they've got a particular problem that we can help them with, well, we don't want to bother with that." Forget that sharing and common understanding, and introduce a bill that will eliminate regional cooperation, communication....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister continues to refer to having faith. It's very difficult these days to have faith in this government, I can assure you of that.

I'll go back to the Vancouver Sun, if I may.

"One municipal politician posits this scenario: a huge portion of the province's property owners live within regional districts, so weakened regional districts will make it easier for the province to load costs onto property owners without having to fight a strong regional district. That would have been a great help when the province was trying to saddle property owners with a whopping share of transit costs, an intention the GVRD fought with at least some success.

"And in case anyone doubted what the Socreds have in mind, they took the time to weaken the process for public hearings on rezonings. No longer will it be necessary for municipalities to notify surrounding residents in writing of a public hearing on a rezoning application."

I'll get back to that in a minute.

"For any development proposal involving ten or more parcels of land owned by ten or more people, the council can simply run a newspaper advertisement announcing the hearing."

MR. REID: That's good stuff — save the taxpayers' money.

MR. BLENCOE: "Save the taxpayers' money." Democracy is the basic principles of local government and how they make decisions. What this government is saying, and particularly this member in the corner over here is: "Democracy is expensive — we'll eliminate certain sectors of democracy."

MR. REID: I said "bureaucracy."

MR. BLENCOE: That's what that member is saying, Mr. Speaker: "Democracy is too expensive for the Socreds — we'll eliminate it."

MR. REID: Shame!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Surrey rises on a point of order.

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I used the word "bureaucracy," not "democracy."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. member. A point of order is not acceptable when there is cross banter on the floor; it's only when something is said by a speaker that offends another member or something of that nature.

The second member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Surrey rose not on a point of order. It has been pointed out by Speaker Davidson on several occasions that gaining of the floor by fraudulent means is to be dealt with quite severely by the Chair. Under standing order....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Speaker is aware of that. Members ought not to gain the floor by fraudulent means.

MR. LAUK: That's right. I point out standing order 42. The hon. member for Surrey, even under that standing order, cannot rise after a speech to correct anything that was said about him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, please get to your point of order.

MR. LAUK: My point of order is this: the hon. member for Surrey had no right to the floor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Would you like me to make my point of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it appears to the Chair that you were chastising another member, and you are committing the same offence. Unless you have a point of order....

MR. LAUK: Yes, I have.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let's hear the point of order.

MR. LAUK: As Your Honour will note, the member for Surrey rose stating no standing order but interrupted the speech of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), and in doing so gained the floor improperly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the correct time, as you are no doubt aware, for standing order 42 is after the cessation of the hon. member's speech.

[ Page 488 ]

MR. LAUK: That's what I've been trying to point out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been dealt with, hon. member, and I thank you very much for drawing it to the Chair's attention.

MR. LAUK: You're welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: I was trying to go through some points here, before I was interrupted. I was trying to make the point that this government doesn't believe in democracy. That's the point I was trying to make.

MR. REID: Well, if you were listening, I said "bureaucracy."

MR. BLENCOE: Despite what this member said — and I've heard it many times from other members — they are saying that democratic processes and principles and ideals have become too expensive. That's what they're saying: what's the bottom line on a public hearing so people can go out and preserve their neighbourhood or their neighbourhood environment, or protect their schools, or protect their parks or farmland? What's the bottom line on the public-hearing process so people can go out and say no to a government that seems bent on eradicating some of the very fundamental principles of the democratic system at all levels of government — municipal, regional, provincial and federal? They have said that democracy is too expensive. Maybe the next thing we'll have is a privatization bill for this very House. Maybe that's the way they should go. Maybe that's what they're saying.

This bill is symbolic of their attitude to local government. It's symbolic of their contempt for locally elected officials who make a decision that opposes the government position. That's what you're saying. "Big Brother is looking over your shoulder, " is what they're saying to municipalities. "We're looking over your shoulder, municipalities and mayors and aldermen." Unless they do it right and do it the wholly Socred way, you're going to step in and say: "Here's a bill and a piece of legislation that stops the democratic process so that people can have a say in their local areas."

The Vancouver Sun goes on to say, and I will quote a little more........

[5:15]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps, Mr. Minister, you will get an editorial supporting your Land Use Act soon. Maybe you'll get that, and then you can quote from it. So far there has been very little support for this piece of legislation. And if that minister wants to be an honourable member in terms of being honourable towards the municipalities he supposedly serves, he will take another look and discuss it with the UBCM.

Mr. Speaker, one of the accepted and fundamental parts of the local planning process is the written notice sent to local residents about a particular land use matter. It's pretty important. In this city, in the neighbourhood that I live in, people accept as the norm that they have the right to be informed when a developer or a land corporation, whatever you want to call them, wishes to change the very nature of the land use in that neighbourhood. That person who has bought land there and owns it and pays the taxes — and I believe the members across there will support that — has a right to be notified if there is going to be a change in the land use. This government is intending to eliminate that process. If there is to be a change in land use — for instance in a nice, quiet single-family neighbourhood — along comes XY Development Corp. and proposes to the city or the municipality that they want to build a 30-storey highrise — they don't have to now do any writing or tell people about it.

What's happening with this government and its Municipal Affairs minister is that they have decided to erode some of the fundamental elements of the democratic system at the municipal level, It is the most democratic level of all governments. And people respect that. People, even in their cynicism about government, say they still think they get a fairly good deal from local government. One of the ways they get a good deal is that in the procedures and processes in terms of discussion, debate and democratic public hearings, and development of regional plans, they have the opportunity to participate in a democratic fashion.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. REID: Have you ever seen the Spetifore land?

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I said a minute ago, or a couple of hours ago, that I really didn't want to speak about the Spetifore land. If nobody on the government side brought it up, I wouldn't speak about it. But this member, for some unknown reason — I expect it's guilt — continues to bring up the Spetifore land. He's admitting that this Bill 9 is really the Spetifore amendment. He knows, and that's why he continues to bring it up over and over again. He knows that's what it's all about. If he's the conscience of the Socred party, we're all in trouble.

I was trying to talk about why people respect and support local government. I was trying to enlighten my colleagues on the other side, and some on this side, about what is important about the democratic system at the local level. This is not just coming from someone who happens to represent the New Democratic Party for Victoria in this House; it's coming from somebody who has worked and studied and looked at the municipal system for six years, working on many committees at the local level — nearly all of them, the last one being the finance portfolio for two years.

What I'm trying to say to this government is that the process at the local level has been developed over a long period of time. People have come to know what they can achieve, debate and obtain from their local regional government. When many of those same people are very cynical about senior government — and I can tell you, they're very cynical about this government — often the only level of government they have faith in is the local municipality. Not only have you virtually ruined the provincial government with your squandering and relentless pursuit of bad legislation, you're now going to move in on municipal governments — take over many of their powers and make their decisions for them.

MRS. JOHNSTON: We're giving powers. Read the bill.

MR. BLENCOE: No, you're taking away powers. Powers are being taken away in this bill.

One of the very important aspects of the regional planning process and the development of a community plan — and the minister knows this — is the integral and detailed

[ Page 489 ]

work that goes on to develop that regional plan. There are years of work. It's not done overnight. Unlike this bill, which will destroy that regional planning overnight, it's done thoughtfully, in consultation with various technical groups, umpteen community groups, economists, chambers of commerce, business people, environmental groups, industrialists, park people....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, and pollution control people. Yes. That's very important. What it does over a long period of time is achieve a consensus through the important groups in that regional district, elected and non-elected, and, through intelligent discussion and analysis, that regional plan gets about three or four drafts. It goes to the member municipalities so their planning departments can analyze it and put into it their thoughts and aspirations, and what they want to see happen in their municipality. That comes back to the regional level, and the regional planning committee sifts all that through, looks at it, and talks to whomever it has to talk to if there's a concern about a particular area or municipality, or if a municipality has said that the regional plan does not meet their needs or conform to certain things.

Then it goes out to a long process of public hearing in various areas of the regional district, and there you have the democratic system at its best. You say to that regional district and those member municipalities and their constituents: "This is what we've come up with after many hours and weeks of deliberation with various groups. We've tried to look at the objectives of all those groups and this is what we've come up with for the collective support, the common good, the common cause, of that regional area." Collective, common good; common cause: those words are very important in regional planning. Now out it goes to that public hearing process. Meetings are held all over the place; people can get copies or synopsis of it; they can organize if they disagree with something in that plan; they can put in briefs. I might add that all the way along the line they've been able to do this, but in this public hearing process they're encouraged to do it, and a very democratic process takes place. People in the regional district come out and speak to their concerns, desires and common causes on that regional plan, Many times there are hours and hours of discussion, many briefs and many ideas, but the process is healthy. I haven't used that word before; I use it now. Regional planning and that process is healthy to local democratic processes.

When you have at the municipal level an elected group who decide to pursue a course that is diametrically opposed to the common good of that regional district, there is a way to have your concerns heard. That is what's so fundamental about the elimination of this regional planning aspect: you are removing a very important democratic process that's been developed over a long period of time. Now there's going to be no way that there can be a collective action in a regional district over collective problems. I certainly don't know what's going to happen in rural areas that don't have municipal planning components.

[5:30]

Mr. Speaker, the notification of people for changes in land use is very important, and I've tried to describe why it is. Eliminating that process will reduce the chance that residents will find out about the hearing. Under the present rules, failure to receive a mailed notice can be used to overturn a rezoning; it removes one more weapon from the citizens' arsenal. Government more and more today is removing ways by which citizens can address their concerns about what government is doing, and what you are doing here is again removing one chunk of that process at the local level.

Mr. Speaker, why do we need regional planning? I'd like to take some time now to go into that. Let's take a look at regional planning and its importance in the GVRD. There is a need for two types of regional planning in the GVRD's regions: lands, forests, water areas, and other economic and natural resources. Provincial policy recognizes, quite rightly, that the lower mainland region or even a larger area is the appropriate scale in which to attempt this type of regional planning. The second and equally necessary type of regional planning focuses on the problems of growth and change in the urbanized or metropolitan areas.

There are five compelling arguments to support the need for such a role. Mr. Speaker, I haven't mentioned the problems of growth, but there's no way that an individual municipality can deal with the problems of regional growth. That has to be tackled on a regional planning basis. There's no other way. If you are going to remove that process and procedure, and growth continues, then how is it going to be organized? Where is it going to go? Where are the houses to be built? Which agricultural land reserve land is to be taken out for it? Mr. Speaker, by removing the regional planning process you cannot plan for growth. If there's one thing that this government likes to talk about, it is that it likes to plan for seeing the economy grow and for things getting bigger and bigger. Well, under this piece of legislation that can't happen. There will be no planning for growth at all.

Greater Vancouver's land base is limited and subject to intense competition for its use. Of a total area covered by the updated lower mainland plan, only 15 percent is habitable and only 5 percent is arable. In greater Vancouver most of that land base has now been put to some productive use, either as urban or industrial areas or as farms. Because of the strong public support for the preservation of agricultural land we tend to lose track of the other dimensions of the problem which show that within the foreseeable future — the end of the century — we could be confronted with severe constraints on the supply of land for urban and industrial as well as agricultural purposes. That's a well-known fact, Mr. Speaker, and regional planning does pay attention to those particular components so we can plan sensibly and rationally in this province to take us to the year 2001. Remove this component, and you don't have that ability.

An effective regional planning system is essential to help us meet those particular challenges. By focusing attention and concern on the overall problem, regional planning can help us ensure that the long-term region-wide interests are effectively represented, along with more local and short-term considerations. If given the mandate, regional planning can contribute to more intensive use of the land resource. It's very important. One of the things we're running out of is land that has multiple purpose and use, and we have to ensure that it's properly planned and used, and intensively used. What may be inappropriate for agricultural land use today.... It's short-sighted to base your decisions and your judgment on what technology is appropriate or available today. We all know that when it comes to the agricultural land reserve, and we may say that that land cannot be utilized, maybe in 25 years the appropriate technology will be discovered and that

[ Page 490 ]

land will be a valuable agricultural resource. There is no more serious issue than the preservation of food, and land to produce it on. Regional planning paid a lot of attention to that issue, and you're removing that.

If given the mandate, regional planning can contribute to the more intensive use of the land resource, whether it be for housing, industry or fanning, thus postponing to some degree the arrival of real constraint. I touched upon the problem of growth and organizing growth, and if you remove regional planning, who is going to pull together the regional process to deal with that kind of growth? Greater Vancouver is a growing metropolis. We know that. Nearly half the population of British Columbia lives and works in what everyone recognizes as one metropolitan community. That's an important statement. There may be individual municipalities, but they perceive themselves as one metropolitan community. Consequently they have to have some ability to have an overview of that one metropolitan community, and that's regional planning.

New jobs are constantly being created, producing in turn a demand for new workers who require housing, shopping, professional services and the like. The lower mainland is a key link in the economy of the province, and it plays an increasingly important national and international role. That metropolitan community must be planned on a regional basis. You cannot expect independent municipal governments to take on that function. It's impossible. You remove that ability and you start to affect the growth, economic and industrial potential of the Vancouver region, because there will not be that regional process that can analyze and study the needs and prepare for the requirements of growth. You cannot expect one municipality to do that kind of work.

The distribution of economic and population growth is dictated primarily by the market and by the existing pattern of the region's development. But as the distance grows between where jobs are located and where people must live, the cost, congestion, confusion and frustration caused by growth also increase. I put it to the minister and the government over there that those very elements are taking place in the greater Vancouver area; that there are regional concerns and problems which create costs, confusion and frustration that must be addressed by the regional planning process. That's the only way you can do it sensibly and collectively. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, you expect the balkanization of the Greater Vancouver Regional District to try to plan on a regional basis, and that can't possibly happen.

Regional planning can provide an overview of the development pattern the market is producing and assess the need for public intervention through servicing, zoning or direct investment by government in order to ease the costs and pain of growth. That's important. Regional planning, if done properly and allowed to grow and be enhanced, can ease the costs and pain of growth. There's no question that it's painful. We are a developing province, not only Victoria and Vancouver. In a metropolitan community, that requires a regional overview and regional planning process. I don't think anybody really disagrees with that.

The public sector in British Columbia has been consistently willing to intervene strategically to shape market forces in the public interest. This particular bill, the Spetifore amendment, is in the private interest. That's all it's being done for. It's not in the public interest.

Continuing rapid growth will require further intervention in order to respond to the public's desire for a livable environment. That is extremely important, particularly in the greater Vancouver area, where you have a huge population and municipalities with particular interests and aspirations. Somehow they have to pull together and try to think of the common good in that particular regional area. Eliminate that through Bill 9, and that process disappears.

Greater Vancouver has arbitrary municipal boundaries. Everyone is aware of the anomalous nature of many of the boundaries of the 15 municipalities in the metropolitan area. Many of these anomalies are of little consequence to the average citizen going about his or her daily life. Few can tell when they have left Vancouver and entered Burnaby, or moved from Surrey to Langley city or Langley district. But these anomalies are much more important in their impact on the key decisions which affect regional development. Because each municipality must organize its development with an eye to the satisfaction of its own citizens, including the improvement of its own assessment base, there's always the temptation to organize the street system to minimize through traffic, to locate the new shopping centre where it can draw business from a neighbouring municipality, or to establish zoning that will ensure that only the higher-cost types of housing will be built in a municipality. What you're going to do is create incredible competition and in-fighting between municipalities, which is not going to be in the best interests of regional districts and local government.

Regional decision-making bodies are seldom successful at resolving heated disputes between adjacent municipalities. They can easily become enemies of both sides. By looking to the need for overall coordination in the organization of land use and services, however, regional planning can reduce the probability of such disputes and facilitate the communication that will reduce the number of surprises, like this bill.

Greater Vancouver has incredible transportation problems. If there's one area that needs a regional approach, it's in the transportation area. Accessibility is greater Vancouver's most persistent and difficult problem. Greater Vancouver's prime employment area, downtown Vancouver, is located at the northeastern comer of the region it serves. There is no significant potential for developing new housing to the north, because of the mountains; to the west because of the sea; or to the south, because of the Fraser River flood plain, the rich agricultural productivity of the delta and the United States border. As a consequence, the main thrust of new housing is to the east and the southeast, which must meet the needs of the entire metropolitan area for large tracts of new urban land. Servicing this development with transportation is a formidable task and it's going to require a regional consultation, regional agreement. That's done through the regional planning process.

I would go back, before I wind up, and ask the minister most seriously — because he will have the time to take a look at this bill — to go back and, with his ministry staff, open up discussions with regional districts and regional chairmen with planning and technical groups and see if they can achieve some consensus and some agreement on this particular issue,

Mr. Speaker, regional planning is essential. It's necessary. It's part of a civilized urban community. Without it you invite chaos. I already alluded to that. I already talked about the various people who have said that, because there is no way that independent individual municipalities can do the regional planning. They don't have a mandate to do it; they don't have the requirements; they don't have the staff to do it.

[ Page 491 ]

Unless you allow regional districts to have a sense of collective need, and collective common good, and common understanding over common problems.... Unless you allow that to remain — because in this act it doesn't — you are going to hinder the development of areas like the GVRD and the CRD. You'll no longer be able to plan growth, for instance, with the chamber of commerce, because you won't have the ability to analyze that and develop for that happening.

I urge the government and I urge this minister, because he will get the time to review this particular piece of legislation..... If he does and the government does, he will then tell the people of British Columbia that it is not the Spetifore amendment. If they don't, Mr. Speaker, we all know what this bill is all about: it's to usurp a democratically elected group who have made a decision in the greater Vancouver area to say that Spetifore land should not be developed, and this government — through the back door — is trying to help its friends. What it is also saying is that the democratic institutions at the local level, which are sacred, are no longer free from senior government interference. I know, Mr. Speaker, because I am in touch with many of those municipal people, that they are deeply concerned how this government is treating local governments — not only members of those municipalities who support us, but also members who support this current government. They don't like what they're doing with this act.

I would urge the minister and his colleagues to take the opportunity to review this act.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, looking at the time, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House. I wanted to speak for a great deal of time, and I won't have the time today to do a proper job.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.