[ Page 493 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Reid –– 493

Ms. Sanford –– 498

Mr. Kempf –– 503

TUESDAY, JULY 26, 1983

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With leave, I ask that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 9.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some honour to address the Municipal Amendment Act, which addresses the removal of the power of the regional districts to enact and enforce regional plans. There were held some detailed discussions on this new act between the Union of B.C. Municipalities, members of the development industry, and the ministry itself.

This legislation will strengthen municipal governments and reinforce their primary role in determining land use and the patterns at the local level. That's called local autonomy.

The bill also eliminates regional districts' technical committees, which simply constitute an additional cost for local government and for the province. I might indicate, for the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), that this move affects six staff members of the planning department of the capital region to the magnitude of $350,000 worth of savings in this community, which may be put, we think, to better use.

This bill will allow local governments to save money by advertising public hearings for zoning purposes in the local newspapers.

Earlier last year the province took transit planning away from the region and turned it over to B.C. Transit. That effectively saved this province $3.5 million of unnecessary expenditures in unnecessary duplications, and put the role of transit in the right hands — with the people who are paying the bills and can monitor the necessity for transit service in the area,

Planning roles in the early days of regional districts played an important part. The regional districts have matured, and they can deal with other functions which are a necessity regionally, but councils of the urban areas have matured even more. Councils of the areas of major concern have strongly elected officials to deal with local concerns, and the rights of those local concerns and elected officials shall always be honoured, Mr. Speaker.

Surrey mayor Don Ross, who is acting chairman of the GVRD, said the other day that regional districts had often been criticized for their planning functions. No question about that. They tended to bring the "big brother" accusation to the regional district, which is in fact an accusation with a lot of support. Ross also said: "I don't think individual municipalities in a region could provide services such as water" — that's a fact — "waste, garbage, parks, hospitals, labour relations." There are many things that the regional district does that give the taxpayers best value, and those are the functions.

Taxpayers will save millions of dollars through this new legislation, Mr. Speaker. The GVRD and the CRD combined spent between $2 million and $2.5 million last year for planning and zoning projects alone. Interesting numbers, aren't they? Our concern is to cut costs for taxpayers by $2 million to $2.5 million for planning and zoning projects in the regions alone. Our concern is to cut costs for taxpayers and give the municipalities maximum autonomy and the right to plan their own communities. Councils have a great deal of common sense, with a few exceptions. I see that the speaker of yesterday, whom I would like to address the odd time, is not in the House. He represents the council in the Victoria area, and I think there are some exceptions, as I pointed out.

The municipalities wish to have this authority in their own hands. They are the elected officials answerable to their own communities, Mr. Speaker, and that's important. They have matured as a form of local government. The regional district planning committees now constitute, in a time of restraint, an unnecessary cost to both local governments and the province. This act removes the power of regional districts to enact and enforce the official regional plans. It is interesting to note that the GVRD has failed as a force. They pay lip service to their responsibilities but they have a bureaucratic nightmare, and one of their nightmares deals with the weighted vote.

Speaking of lip service and the weighted vote, the city of Vancouver is headed by Little Mikey, who is opposed to everything until it is on the ground; then he supports it because it's a good idea. He didn't like the rapid transit plan; now he's supporting it and taking credit for it. He didn't like B.C. Place, and now he's taking credit for that. He didn't want Expo 86 anywhere near the province, and now he's going around the world — at the taxpayers' expense — telling everybody how much of a good idea it was. It sure as heck wasn't his idea, but he's taking credit for it now. The fact of the matter is that he's taking credit for a good project that we're very proud of as a government. Those kinds of ideas and plans show good leadership and good government.

Talking about lip service, let's talk about a project that the regional district's spent a lot of money on: community regional plans, to provide some regional planning for all the communities for moving some heavy-costed office space from downtown out into the communities. This saved the commuters from transferring themselves back and forth, thereby saving a lot of money. The people who paid lip service to it were the city of Vancouver. The city of Vancouver never for one moment gave consideration to an official community plan, because they had voted for community plans and then immediately went ahead and built more office space in downtown Vancouver, much to the chagrin of everybody else except those supported by the way they vote.

Another interesting fact is that during the course of the regional plan concept, the GVRD was supposed to have some power. They tried to enact their power on the communities of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam; Coquitlam went ahead and built a shopping centre, much to the chagrin of.... The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) was on the council of the day, which showed good leadership and good government in that area. The project went ahead, and the politicians of the area made the right decision. I defy the GVRD now to challenge that decision. They didn't challenge it when it was underway and they won't challenge it any

[ Page 494 ]

longer, because it was a good idea made by local politicians. It's funny that the city of Vancouver continued to solicit developers of new office towers; the city that holds the largest block of GVRD votes pays lip service to regional government, but seldom feels constrained by its own dictates. The GVRD, to overrule a municipality and exert its political power, even while the B.C. government has been trying to remove obstacles in the community for development....

The GVRD never gained political respectability; instead, it was viewed as an intruder issuing edicts from the remote boardrooms in downtown Burnaby — no offence to the Burnaby members.

The rights of the municipalities to determine their own destiny must be always retained within those municipalities. They must be unencumbered by regional decrees which make no common sense in these days. Local municipalities, on their own, have developed directives for comprehensive municipal plans. Those are the ones that should be followed. There are comprehensive municipal plans now in place in most of the municipalities, and they define the community's planning objectives, The legislation should be developed to support the economic recovery of these plans. The application of deregulation principles to B.C. planning and development approvals should be escalated. At times, the elected officials in municipal councils seem, to people at arm's length or regional government, to have little effect, especially when dealing with issues such as viable farmland, the agricultural land reserve and garbage dumps.

It may be interesting to quote — I'm sorry he's not in the House today — a minister of the day in 1973-74. He was the minister of industry at the time. They were talking about the Land Commission. The minister of the day said: "Environmentalists trying to preserve Tilbury Island from the industrial development should realize that the Land Commission Act was not designed to protect all farmland in B.C."

MRS. JOHNSTON: Who said that?

MR. REID: Gary Lauk. I mean the second member — he used to be the first — for Vancouver Centre.

MR. MOWAT: Which island?

MR. REID: Tilbury Island. He's going the right way. In five more years he won't be here at all.

"The Land Commission Act was not designed to protect all farmland in B.C., Industrial Development minister Gary Lauk said on Wednesday."

[10:15]

I also quote Bob Franson, an environmentalist of the day who talked about "an apparent conflict of the statements of the minister with the underlying philosophy of the Land Commission Act passed last year. These people have to realize that the Land Commission Act was not intended to preserve every square inch of farmland in perpetuity." That's the minister of the day, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) — not for long. Talking about preservation of farmland in Delta, which I have some knowledge of because I was an alderman in Delta in 1974 when all this was taking place, a rather interesting thing was happening at that time. There was a purchase of 726 acres of the most viable farmland in the Fraser Valley going ahead on the q.t. — right along the Fraser River at Tilbury — on behalf of the minister of the day, the second member for Vancouver Centre. He's the one who said: "To protect all farmland in B.C. is not our role." I understand they were also purchasing some acreage up in Kamloops, the Molson hop farm, which was 458 acres right on the highway there — a very interesting property, viable farmland.

When the project for the 726 acres of viable farmland at Tilbury was brought to the municipality of Delta, it was sold and agreed to by the municipality because at that point the municipalitdy agree that all of the residents of Delta shouldn't always have to commute through the tunnel or over that antiquated Pattullo Bridge. They should have some viable industry very close at home. When the government of the day, which was NDP — under the minister of the day, who was the second member for Vancouver Centre — came along to encourage development, much to the chagrin of the council of Delta, he picked the best land in Delta for the purpose. We were concerned about it, but we thought, with some reason, that he may also give consideration to the request for the farmland at the south end, which was worse land, unviable according to all sources.

That land at the south end had a problem. I'm talking about the Dawn Development land, Mr. Speaker. That land is surrounded by very expensive homes.

Interjection.

MR. REID: It never has been viable.

Interjection.

MR. REID: No, the farmer of the day never made any money on it.

The interesting thing about that land, which is not common knowledge — most of the members who opposed the property in question have probably never walked it; I've walked it many times.... In trying to support the question, some of the opponents to the fact that it may be viable farmland....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Has the member for Victoria ever seen the land?

MR. REID: I doubt it very much.

The farmer who owned the land at that time was put in a very unfortunate position. It had been in his family all his life. When his father passed away, the federal succession duties forced the land into a succession settlement. They put a price on it and dedicated....  The land, in their opinion, was residential. They taxed it accordingly and — theoretically, if there was any money to be made — put the farmer out of business the next day.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

But because he had some pretty hefty bills to pay, he tried one more time. He couldn't do anything else with it, because everybody in the government of the day was fighting the possible development of the land. That was agreed to by the federal government. He tried to put it into production. He was also encouraged by the government of the day to build a potato factory in Delta to create employment. He invested all the money in his family's savings, plus some money from the Bank of Commerce, which the minister from Vancouver Centre tried to destroy. He put the farm into production; he

[ Page 495 ]

put a plant in place. He encouraged a bunch of farmers in the area to also put potatoes into production, to accelerate the viability of the potato-chip factory. The municipality encouraged it. The government of the province encouraged it. Not with funds, of course, but they told him that it's farmland — make it pay. So he said he would give it a whirl one more time, to try to keep his family fed. About a year later the plant closed, never to open again as a potato factory. It was in the middle of the supposedly best, most viable farmland in the world, according to some opponents. He tried to make it work.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

One of the things that made it not work, even though they had some potatoes that were marketable, was that the federal Liberal government, with the strong support of their coalition government, the NDP, decided to subsidize the McCain potato factory in the Maritimes, to haul potatoes from northern Washington and Idaho, to pay the freight costs for the potatoes to be shipped to the Maritimes and processed, to subsidize taking the processed potatoes back to Vancouver and putting them on the shelves in Vancouver cheaper than the Spetifore potato factory could do right in downtown Delta. Interesting, isn't it? The government helped to kill an industry they thought they should bring on stream. The interesting thing is that Mr. Spetifore tried his best to be a viable farmer and tried to support his fellow farmers in the area, but he was completely destroyed in the interim.

It's interesting that when there's a cry for protection of regional government and for the preservation of farmland, the 726 acres at Tilbury never come into question. Abutting the 726 acres is the largest block of peat bog, I guess, in North America being successfully farmed on a regular basis. After being successfully farmed, it's presently becoming the garbage dump of the lower mainland. Do you know who supports the garbage dump of the lower mainland? Mikey and his group, which is the city of Vancouver with its weighted vote....

Interjection.

MR. REID: They've been dumping on Delta, with much support in the past, I might add, by the corporation of Delta.

MR. SEGARTY: Are they dumping on Richmond too?

MR. REID: No, they're not dumping on Richmond. But it's interesting to note that the regional district recently decided they didn't want the viable land of Dawn Development for residential development, because it's farmable. Here we have thousands of acres of supposed farmland being turned into a garbage dump for the lower mainland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mikey is doing that?

MR. REID: Yes, Mikey is doing that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Political motives, do you think?

MR. REID: Political motives.

In dealing with the question of viable farmland and the conversion of the Tilbury Island estate, a lot of questions were raised. They deal with some of the points made yesterday by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). He used the word "development" as a dirty word, and said that fly-by-night developers like HUDAC....

Interjection.

MR. REID: It may be interesting to note that it was with the support of the members of the government of the day that such things as the CP Air maintenance centre were considered for development on Tilbury Island. I said supported by the municipality of Delta, because they wanted development in that area to help provide housing and to pay for the demands for service within the community, and the demands for educational improvements have to be paid for by somebody.

Mr. Speaker, the Toyota car parts plant — this may be of information to the members over here — is also being built in Delta. All these things are bringing employees to the municipality of Delta. That's good government. And they need a place to live, failing going through the tunnel. I wish the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) were here, because I want to compliment him for the decision that he made to three-lane the tunnel in the morning heading north. That decision was probably the most highly improved decision for transportation for commuters for White Rock, Surrey, North Delta and Tsawwassen heading into Vancouver any morning of the week. That decision to three-lane the tunnel heading north reduces the backlog to almost zero between seven and nine in the morning, and that's an incredible improvement. Some members are opponents who have never been in the tunnel, and they have tunnel vision. That tunnel is adequately serving the people of South Delta and the south today because of those decisions on behalf of a very responsible minister.

Those are the kinds of decisions that good government and leadership make to provide answers to problems that are being created. There are problems being created every time you build a house, because you have to build a street to it and you have to provide water, sewer, light and education facilities. But that's a part of growth. The people who control the growth in a particular area are the politicians of the day — the elected officials who have to deal with the electorate. They know what the requirements are. They know how to please the taxpayers who want to make the decisions. They don't need to be told by the member from West Vancouver: "Don't you dare take away that green space out there, because my citizens need some place to go and play. Keep that $30,000-an-acre playground for us, because our people will need some place to play. Our members in the city of Vancouver and the University Endowment Lands need some place to dump our garbage, so keep that available to us. Keep the tunnel open to get the garbage out there. Keep the garbage spot open forever and ever."

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) had to face the question of garbage about a year or so ago when the GVRD proposed to take garbage up to Pit Polder or whatever it is up there, and they refused it. Surrey municipality objected to having solid waste put up their way. So what's the final consideration of the GVRD — the weighted vote of the GVRD? Not to send it to Texada Island, as the same opponents who oppose the Texada Island garbage dump agreed to put the garbage in Delta. Do you know why? It is politically astute.

[ Page 496 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: Why do they pick on Delta?

MR. REID: Because Delta is an easygoing community. It has been allowed to be dictated to by the regional government and the weighted vote of the day.

You see, Mr. Speaker, agricultural land reserve....

The opposition on this side are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They take away the best land in Delta, convert it to industrial development, with the agreement of the municipality of the day — no question about that — but they oppose a piece of land down there on the south end that won't even grow a profitable potato; and when the guy tries to farm it viably in the last two or three years, you know what they do? A farmer has to spray his crops. Have you ever seen a farmer spray his crops to keep the weeds and the bugs out? And to keep the pilferers out of his property what does he have to do? He has to have watchmen walk around his property all night to keep his product in the ground because the population from the city of Vancouver has nowhere else to go so they go out to the playland — the farmland of Delta — and dig up the farmer's potatoes and don't pay for them.

Interjection.

MR. REID: Yes, that happens in Victoria, too.

We always have to come back to the Dawn Development rejection, because that's really what it's all about when you talk about regional control of government, regional control making decisions from a local politician....

[10:30]

Interjection.

MR. REID: I can tell you the truth, Mr. Member for Victoria number two. The truth is, if you ever went over there and walked the land, you would never support it for viable farmland, because you know it wouldn't wash. The interesting thing is that the Dawn Development people said they would abide by the conditions set out by this government in 1981 in an order- in-council which removed the land from the agricultural land reserve. That's not a question any longer. At that point Dawn Development also was agreeable to providing 89 acres of developable land, but they agreed, with a gun to the head by the regional planners, to provide 89 hectares for parkland. That's to satisfy the mayor of West Vancouver, who wants someplace for his constituents to play when they've finished playing in their....

AN HON. MEMBER: For West Vancouver?

MR. REID: West Vancouver, yes.

Interjections.

MR. REID: I like the mayor.

The people of this province have chosen the direction they wish this government to take. They have given this good government of leadership a mandate to lead, to provide government and leadership. This legislation will strengthen municipal governments and reinforce their primary role in determining land use patterns at the local level. This legislation will eliminate regional district technical planning committees which simply constitute an additional cost for local governments and the province.

This legislation will also allow government to save money by advertising, in local newspapers, public hearings for zoning proposals, rather than having to mail notifications to every property owner who might be affected. That's taxpayer restraint. Mailing costs were sometimes prohibitive where large tracts of land were involved. Committees are no longer essential. That's it — cancelled bureaucracy.

MR. BLENCOE: Cancelled democracy.

MR. REID: Yesterday I tried a couple of times to correct this member. Will you interject and cut him off, because yesterday you stopped me. Tell him to get the word right; it's "bureaucracy." I tried to correct him three times yesterday, and I'm telling you one more time that the word is "bureaucracy." If you know what bureaucracy is, that's something we're trying to control.

These planning committees constitute an unnecessary cost to both local government and the province. Regional districts will continue to play a role in official settlement plans in B.C. in the rural areas. The cost-saving measures are for local governments and their taxpayers as relating to the notification procedure of public hearings for zoning processes. I believe an atmosphere of cooperation and good will will prevail. We can make even further progress towards the goals of effective, efficient, low-cost government by supporting this legislation. We have the appropriate atmosphere, and we at the government level share a common goal with our local counterparts: to enrich the lives of all British Columbians through delivery of essential services efficiently and at the least cost to the taxpayer. I am proud that this legislation will contribute so significantly to these objectives.

The farmers of the supposedly viable farmland in the south end of Delta have for many years had to contend with decisions made by bureaucracy and other arms of government. Some of the opposition members should take the time one day, if they ever go over there and get off the ferry at Tsawwassen, which is in south Delta, to travel the main four-lane highway which heads straight north from there and goes right through viable farmland of Delta. All the roads and crossroads which intersect that highway go through viable Delta farmland. If you've never seen a farmer trying to get from one piece of his farm to the other in the middle of the night, about 2 a.m., you haven't lived. You see some guy trying to trail a harvesting machine for peas or potatoes, or whatever he's trying to make a buck on — which he can't nowadays, but he's trying — because he's been frozen into it by a member who has never been there to see the land.

The other problem associated with it is that criss-crossed through that whole municipality, because of its location in the lower mainland, are the natural gas lines, the pollution lines, the sewer lines, the hydro lines. I think there are more hydro lines across the south end of Delta than in the rest of the province collectively. The next thing we're going to see, I could bet, is the natural gas line. Would somebody want to bet me that the natural gas line, when and if it ever goes to Vancouver Island, will probably go right through the centre of the viable farmland of Delta?

For the last ten years the farmers of Delta have had a court case on with B.C. Hydro relative to the electrolysis in the land there, which has corroded the sewer pipes that run back and forth through the farmland for all the people of the lower mainland region; they are corroded and they leak, and the

[ Page 497 ]

farm becomes a small cesspool. You never hear these opponents of viable farmland and this other garbage talk about those problems of the farmers out there. They can't farm that land.

Why don't we allow the farmer to farm where he can make a living? It isn't possible to take the 726 acres out of Tilbury and put it back into farming; they filled it with 12 feet of sand so it can never be turned back into farmland. But there are another 2,000 acres there that should be allowed to go into industry for the same reason. They've isolated some farms there where the farmer can't get from one end of his property to the other without taking his machinery out at 3 o'clock in the morning to do it, rather than be in conflict with transportation and people trying to get to and from work down those main roads.

Mr. Speaker, at the south end of Delta juts out another island, a man-made island. That man-made island is Roberts Bank. It's a pretty proud development on behalf of the industrial ministry of this province. It's good for the East Kootenays. It brings money into the coffers of the province and helps to pay some of the bills of the people out there. It provides jobs for the people of the lower mainland. They had to build a railroad to Roberts Bank, and do you know where they built the railroad, with all the thousands of acres on both sides of the railroad frozen with coal-dust? Sorry about that, but coal-dust must come off the cars if there are so many travelling back and forth. But you can't have everything, so it's an area that will never make a dollar again in farming. They'll have to farm it, because they're frozen into it. They can't subdivide it and give it to any of their relatives, because that's forbidden. They can't subdivide it into half-farms, because that's forbidden. They can't even make hobby farms out of it, because that's forbidden. So what they have to do is keep 600 or 700 acres of rocks and stone in farmland, in the opinion of some people, in perpetuity, which will never be farmed again.

We talked about opening the Boundary Bay airport. That's another one. Right in the middle of the agricultural land reserve sits the old Boundary Bay airport, on farmland. But it's no problem, Mr. Speaker, because that Boundary Bay airport has been there since the Second World War. It's a beautiful airport. It was designed to serve a lot of purposes, and one of the purposes is to make the Vancouver International Airport safer, to take the small airplanes off there. When they talked about taking those small airplanes off there, did they talk to the farmers around Boundary Bay airport about what this would do to the cattle and all the farmers working around there? No, they didn't talk to them: "You're going to have it whether you like it or not." Those farmers have learned to accept almost anything in perpetuity — decisions made for them by bureaucrats anywhere. This government and the regional district are filled with bureaucrats making decisions and trying to solve problems for a municipality that knows how to solve its own problems.

I think it's time for the opponents to either put up or shut up: get their supporters together with whatever money is needed to buy the Dawn Development land; buy it and make it into a farm. Make it pay. Buy it and prove to yourself that you can make it.... You couldn't make it pay; nobody can make it pay. The farmer of the day couldn't make it pay, so he sold it to some developer to build it into an attractive residential development for the people of the region, for the people who work at Tilbury Island and for the people who work on a project they developed. Jobs and housing: that's what that land will do. It will never pay for itself; it will never make a dollar. But these people, who are our opponents, are coming out and don't care whether it makes a dollar, because that's a dirty word too. This government subsidizes through the agricultural subsidy something like millions of dollars for the farmers of the province. And the marketing boards.... What a laugh that is. The farmers can't make a buck in this province. Do you know why they can't make a buck? The bureaucrats rule them and run them.

In summing up I might say, Mr. Speaker, that it's ironic when we talk about regional governments' power, and why the weighted vote. I call it the city of Vancouver weighted vote because they vote almost in block, the left-wing socialist.... Somebody called them something else; I don't even know the right term.

Interjection.

MR. REID: Hecklers. Pinkos.

Anyway, they always vote for something positive. Everything has to be negative, unless it's already completed and is a good project; then they support it. The day the Dawn Development gets developed as reasonable-cost housing and a good development, you watch! Little Mikey will probably be out there playing on that little 89-hectare park, saying: "This is a heck of a nice development. Why didn't we have this in downtown Vancouver?" He'll wait for that to be developed, and then he'll come out and pat everybody on the back. But in the meantime he votes against it and says: "You're going to take my garbage in perpetuity. We're going to leach all that property out there and make it non-viable." Because that is going to happen ultimately. The leaching out of that garbage dump will eventually destroy all the farmland in Delta; then ultimately it will be built into affordable housing. That's what HUDAC.... He calls them the fly-by-nighters. Responsible developers is what we call them; people who have a concern for bringing into the marketplace affordable housing — good developments — in areas that make sense. We're talking about making sense, because that's what local politicians do. They make sense. Not bureaucrats. Local politicians should be, and I support this bill in saying....

MR. LEA: Are you one?

MR. REID: I am not a developer. I am a businessman, and as a businessman I support good decisions by good elected officials who know what they're doing. Allow them to make the decisions. Allow them to make the mistakes if they're ever going to make them. They're not allowed to make mistakes, because somebody else makes them for them. The mistakes should be made by elected officials in a community — the people that the electorate put there. They know what they're doing and what their job is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time under standing orders has elapsed, hon. member.

The second member for Victoria rises for what purpose?

MR. BLENCOE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you state your point of order briefly, please.

[ Page 498 ]

MR. BLENCOE: The second member for Surrey made an inaccurate accusation that I accused HUDAC of being fly-by-night developers. If that member will read Hansard and the Blues, he will find that it was totally inaccurate. What was actually said in referring to HUDAC was to give them praise for their work and to support them; as a matter of fact, they recommended that regional planning continue. For the member to accuse me of saying that they are fly-by-night is totally inaccurate, Mr. Speaker, and I want that to go on the record.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point has been made. The member rose under standing order 42, which allows a member to explain a material part of a speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, and that has been done.

The Chair now recognizes the hon. member for Comox.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the second member for Victoria led off the debate on this particular bill for the opposition, he stated at the outset that this was the Spetifore amendment. I wish to state at the outset that this is the Spetifore amendment, and we have had this absolutely confirmed this morning by the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid), who spent his whole time talking about Spetifore, Dawn Development and the agricultural land that this Bill 9 will ensure is out.... It's now out of the land reserve but will be developed as that Social Credit government wants it developed. We have had it absolutely confirmed this morning.

[10:45]

This has nothing to do with regional planning, weighted votes, or anything except the Spetifore land that's in question, and we had it confirmed this morning by that second member for Surrey, who spent his speech talking about Spetifore and the problems that he has had in getting that land developed for housing. Isn't that interesting? We said it as soon as the bill was introduced and again in the House yesterday; we will say it over and over again in this debate. It's very interesting to have the Socred members finally admitting, through the speech given this morning, that this indeed is the Spetifore amendment. That's all it's about; we know that.

The second member for Surrey always gives us a hint, Mr. Speaker, about what's coming down the pike from the government side.

MR. REID: You're happy about that, aren't you?

MS. SANFORD: Oh, it makes me very happy, but it also makes me shiver because of the kinds of things that that member talks about.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, you're right, and things haven't improved a bit.

We know what the second member for Surrey said about the rentalsman. He was very pleased to have that removed.

MR. REID: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: Right. He now wants the Labour Relations Board eliminated.

MR. REID: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: He wants to eliminate the Labour Relations Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: To the bill.

MS. SANFORD: I'm simply pointing this out about the member for Surrey.

MR. MOWAT: I wish we had more of them.

MS. SANFORD: Exactly. You would. You've got a whole raft of them over there.

He wants to have the hospitals of the province operated by private interests. He says that regional government is a menace. That was one of the comments that he made yesterday when the second member for Victoria was speaking. When the government brought in legislation that would fire civil servants without cause, his comment was: "Well, it's about time." So we can always tell in what direction the government's headed by the comments that that member makes. The day that the Greater Vancouver Regional Board decided not to allow Dawn Development to go ahead with the development of the Spetifore land, he said: "We'll fix that." I'm keeping a list of all of the comments that he's making. "There's no way that any elected body in this province is going to carry out decisions that we the government don't want, so we'll fix that." That's called dictatorship, Mr. Speaker.

He does not like the Land Commission either. He wants the Land Commission eliminated. The day the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) filed the annual report for the Land Commission, that member back there said: "That's the last annual report of the Land Commission." So we can expect that the Land Commission itself will be eliminated, and then the Spetifores of the world won't have to worry about any land that might fall within the agricultural land reserve.

The other thing the member talked about this morning was marketing boards. He doesn't like marketing boards either, and he wants those eliminated. He does not want any government money to go into any farm income insurance program.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Good for him.

MS. SANFORD: Good for him. Oh, is that what the House Leader is saying this morning? Is the Minister of Agriculture and Food listening this morning?

The other thing that the second member for Surrey said was that the farmers were being governed by the bureaucrats through the marketing boards. That member is so uninformed, Mr. Speaker, he doesn't know that the marketing boards are made up of the farmers. They, themselves, are the ones that make decisions concerning their particular products. He doesn't know that? I'm very surprised.

We know, very clearly now, that this is the Spetifore amendment, and the minister knows it too.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Of course he knows it. He's tried before to get land out of the agricultural land reserve. We remember about that. He knows the techniques. Now that he's a minister,

[ Page 499 ]

he can bring in this amendment and use other means in order to get land out of the reserve and into development.

Why doesn't this government deal in an honest and straightforward way with the people of the province? Why don't they just call this the Spetifore amendment? Why do they have to use this rather roundabout route in order to accomplish what they will accomplish? The government is going to have its way. It will utilize whatever means and whatever roundabout, devious tactics it can come up with in order to have its will. Never mind what the GVRD, elected officials, the Land Commission or agrologists say — it's the will of this government that's going to be carried out. That's what this piece of legislation is all about.

MR. REID: Hear, hear! Good government and leadership!

MS. SANFORD: "Hear, hear!" says the second member for Surrey.

I wish this government would just level with the people once in a while, Mr. Speaker. If they had levelled with them before the election they wouldn't be sitting on the government side today, I can tell you that. They're not about to level with the people at all.

One of the things that both the second member for Surrey and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) have been harping on for the last week or so is the fact that they have walked over the Spetifore land. They've looked at it. Because there are members in this House who have not walked over that land, those two members somehow feel that the rest of us don't have any right to make any comment on the viability of that Spetifore land for farming purposes.

I don't want any used car dealers making decisions as to what is agricultural land and what isn't. What can you expect from those used car dealers? The only thing that they know is development. What on earth do used car dealers know about farmland? I have read the agrologists' report. These are the people who are specialists in soils. They analyze and know the capability of soils, and they, not the used car dealers, are the ones I'm about to look to to determine whether or not any land in this province is viable as an agricultural unit.

The other thing that those members — and I'm talking now about the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the second member for Surrey — seem to forget is that the whole purpose of establishing a Land Commission in the first place was to ensure that viable agricultural land in this province would remain as viable agricultural land, without the interference of politicians. In order to ensure that land stays as agricultural land, you cannot have the kind of political interference we are seeing today through this bill and through other actions which that government has taken.

This bill represents the dogmatic approach that the government has taken to every issue in this province since May 5.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) will come to order.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wish he'd continue, because he always gives us information about what the next vile act of this government will be. We now know that farm income insurance is in trouble, that marketing boards are in trouble. He even gave us a good hint in his speech this morning when he said: "If the natural gas line ever goes to Vancouver Island." The Premier said in the constituency of Comox, just before the election, that construction on the pipeline would likely be underway by the fall of this year.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: I'm only repeating what he is referring to in Bill 9. It was that member, Madam Member, who raised the natural gas pipeline; I did not. What we understand now is that that pipeline is not likely to be built. I made a note of that. I keep track of all the comments made by that member so I know where this government is going to take this province. I save them, and I know that the Land Commission is in trouble, the Labour Relations Board is likely to be eliminated. So I wish you would let him go; it's okay.

One of the criticisms advanced by the second member for Surrey this morning relates to the weighted vote. He's very disturbed, as are the other backbenchers back there, by the fact that the city of Vancouver, for instance, has a weighted vote compared to some of the other smaller municipalities in the GVRD. What that member doesn't recognize is that it's based on a democratic principle. When the people of Vancouver vote on GVRD decisions, they represent a far larger number of people than some of the other areas of that GVRD. So it's a very democratic approach and it represents the voice of the people.

The other thing the member spoke about this morning was the costs of democracy.

MR. REID: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: "Hear, hear!" he says again. The others applauded him when he talked about saving $3 million, I think was the figure that he used, for planning within the GVRD. I just looked up the estimated expenditures for this budget, and I notice that we could save $7.6 million if we eliminated Vote 1 and did away with this Legislative Assembly. Think of the money we could save the government....

MR. REID: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: Oh, he likes that. He wants to have a dictator telling everybody in the province what to do. We could save the taxpayers $7.6 million by eliminating this Legislative Assembly; then we could have a straight dictatorship.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Encourage him, Mr. Premier. He always says such interesting things, don't you think?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I see. You should come into my constituency more often, Mr. Premier. It would improve my majority.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes; like the last time.

[ Page 500 ]

Interjections.

[11:00]

MS. SANFORD: The people in the constituency of Comox have good sense.

One of the comments made a number of times with respect to this particular piece of legislation relates to the fact that the people on the other side of the House do not want any regional planning. That's quite clear.

MR. REID: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: The first member for Surrey says: "Hear, hear!" They don't want any planning. It's got nothing to do with streamlining. They want chaos and "Open Sesame" as far as the developers of this province are concerned, and they keep confirming it.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

There's no major urban area in Canada that doesn't have an overall regional planning body. If you're going to have any sensible development at all, any concern about the development of an area that's as densely populated as the lower mainland, then you must have a regional approach to the problem. When they are that closely related, you cannot have one municipal council going against the wishes of another. You have to have transportation corridors. That was one of the concerns expressed by the GVRD people when they turned down the request of Dawn Development for this particular development of the Spetifore land.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, under standing orders 17(2) and 19. I have sat in this Legislature through yesterday afternoon and again this morning with continuing interruptions from the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid). Standing order 17(2) says: "When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him and the Chair, nor interrupt him, except to raise a point of order." Standing order 19, Mr. Speaker, gives you the power to enforce those regulations. It has just become a bit overbearing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Your points are well taken. Please allow the member for Comox to proceed uninterrupted.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, he does become a bit much now and again, I have to agree, so I thank you for that intervention.

If you're going to have any sensible development at all, you have to have a regional approach in an area like GVRD or in this capital region. Those are the two areas most affected by this particular piece of legislation. The GVRD representatives recognize that. They stated that that's one of the reasons they turned down this request for development of that Spetifore land. The housing is not needed. All kinds of studies have been done indicating that there is sufficient land in that whole area to service housing needs for at least another 30 years. It has nothing to do with the need for housing. It has nothing to do with the wishes of Delta itself. It is the wishes of a developer to develop, in order to make a profit. That's what it's all about. They don't need the housing. They know it's going to create chaos, but they wish to protect their friends, as they do on a regular basis. That's the reason we have Bill 9 before us today. The backbenchers know it, the cabinet knows it, and certainly the minister himself knows it.

In 1973 we were told, first, that Spetifore was interested in developing his land, and that he did not want to farm it any longer. Yesterday the second member for Surrey — and he's still continuing, Mr. Speaker — made a comment that because we had brought in the Land Commission and established the agricultural land reserve, we had killed Spetifore: we had ruined him financially; he had lost millions of dollars; what a sad thing it was that this poor man had been denied all those millions of dollars because his land was in the agricultural land reserve and the Land Commission was in place in order to ensure that it stayed in the agricultural land reserve where it belonged.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: "That's the truth," says the member for Surrey.

I read the other day that Mr. Spetifore sold that land for $48.5 million. It makes me weep, when I think of that poor man having lost all those other millions of dollars. How can you possibly survive in British Columbia today, if you've only $48.5 million? The poor man! Not only that, but I saw in a recent press clipping that in addition to that his family holds two mortgages totalling $135.8 million on that property.

MRS. JOHNSTON: What's the connection?

MS. SANFORD: What's the connection? These people are weeping all over the place because of the fact that this man was not able to develop and make himself into a billionaire. It's not good enough that they have $158 million. Good grief, the poor man! It's tragic, isn't it, that that poor man only had $48.5 million from the sale of that property and his family holds another mortgage of $135.8 million? How can anybody in British Columbia live today on that kind of income? The handicapped have lost their $50 a month. Anyway, it's kind of sad, isn't it? It really makes us weep.

The Municipal Act was drawn up years ago — and I assume that Dan Campbell, the former MLA for Comox, was involved in this when he was the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He provided section 812 in the Municipal Act to ensure that no municipality could adversely affect the general region in which that municipality was located. Section 812 is the section that's being eliminated here so that Delta can go ahead and ensure that Dawn Development has its way, as the government wants Dawn Development to have its way. It stated that no constituent municipality could act to impair or impede the realization of an official regional plan. That official regional plan of the GVRD recognizes the value of agricultural land, that there is no need for a housing development at this stage, and that to have that development at this time is going to create chaos in terms of the traffic in that area of the lower mainland. But none of that matters to this government, because they have a friend that they wish to protect and help out, and they are going to ensure that Dawn Development, the purchaser of the Spetifore land, will be able to develop that land and realize some $250 million profit, the latest guesstimate for the Dawn Development company to realize as a result of the development of that Spetifore land.

[ Page 501 ]

In 1973 the Land Commission was established. It was set up so that these decisions would be taken out of the political arena.

MR. REID: We should throw that out, too.

MS. SANFORD: He wants the Land Commission out; yes, we just heard that again.

In 1977, because there were not enough friends of the government that were able to get their land out of the Land Commission by going through the normal channels of having their soil analyzed for its agricultural capability.... Then the government amended the Land Act in order to allow the cabinet — again putting it back in the political arena — to overrule the Land Commission.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Name names.

MS. SANFORD: I don't need to name names, because if the government didn't want that particular change, if they felt the Land Commission was carrying out its job based on the capability of the land in the ALR, then they didn't need that amendment so that they could overrule the Land Commission.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair fails to see the relevance of this to Bill 9.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, but, Mr. Speaker, this is entirely relevant, because this is the Spetifore development. We're talking about the history of that Spetifore land....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon. member, we're speaking about Bill 9, and your relevance must be to that particular piece of legislation. We're not speaking of the Spetifore land. Please continue, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, we heard this morning a speech given by the second member for Surrey....

MR. REID: Talk about Tilbury for a little while.

MS. SANFORD: I want to wait to get the Speaker's attention.

Mr. Speaker, we had a speech this morning from the second member for Surrey, at which time he spent most of the time of his speech talking about the Spetifore land, Dawn Development, the Land Commission, and marketing boards.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Please continue, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: We had the change made in 1977. The amendments were made to the Land Act so that the cabinet could overrule, and that's how the Spetifore land got out of the ALR in the first place. They overruled the Land Commission in order to get that land out. But that didn't work, because the GVRD — and that's very much a part of this bill — through a series of decisions decided that that land should not be developed, even if it had been taken out of the agricultural land reserve by cabinet overruling the Land Commission itself. They decided that, and that's why we had the second member for Surrey saying: "We'll fix that." That's why we had the MLA for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson) saying:"Oh, we'll change that. We want changes and we will change that."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair cautioned yesterday that the Speaker of this House cannot be drawn into debate even indirectly, and I will caution you once more.

MS. SANFORD: Well, we know that there was concern there, and we know that the member became very agitated as a result of that GVRD decision. We know that the bill we see before us today is a result of members of the Social Credit side saying: "We'll fix that; we'll make the necessary changes; we'll ensure that...."

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Local autonomy? I've already dealt with that. If you are in a municipality like Delta or Surrey, or any of those, you've got to take into account what happens in that GVRD. There is no area in Canada that doesn't have some sort of a regional development plan.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Comox has the floor.

MS. SANFORD: In 1981, Mr. Speaker, this land came out of the land reserve. The property was sold to Dawn Development, and it was Dawn Development that immediately began to petition the GVRD to make a decision to get that land developed.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: It's out, yes, and I think it should be in, because that's where that land belongs. It's capable of producing food and what we need in this province is to ensure that that land is protected.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: It will never go back in as long as you people are there, because you are going to dismantle everything in this province.

[11:15]

The stupidity of this amendment has not been pointed out to the government. They certainly have not thought about it, or they would not have brought this amendment in. You can't eat houses. I think the GVRD recognized that when they turned down the application for this development.

There are a lot of things that can be changed when one government takes over from another. For instance, you can return decision-making to regional districts of the provice so that an area is developed properly. You can return planning to regional areas; there is no doubt about that. You can bring back a program in which you decentralize, as opposed to the centralization that is taking place right here.

MR. REID: They do that in Russia. That's called decentralization.

[ Page 502 ]

MS. SANFORD: I don't believe that member. I'm not even going to comment on that.

You can return to the people things like the renter's tax credit and the income tax credit. You can give back consumer protection and you can return medicare. You can do all of those things, Mr. Speaker. You could even return human rights in this province. But once the agricultural land is gone, you cannot bring that agricultural land back into production. That's what this Spetifore amendment is all about.

The housing isn't needed now. We have enough information that indicates to us that there is land available in that whole area for development of housing for the next 30 years.

This whole Spetifore property has been controversial from the outset. We have car dealers who say that you can't farm the land.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) will please restrain himself.

MS. SANFORD: Doesn't that member have any work to do in his office?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Comox has the floor.

MS. SANFORD: It's been a controversial development from the outset, Mr. Speaker. We know that Mr. Spetifore contributed heavily to the Socreds during campaigns. We know that the MLA for the area tried to get the land out of the agricultural land reserve for him, and campaigned....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I'm not supposed to mention that. We know all that. But we also know that there is another member of this House who had a very high interest in Dawn Development and in that particular land. We know that, Mr. Speaker, because when the election was called the information that was filed — this is the financial disclosure of candidates — points out that the member for MaillardvilleCoquitlam (Mr. Parks) had shares in Dawn Development. He had listed Dawn Development (Canada) Corp. He was a director of Dawn Development. No wonder he was sitting back here applauding this morning when the second member for Surrey was suggesting that this was going to allow the Spetifore land to be developed. He also holds an interest in Sunmask Petroleum, which is very closely related to Dawn Development, since Mr. Anderson is involved very closely with both of them.

The latest information filed by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I hope you have no intention of imputing any dishonourable motives to an hon. member of this House.

MS. SANFORD: No, I'm just saying they have a big interest in this, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then you have made your point. Please proceed to new information.

MS. SANFORD: When you have shares in both Dawn Development and Sunmask, as someone who is seeking the nomination and wants to get into this House, you understand they would have an interest.

When this Spetifore land....

MR. REID: What about BCRIC?

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, I believe we have a debate going on, and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) is really interjecting far beyond any humour. If he continues I think you should name him. If we're going to have debates in this House, we should have them properly, not a continual harassment by one individual who is not contributing anything to the debate but a lot of garbage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has made a valid point. The member for Comox will proceed uninterrupted during the time remaining in the debate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Wanna bet?

MS. SANFORD: My colleague says: "Do you want to bet?" We know some of these members pretty well at this stage.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: See? There he is already. He just can't listen to Mr. Speaker or to points of order. He's a motormouth.

When this land was removed from the ALR by the cabinet, overruling the Land Commission, we were told that it was fine-tuning; yet the agrologists from the Land Commission knew and told everybody that this land was quite capable of producing food. We know now that it has nothing to do with fine-tuning. Way back then it had to do with protecting the interests of the Socreds and their supporters.

There's one other thing I would like to refer to, which again goes back to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, who was an alderman at one point. It relates to the fact that he did have an interest at that time as well, and he explains what his interest is. I think that's relevant to this debate.

I'm quoting from the Vancouver Sun, Wednesday, May 27, 1981:

"Parks is the alternate GVR director for Port Coquitlam, which means that he would be in charge of casting Coquitlam's three GVRD votes..."

Gee, Coquitlam has three votes? That must be weighted voting.

"...if Mayor Jim Tonn, chairman of the GVRD's planning committee, wasn't able to attend the planning committee meeting. He agreed that the situation could pose 'a potential conflict of interest.' However, if that happened, Parks said he would not discuss the issue, enter in the debate or vote on the decision to change the GVRD's planning map to allow the building of housing on the farm which was released from the agricultural land reserve by the provincial cabinet in January."

[ Page 503 ]

He said he wouldn't participate, he wouldn't be there and he wouldn't be voting. We know that as of the day we had to file our disclosures in this House in this session, he no longer owned any shares — at least on that day. We don't know how many shares anybody has bought since then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you're coming very close to imputing an improper motive to a member of this House. The Chair must caution you in that regard. We look forward to the relevance of your debate.

MS. SANFORD: I just hope, if any members in this House have any interest, that they will absent themselves during any voting that takes place on this particular piece of legislation. Any members. I note that the Speaker of the House has not been here since this debate started.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair must caution you, and it will not caution you once more.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I mustn't mention that. I'm sorry.

This bill represents more centralization in that the government is now going to carry out what it wishes to have happen in this province. This bill does not encourage orderly development at all within any region; it does the opposite. It will virtually eliminate planning. That's what they want. It will ensure that there is chaos and confusion, and we've had enough newspaper commentators of various types comment on that. Most of all, this bill protects their friends, the developers. I'm very strongly opposed to this Spetifore amendment known as Bill 9.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the member who has just spoken, I rise to support Bill 9. It is indeed a pleasure to do so on behalf of those who live not on Vancouver Island and not in the lower mainland, but out in the rural 80 percent of this province, in that area where laws passed here in Victoria, by primarily urban politicians, don't always fit or even make sense.

I listened yesterday afternoon to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), and again this morning to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), who both spoke very eloquently about the terrible effect that this legislation would have on southern Vancouver Island and on that part of the lower mainland, which is all they seem to want to speak about. They're afraid that such a law will allow someone somewhere to make a profit, a forbidden word in the vocabulary of those socialists over there, a dirty word. Those members and several others I've heard in this chamber in the last month think that all there is to this province is Vancouver Island and the lower mainland. They've never ventured into the real world, into the developing part of this province. They've never ventured into that real world where ridiculous planning regulations are hampering the wealth and job production function of this province.

MR. COCKE: You've never done a day's work....

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member for New Westminster, you couldn't hold a candle to the kind of work that I've done in my lifetime.

They've never ventured into the real world, into the interior and northern parts of British Columbia, where all of the wealth.... We're seeing that today with the tough situation in which our prime industries find themselves. We're finding today that there isn't the wealth produced when the mines and the lumber industry in the interior are down; there isn't that wealth returned to the provincial government for the services that they feel are necessary.

But they're starting to realize, Mr. Speaker, that when the main industries in the interior are in trouble, that money is not here to provide those services for the urban citizens of this province — the amenities and the services enjoyed by all urbanites such as even the second member for Victoria. They don't realize where the wealth of this province comes from in the first place. They actually believe that all of the money that this provincial government is able to obtain is manufactured somewhere, possibly in the basements of these buildings or wherever else it is that the socialists expect that money comes from.

[11:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I know differently, and that's why I support this bill. You can't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, even though the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) thinks so. You can't do it, Mr. Member, or you're in trouble. There are those who have tried. We saw an administration in this province from 1972 to 1975 that tried that and would try it again were they to become government once more. They didn't learn enough in three and a half years. Countries such as Britain, Sweden, France and others have tried, and they've experienced the consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud this bill, and I applaud the minister for bringing it in, because it does away with some — not enough — of the bureaucratic, socialist-inspired red tape and useless regulation that we see all over this province, regulation which does absolutely nothing but hamper and tie the hands....

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, I believe that it's improper for a member to reflect upon the actions of a former Premier of this House. I believe the provisions we're now seeking to repeal were brought in by W.A.C. Bennett and Dan Campbell, another honoured former member of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is speaking to the general principle of the bill, and it's quite acceptable.

MR. KEMPF: If I've offended the member for saying something against any previous administration, I apologize. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it's incumbent upon every member of this chamber to get up and speak on behalf of those who sent them here. I don't care who made the mistake — it was a mistake!

Useless regulation does nothing but hamper, tie the hands and drive from this province the entrepreneur who would build, develop and create more wealth in order that all of our citizens might find employment. Time after time in the last month I've heard members opposite talking about the need for jobs in this province. Yes, there's a need, but how do you expect to get them without development? How do you expect to get them without getting rid of the useless regulation that hampers that development in this province? Create, develop, and in the process provide more jobs for the people of British Columbia and a better life for all British Columbians.

[ Page 504 ]

This bill doesn't go far enough. Yes, if I had my way, I'd do away with the regional district concept altogether — and I want to put that on the record of this House!

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: I'd do away with regional districts altogether, Mr. Member for New Westminster. I've said that before. I've said that in this chamber and I've said it out there to the public. If the member for Comox would only listen to her constituents, she would find that they're saying the very same thing. I know what the people of Comox are saying about regional districts, Madam Member. It's a level of government that the taxpayer of this province can't afford, and never could. The budget for the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako, which covers the area that I serve, is $2 million for an area with a population of 32,000 people. That's absolutely preposterous! I'd do away with it completely, not just with the planning function of regional districts. I'd do away with it altogether.

This province is planned to death, and most of it is caused by regional districts. I know that the second member for Victoria, the member for Comox and others on that side of the floor would be aghast if there should be no planning in the unorganized areas of this province, and that's because they don't know. I heard them say yesterday and today that plans are sacred and planners are God, and they know what is best for everyone. The planners are God and the citizens mean nothing; that's what those people over there are saying. The citizens of this province mean nothing; it's only the planners that are important. That's what the second member for Victoria said. I heard him. I sat right here and listened to him. It was terrible. I had to sit through the whole thing. I sat here and listened to him yesterday, and that's what he said, among other things. He's never been off the rock; he's never been in the real world.

MR. BLENCOE: Is that what I said?

MR. KEMPF: I believe differently. I guess that's the philosophical difference between me, you and the socialists opposite. They believe that the planners are God and that the citizens out there mean nothing; they shouldn't have any say at all.

I believe that the people of this province come first, whether it's in supporting this kind of legislation or in speaking on their behalf in this chamber. I believe they come first. That's how this great province was built. How would this province look today if these planners, with their self-serving, bureaucratic, development-hampering regulations, were here 50 years ago? What would this province look like today if that were the case?

That's the problem we face today in the interior. We're 50 years ahead of our time in the planning process; that's the problem. All this bull — and that's all that I can call it — about the need for planners in order not to ruin the environment, in order not to scar the landscape with ribbon development, in order not to upset the ecological balance.... The only people whom I can see upsetting the ecological balance are those bureaucrats and socialistic-thinking know-it-alls out there who think they know better than the citizens of this province and who won't let the natural thing happen. They think that development of the kind that built the province, as practised by our pioneers, will damage the environment.

I'll back that up with a very interesting little story about a community in this province that had a population of 10,000 at the turn of the century. There was a gold rush in that day, and everyone was making their way to a little place called Manson Creek, which is 135 miles north of Fort St. James, in my constituency. At the turn of the century there were 10,000 people living in Manson Creek. There were no such regulations in place; there were no planners to tell them where to build or how to build or what to mine or where to mine or how to do it; there was none of that. They were merely going to Manson Creek to find gold, not where the government said it should be but where they thought it might be. Today, 83 years later, the population of Manson Creek is about 35, and I defy you to go up there today and find where those 10,000 people ruined the environment, ecology and landscape of the day because of their ribbon development. It's just not there. It didn't happen, and we didn't have these kinds of regulations in place. That's why I support Bill 9.

One of the most detrimental bodies hampering the rural people of this province and of the area I represent has been the regional district, and in particular its technical planning committee. It's an unelected government. It's a group of unelected non-producers making planning decisions for the people of that area and telling those who would aspire to building and creating wealth and jobs in this province what they can or cannot do. That's democracy? Is that the democracy that the member for Comox was talking about? Not on your life. If this bill does anything, it lets a little freedom seep back into the system in doing away with the technical planning committees in this province.

[11:45]

The second member for Victoria talked yesterday about the Land Use Act. Yes, that piece of legislation was left to die on the order paper here in this Legislature last session, to the sure detriment of the people of this province. This bill — and I would hope others that follow — seeks to bring back some of the badly needed changes and return some of the freedoms to the rural people of this province sought by the Land Use Act.

MR. BLENCOE: It was an embarrassment, and you know it.

MR. KEMPF: It wasn't an embarrassment to me, Mr. Second Member for Victoria.

Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that this bill doesn't go far enough. It begs companion legislation which once and for all will provide a rural member on the regional district, if in fact we are set in our minds on retaining that regional district system. I said before I'd do away with it. But if we are set in our minds on keeping it, we need to give back to the rural representatives on the regional district board the right to speak for those who elect them. They can't now, Mr. Speaker. Regional members on that board must have the authority over a stacked regional board. Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), I see the puzzled look on your face. That's how much you know about the rural area of this province. That's just how much you know about it. You think that that's not possible. It is possible; in fact it exists on the board of the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako. Surprise, surprise. That's the way it is, The rural members must be given back the authority to speak for the people who elect them. They must have the authority over a stacked regional board to make decisions on behalf of those who sent them to that board.

[ Page 505 ]

This bill doesn't even go one-third of the way, in my estimation, in returning the freedoms so necessary to those rural people and to the development of this province. It's certainly a step in the right direction. It's a start; it's a beginning, Mr. Speaker; and again I say I applaud the minister for bringing it in. I support this bill.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member attributed a remark to me that I stated yesterday that planners are God. That is inaccurate, and he knows it. What I did say, Mr. Speaker, was that planners and....

MR. REID: You not only don't know what you're talking about, but you can't hear.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please state the correction.

MR. BLENCOE: The member continues to blaspheme me in this particular chamber.

Mr. Speaker, what I did say was that planners are part of a civilized community; that indeed you need coordination at the regional level of long-range planning and directions. Without that you invite chaos. I said that planners are important for that. The member was incorrect, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The correction has been noted. The member rose under standing order 42.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier yesterday, upon leave being given to proceed to public bills and orders, the hon. House Leader called the order for second reading of Bill 4 intituled Income Tax Amendment Act. The hon. Minister of Finance, having charge of the said bill, did then, according to Hansard, move second reading of the bill and was apparently about to speak to the motion when the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rose on a point of order: namely, that the rule against anticipation of debate ought to apply so as to preclude any discussion of a tax bill until after conclusion of the budget debate. The hon. member referred the Chair to a ruling made in 1932, as it appears in the Journals of the House, 1932, at pages 78 and 79. Let me say first that if the hon. member had not waited until after the motion was made for second reading, as he did, but had raised the matter immediately upon the order being called for second recording of the bill, which was the proper time to do so, the entire matter could have been dealt with more expeditiously.

However, in any event, and with the greatest deference to the hon. member for Skeena, he has misconceived the effect of the ruling which he cited. A careful reading of the ruling of Mr. Speaker Davie shows that he did not apply the rule of anticipation so as to preclude debate on the taxation bill in question, but on the contrary, permitted debate thereon to proceed. What the Speaker on that occasion did say, before proceeding with the debate, was, and I quote:

"In order to remedy this situation insofar as tax bills are concerned, 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."

The reason he did so was clearly based upon a proper application of the anticipation rule which is to be found at pages 403 and 404 of the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, where it is said, and I quote:

"Stated generally, the rule against anticipation (which applies to other proceedings as well as motions) is that a matter must not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated, but it may be anticipated if it is contained in an equally or less effective form. A bill or other order of the day is more effective than a motion."

Thus in the present case the content of Bill 4 can be more effectively and specifically debated while on the bill itself, as opposed to a more limited discussion thereon during the budget debate.

In concluding, I should observe that the sole effect of Mr. Speaker Davie's ruling was to suggest to the House that it would be a convenient practice if in the future, taxation legislation was deferred until conclusion of the budget debate. In doing so, he was taking cognizance of statements made at Westminster, where members have great difficulty by reason of numbers in getting their motions debated — often only after a ballot with other members' motions — and where therefore to be preempted by a bill would be frustrating indeed. This is not the case, however, in this House and, in any event, in accordance with the authorities which I have cited, debate by the House on legislation, whether it relates to taxation measures or otherwise, may proceed before conclusion of the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair. An examination of the Journals of this House will disclose to hon. members that such debate has frequently occurred over the years under identical circumstances.

MR. BARNES: Just as a matter of clarification, would you repeat that last line in that judgment, please? I got confused on the last line.

MR. SPEAKER: For the benefit of the member: an examination of the Journals of the House will disclose to hon. members that such debate has frequently occurred over the years under identical circumstances.

MR. BARNES: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.