[ Page 533 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Services for mentally retarded. Mr. Barnes –– 533

Diversion centre funding. Ms. Brown –– 534

Probationers' job-finding service. Ms. Brown –– 534

Committee to recommend appointment of auditor-general. Mr. Howard 534

Terminations in the Ministry of Environment. Mrs. Wallace –– 534

Northeast coal. Mr. Lea –– 535

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

Mr. Howard –– 535

Mr. Reynolds –– 536

Mr. Macdonald –– 539

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 544

Mr. Lockstead –– 545

ME Barnes I –– 548

Ms. Brown –– 550

Mr. Skelly –– 554

Tabling Documents

Five-year forest and range program, 1983 to 1988, Ministry of Forests.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 558

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: In the gallery today are a number of the 3,500 volunteers who will this year be involved in the 1983 Summer Games. I'm sure all members are aware that this year the games are being held in the beautiful municipality of Maple Ridge. On behalf of the volunteers who are here today, I would like to invite my colleagues on both sides of this House, as well as those people in the gallery who might be on the mainland over the weekend, to come to Maple Ridge and join with us in the sixth running of the B.C. Summer Games.

MR. COCKE: I would like the House to welcome my friend, Ms. Pat Blight, here with her mother, Mrs. Glady Portsmouth, and Mrs. Doris Holland, who are visiting from England. Would the House welcome them.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to Mrs. Jan Field, a constituent of mine who is visiting Victoria.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have two visitors from Vancouver–Little Mountain today, and on behalf of my colleague in Little Mountain I would like to welcome Irwin Mangham and Henry Herlihy.

MS. SANFORD: There are a number of visitors here today from the constituency of Comox. From Parksville there are Kay Chapman, Ann Klees, Eleanor Lawrence, Elaine Van Horn and Pepper McLeod, and from Courtenay there is Betty Hlookoff. I'd ask everybody to make them welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today are two ladies from the constituency of Boundary–Similkameen, Mrs. Barbara Lawrence and Mrs. Jean Mitchell. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

Oral Questions

SERVICES FOR MENTALLY RETARDED

MR. BARNES: This question is for the Minister of Human Resources. The minister announced plans to gradually diminish the role of the institutions for the mentally retarded, and she said that she would do this in consideration of the need to have resources in place as far as volunteers, social service agencies, churches, resource centres and so forth are concerned. I'm wondering if these private agencies have been contacted by the minister — the churches, social service clubs and other facilities that she feels will be made available on a voluntary basis — and if she could indicate to the House which ones there are and where they are.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't know if the member is referring to Tranquille specifically, or in general. If I may just respond to the services for the mentally retarded: there was a commitment by the government some two years ago that there would be a deinstitutionalization of our mentally retarded institutions and it would be done within ten years. The Tranquille facility has already been announced in the budget speech and within the next two years will be closed down. Just as we have done in bringing the mentally retarded into the community, we will work with local chapters of the mentally retarded associations and various organizations in the province. That model is already in place, has been done traditionally within the ministry for some years now, and will continue in the same way.

MR. BARNES: The minister indicates that the original plan for the Tranquille decentralization of services to the mentally retarded was to take place over a ten-year period. Could the minister indicate how she could condense a ten-year decentralization program into a two-year period, and what facilities are in place with respect to meeting the needs of those several hundred clients?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the commitment was within ten years. The B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded, the various chapters of the mentally retarded associations throughout the province at that time, were in touch with us to applaud our commitment to the institutionalization. That it is happening now within the first two years of that ten-year period means that it will take within the next two years to finish. It means that it will be done in an orderly way so that all of the families can be involved in the planning, and so will all the associations.

The member's question would seem to indicate that when we made the announcement of the institutionalization over a ten-year period we would wait ten years until we did it. I have to correct him on that. It was within ten years. Any person who is in the institution at this point in time, being consistent with the desires and, indeed, the lobbying of the mentally retarded associations, would not want to leave the mentally retarded for another ten years before action.

MR. BARNES: This isn't really a supplementary; it refers back to the original question to the minister with respect to the community resources she has referred to as being available. What specific churches, service clubs and other facilities in the community will be available as volunteers? Have you been in touch with any specific ones? Would you please table that information, if you have it available?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, my response to the question, both yesterday and within the media in the last couple of days, was that I am quite confident that there are service clubs, that there are different institutions who will. I don't plan, as the Minister of Human Resources, to organize those. Those will come from the community as they have traditionally. They have been inspired by people who want to do good works in the community, have done good works in the community and will continue to do so.

[2:15]

MR. BARNES: I can appreciate the tradition of cooperation by volunteers in the community, but is the minister suggesting to the House that the government is now expecting people through the volunteers and through some kind of charity program, by whatever means, to pick up the statutory responsibilities that it has?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The short answer is no. The extended answer is the fact that we have many services in place within the ministry, and we'll continue to do that good

[ Page 534 ]

job we've always done, with a very professional and good staff.

MR. BARNES: Just one final question on this. Could the minister indicate specifically the churches and the service clubs that she herself has been in touch with, and would she table that information? In other words, what consultation has she had with respect to the plan she has?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

DIVERSION CENTRE FUNDING

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Attorney-General about another group who've been dumped on the community. He announced last week that he would be reviewing the decision of his ministry to terminate the funding for diversion centres, that very valuable resource which funnels non-violent first offenders into the community. Can the minister now assure the House that he's decided to continue funding that very valuable resource?

HON. MR. SMITH: The short answer to the member's question is no; the longer answer is that no decision has been taken with respect to the diversion centres. There's no doubt that the concept of diversion is a valuable and useful concept, because it attempts to deal with a number of first offenders or prospective offenders outside the justice system, without bringing them before the courts. It is extremely valuable and can be very cost-effective. I would not lightly make alterations to diversion programs. But it is incumbent upon me, as it is on all ministers, to examine all programs as to the way in which these services are being delivered, and that examination will continue. I can tell the member that so far as the concept of diversion is concerned, I have a good regard for that concept.

MS. BROWN: The concept doesn't work unless the resource is in place. What I'm hoping is that the minister is going to continue funding the resources while he examines the concept or whatever.

PROBATIONERS' JOB-FINDING SERVICE

I have another question for the Attorney-General. Maybe he would like to answer it at the same time as the first question about keeping the centres going while he re-examines the concept. Can he explain to us why his ministry has decided to close down the job-finding service for people on probation? The service has apparently been notified that effective September 1 they are no longer going to be available to probationers who need that service. Can you explain that to us?

HON. MR. SMITH: That is one service which, while formerly funded by this government directly, will have to be performed through and by other agencies. The funding will not be continued for that program, as I announced on Friday.

MS. BROWN: I'm really puzzled about this, Mr. Speaker. All the research done by the ministry and other sources ties the success of probation to jobs, so I don't understand why the minister would deliberately terminate the job-finding program when that is so important in terms of the rehabilitation of the probationer. However, we are told that other agencies will now have to pick up that slack. Can the minister tell us then whether he has made a commitment to, for example, the John Howard Society? Are they going to be funded to carry on this job, because I gather they have volunteered to do so, or are we going to depend on the churches and the other groups that the Ministry of Human Resources talked about?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as we are in question period, it would be appreciated if we could stick to questions and leave the speeches for estimates or another place.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I can't assure the member that some other agency will receive additional funding to take on job-finding responsibilities for people on probation. The job-finding aspect of probation is something that will be explored from the standpoint of existing agencies, and also from the standpoint of existing government agencies, but I can't assure the member there will be additional funds for the John Howard Society. There may be encouragement to the society to do that, but I can't assure the member there will be additional funds.

COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND
APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR-GENERAL

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could direct a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in his capacity as Government House Leader, and ask him whether the government has decided to introduce a motion to establish the requisite special committee of the Legislature which would recommend the appointment or reappointment, as the case may be, of the auditor-general, as required by the provisions of the Auditor General Act.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, hon. member, that measure will be taken in due course, and shortly.

TERMINATIONS IN THE
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Some 143 auxiliary employees have been fired — or terminated, if he prefers that term — all to take effect before July 31. Can the minister assure the House that this termination will not jeopardize the receipt of the housing and development bonds as negotiated under the BCGEU master agreement, which are due August 1? Inasmuch as those terminations are effective July 31, can he assure us that those 143 employees will receive their development bonds as covered by the master agreement?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

[ Page 535 ]

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Our side of the House and, I'm sure, the other side of the House and all British Columbians are watching with a great deal of interest what the Japanese Steel Federation are doing around the world in terms of renegotiating coal supply — both volume and prices. We have some real concerns that if the volume is lowered, it will mean additional payment out of the taxpayers' pockets; if the price is lowered, it will mean that the companies are the ones to suffer. We were wondering whether the minister responsible is intending or has decided to make a report back to the House soon on the ramifications of northeast coal and the negotiating downward of tonnage and prices. I know that all British Columbians would like to know what is currently going on. Has the minister decided to make a report to the House in that regard?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I am most happy to report on that great project that is employing thousands of British Columbians here in the province this summer, the project that the NDP wanted to see closed down. I am also very happy to report that as of this morning the project is on schedule and on budget, and I know that disappoints you.

Now with regard to rumours about the Japanese steel industry, I am also very happy to report that as of about two weeks ago the Japanese steel industry states that their earlier estimate of about 93 million tonnes production this year has been upped to about 100 million tonnes. I must report to the House and to those in the press who might be interested that that is unofficial as yet. But it does state that the Japanese steel industry bottomed out and is now in a recovery. As I have told the citizens of British Columbia and, indeed, the opposition, this project could never have been built at a better time in history, and will come on at a time in history when it is needed and when all other jurisdictions, including our great neighbour to the south, have stopped port development and infrastructure development. This little government in this great province had the courage to carry on, and I'll tell you that when the coal is needed, we in this little province, Mr. Speaker, will be there to capitalize on the additional coal that is required.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. members, not only must questions follow the rule of brevity, but answers, in the same vein, must adhere to those very same rules.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 9.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983
(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I must advise you that the Hansard lights are unfortunately not working. We will inform the members, in an appropriate method, of their actual time remaining.

MR. HOWARD: I'm rather apprehensive about those appropriate means of drawing this to our attention, Mr. Speaker. I hope it is you, Mr. Speaker, who engages in that and not the group opposite that passes itself off as the government of this province. I'll rely on Mr. Speaker for my protection.

Yesterday I had indicated that at a previous time the New Democratic government in 1972-75 undertook to pay respects to democracy and to the desirability of municipalities and people by appointing a committee to examine alterations that might be needed in municipal legislation. That committee travelled throughout the province and heard from various people. I'm told that the person who now holds the position of Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) in the House was a member of that committee at that time. The person who is the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was also a member of that committee, as was the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and, I understand, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). I just picked out those members because they are currently on the treasury benches and purport to be part of the government of this province. It would seem to me that having had that delightful experience of engaging in democracy and listening to input from groups and municipalities throughout the province, they would be all the more delighted to support the idea that that's what should happen with municipal legislation in this day and age.

I pointed out also that bringing the bill in without regard to the consultative process, never mind the input process, about legislation affecting municipalities is basically an affront to that level of government. Many elected municipal people have expressed opposition to the bill, and many have expressed regrets and concern about its impact.

I'm sure the minister will clear up any misunderstandings that I may have about what I have been told or the accuracy of this, but I was told that there was a meeting scheduled to be held next month on the 23rd of August between at least members of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. They feel that they are the focal point of the attack against them. That meeting was to be held to discuss the implications of this bill. In the face of that we see the government proceed to call the bill, to insist upon its passage, to intrude it into the normal course of debate about other matters and thus to ignore the legitimate concerns of the people of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and others who wanted to have some say with respect to this particular piece of legislation.

[2:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If the bill proceeds in the House to receive second reading any time before that particular August 23rd meeting, or any other meetings with municipalities and the minister or the government that are to take place, then it's another insult to local governments. I think it's most improper and most unfair for the minister or the government to have gone ahead and

[ Page 536 ]

agreed to a particular meeting to discuss a particular piece of legislation, as appears to be the case here, and then go ahead and say: "Well, we're really not interested in what you've got to say at the meeting. We want to present you with a fait accompli, with the bill having already been passed. Therefore what representations you may have to make to it are of no consequence."

It would be wise and prudent, and I'm sure the minister would receive a great many words of applause from municipal governments, if he would exert his influence in the cabinet — and he has considerable, we know that, even though he's just recently been appointed to it; his authority, power and influence in the cabinet transcends most of the members who have been there for longer periods of time — and ask that the bill be pulled back and held in abeyance, at least until August 23 and until the people who are having their rights impinged upon by this piece of legislation have an opportunity to make their representations and advise the minister what they think about it.

If he's not prepared to go in that direction, then I'd urge him to take an alternative course of action which would permit further examination of the bill without its having actually received the endorsement of this Legislature at its second-reading level: that is, to deal with it before the Municipal Affairs and Housing committee of the Legislature, which was appointed on opening day, you'll recall, Mr. Speaker, and which exists and is there for the purpose of being an extension of this Legislature to deal with municipal matters to give the general public, or anybody interested in specific legislation, an opportunity to come before the committee and make their views known. There is a procedure available.

It may be that some of the purists in procedural matters — and there are some around — would say that what I'm about to suggest would actually require the leave of the House to accomplish. I argue that it doesn't require leave of the House and that it's possible to go ahead and do what I'm about to do by a simple majority vote. That is not to have the bill read a second time now, as is the case, but instead to put that to one side and refer the subject matter of the bill to a committee. It's a procedure that Beauchesne endorses, and we draw upon the great knowledge of Beauchesne on many occasions in this chamber. It's a procedure that both in the fourth edition of Beauchesne, which has existed for a long, long period of time before the current fifth edition revision, which — I don't see it on the table right at the moment but I know it's there and they look at it from time to time.... It's a procedure that's available there and that is used in the House of Commons in Ottawa. It has not been used here, to my knowledge, or at least I haven't been able to find out where it has been, but I would argue the point, while the government House Leader shakes his head and says it has not. Just because something has not been done is no reason not to do it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There were a lot of things done in this House before you got here.

MR. HOWARD: I refrain from replying to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I know how desperate he is to get his words of wisdom on the record. I'd suggest if he wants to do that he follow the normal course of events. I'm advised by the Chair that my time will be concluded in a matter of a minute or something of that sort — an ideal opportunity for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, who has such an abiding interest in decent dealing with people, or so he tells, to express his views with respect to this particular bill. That way they'd be on the record and they wouldn't be just sort of, you know, blurts and puffs of words indicating that perhaps all the member is doing is relieving his political flatulence by sitting in his seat. He should get up and talk about matters directly.

In any event, I want to urge....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Time!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has just a few moments left, and I'll ask him to conclude his speech.

MR. HOWARD: I want to urge the minister to take one or two courses of action to pay respect to the desirability of municipalities to have some input into this legislation, and that is either to put it to one side and not proceed with it further until some time later on or to take the course available procedurally, whether by leave or otherwise — and if he wants to seek leave to do it, he'd have no difficulty getting leave from this side of the House; we're very accommodating indeed when it comes to matters of democracy. We'll give the minister leave to move that the subject matter be referred to the Municipal Affairs and Housing committee so it can hold hearings, listen to input and come back and report to the House what it, the committee, conceives to be the best course of action. Take either one of those two, and he'll be applauded tremendously not only by members on this side of the House but by people all throughout this province as well. Exert your influence, Mr. Minister — you have a considerable amount. All we have to do is look at how he got here in the first place to understand that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please conclude your remarks. Your time has expired.

MR. HOWARD: If my time is expired, then I thank you for your attention and your courtesy.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm only standing up to talk on this bill to say that I really support it and support what the minister is doing in this area. Because I was at one time the Member of Parliament in Burnaby–Richmond–Delta where some of our colleagues for the NDP are referring to this bill as the Spetifore amendment, I felt that I should get up and add some of what I know to this topic of the Spetifore property in Delta and why this act would benefit what is happening. It would benefit not only that area but also other people in the province. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) says we keep on bringing it up. I'm not ashamed to talk about it. The hon. second member for Victoria doesn't know what he's talking about. He's never had to invest any of his money in any projects or take a risk at anything. He's only had an opportunity to sit here and criticize people who do take risks in this province and do take chances with their money to employ a lot of his friends.

I was going to comment on a number of the comments from the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) when he got into the Dawn Development issue and the stock exchange — I do know a little bit about the stock exchange. I see he finished off his comments yesterday by saying he was going to make

[ Page 537 ]

some comments today about the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) and his ownership in stocks in the Dawn Development firm. I would be happy to have that debate with him at any time on shares that other members of this House, including members of his own party, own in other companies. Since he didn't talk about it today....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Get the Blues. It's the second to last page — your quote in there.

Since he didn't talk about it today, I'll save it for another debate and really stick to Bill 9. His comments yesterday, when I read through them, for a number of pages really didn't refer to Bill 9, except for a development company and the possibility that they may be developing something in the Delta area. But I will make some comments on Bill 9, which the hon. member for Skeena made some comments on himself yesterday. I quote him from the Blues where he says: "I know the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) spent hours saying what a great need there is for that development in that area, and that the Spetifore property could not grow potatoes. They were not viable." The truest thing that he said in his speech yesterday was: "I'm not a farming expert." I couldn't help but agree with him more.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member now is not imputing any dishonourable motive to the other member.... I heard a concern....

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I would make it plain that I'm not a farming expert either. This member said that he was not a farming expert, and I am not a fanning expert. I don't think there's anything putting the member in disrepute for saying that.

What I'm trying to point out is that the member himself said he was not a fanning expert, and I'm quoting out of the Blues what he said himself: "The only thing I'm worried about is that the legislation before us right now is not needed in its present form. It must have some refinement, and it needs additional consultation from those in the community before it is jammed through." I would suggest to the hon. member for Skeena that this legislation has had lots of consultation. If he reads the minister's own statements and press releases he will see that the people of this province have been consulted on Bill 9 and that most of the people in this province approve of Bill 9.

I think the members across should also look back at what some of their ministers said when they were in power. I'm looking at a headline from the Vancouver Sun of February 14, 1974.

MR. ROSE: That's Valentine's Day.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Coquitlam–Moody, who was a former colleague in the House of Commons, says February 14 was Valentine's Day. Well, it wasn't Valentine's for some people that year. The headline said: "Lauk says Land Commission Act not designed to save all farmland." How many times have we heard these speakers from the NDP talk about their Land Commission and its saving farmland? Out of that article it said: " 'Environmentalists trying to preserve Tilbury Island from industrial developments should realize the Land Commission Act was not designed to protect all farmland in British Columbia,' said Industrial Development minister Gary Lauk," the second member for Vancouver Centre, on that day. This act that they brought in themselves, they said at that time, was not designed to save all farmland. They took a large chunk of land in Delta to put an industrial park in. At that time, although the municipality agreed with the industrial park, they wanted a much larger area taken out of the agricultural land reserve, and because they arbitrarily made the decision as a government to just take a little piece of land for this park, the farmers surrounding that industrial park now have farms that are not viable. The fill that has to be put in the sand that is piled in to make Tilbury Island has raised the water table surrounding that industrial park. You cannot grow anything on the surrounding areas, and those farmers are stuck with land that is worthless. That's because of legislation the NDP brought in, and because they have no compassion for the farmers who are in business surrounding Tilbury Island.

I see the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is going: "Aha, we have compassion." Your party, Mr. Member, has no compassion when it comes to people in business, and you know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The farmer's a businessman.

MR. REYNOLDS: The farmers of this province support this government, because we have compassion for them.

When it comes to the Spetifore land, the member for Skeena said we need a little more time. How much time do you have to give anybody? That land in Delta was first brought up for rezoning in 1972, eleven years ago. It's been debated. He said the council should have some input. The council in Delta has voted a number of times to develop that land. As the NDP knows, even the GVRD voted 100 percent to send it to their planning committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Originally.

MR. REYNOLDS: That was originally. But only after the NDP members of this Legislature put pressure on the GVRD and said: "This is a good hot political issue; we've got a guy here with a farm who donates to the Social Credit Party. Let's get together and vote this thing down so we can cause some problems."

MR. BLENCOE: How much did he give?

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Victoria asks how much the member gave. Well, I would like to know how much his unions gave him in the last election — $100,000. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Spetifore didn't give anywhere near that kind of money. He's a good card-carrying member of the Social Credit Party and donates to it, and it's his right to do so. He shouldn't be criticized for his right to participate in the democracy of this province.

MR. BLENCOE: Sellout! Sell out our farmland!

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Victoria called "sellout." That's typical of a socialist NDP councilman in Victoria who doesn't know what he's talking about. He's against the people of this province participating in business in this province. He just can't stand the fact that some of them do.

[ Page 538 ]

Back to Bill 9.

[2:45]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is courtesy that if one's going to heckle he at least be in his seat. The member will continue uninterrupted.

MR. REYNOLDS. I was going to mention that the member wasn't in his seat when he was heckling, but I wasn't sure if that was one of the regulations here. I see that it is, and I wish he would take his seat. It's a little easier to hear him when he's sitting next to me. It's an awful lot of fun to heckle with him, because he doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time.

If these members of the NDP would like to read the bill, it says: "Official plans are being eliminated as a deregulation measure to streamline the development approval process and to strengthen the autonomy of municipal government."

How can any member in this Legislature be against deregulation, after what has happened in this country and in this province in the past few years with the increases in employment in the civil service? I don't know how they can. They're an anti-business group. They just don't understand what makes this economy tick. And they don't understand why they didn't win the last election. How many times have we heard from the NDP: "God, the way you're going we'll win the next election"? I'm only 41 years old, but we've been hearing it from before then. You've only won one election in this province in the last hundred years, and that seems to make you feel awfully confident.

HON. MR. BENNETT: One too many.

MR. REYNOLDS: The Premier said that was one election too many. It certainly was one election too many for the people of this province.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll ask all hon. members to come to order, and I ask the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound to speak to the bill.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I was just quoting the explanatory note from Bill 9. It's a little tough when you keep on getting these barbs and have to answer them; it's very hard to keep quiet. The second member for Victoria said: "a sellout." Well, Bill 9 is not a sellout to anyone. It's a positive step in this province to put some power back into the municipalities where the power belongs, the power to have municipalities do their own issues.

I was looking at the vote in the GVRD; if you took from that vote the weighted vote of the city of Vancouver, that proposal for the Dawn Development would have been 24 to 23 in favour of it. What right do the elected officials of the city of Vancouver have to tell the citizens of Delta that they can't have a development in their municipality that's going to provide homes for people who want to live in Delta, homes out there on the ocean, in one of the most beautiful areas of the city? What right do those elected officials of the city of Vancouver have to tell those people in Delta that they can't have an 89-acre park donated by the developer? Expensive land, one of the nicest 89 acres of land in this whole province, right on the Pacific Ocean with a beautiful sandy beach — donated by a developer to the GVRD, and the NDP says: "That's no good for the people of this province."

Mr. Speaker, those same people in the city of Vancouver don't mind sending all their garbage to Delta, and we accept it. The people of Delta have accepted that garbage. In all the years I was a Member of Parliament we accepted the garbage, and we never complained. I never had a complaint in six years; not one resident said: "Let's not take the garbage from all those people." But we're tired of taking the garbage of how their councilmen and aldermen vote when it comes to the GVRD. Somebody who's an appointee on Bowen Island should not be voting against something in Delta, any more than that member and the council of Delta should be going to the GVRD and telling us what we should do in West Vancouver or Bowen Island.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Oh, the man asks about the mayor of West Vancouver. Why do you think I just made that comment? I have no complaints at all with the way he wants to vote, but I'll tell him right now that I disagree with him. I don't think he has any right to go to a GVRD meeting and tell the people of Delta that they can't have a housing development, any more than I think the members of the Delta council can go to him and say: "You shouldn't put any more houses in the British Properties, or you shouldn't do this in Horseshoe Bay." That should be up to the local council. The people who live in the area know best what they want. At least the people in West Vancouver and the people in Delta don't elect communists to city council; they have free enterprisers on their council. Why should I, living in West Vancouver or Delta — I've lived in both locations — have to put up with the likes of Harry Rankin and Bruce Yorke, all those nonsensical people and the way they want me to run my community when I'm not even part of what goes on in their community?

I would suggest to the members of the NDP that the reason I support Bill 9 is because this is the type of situation.... This party did not want B.C. Place downtown, that gorgeous new stadium with a dome, yet a lot of their supporters sure love going there to watch our teams play.

Mr. Speaker, when I first came to this Legislature and heard the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) speak, I thought he was a real wit; but I've since learned that I was only half right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll remind the member that personal references, even if indirect, are unparliamentary.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Victoria keeps asking me how Vancouver alderman Don Bellamy voted. For his information, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bellamy voted in favour. You should check your facts. You're usually wrong, and you're wrong once again today. Mr. Bellamy voted in favour of the GVRD proposal, not against it. Go and check your records. If you want to look, it's right here.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Don Bellamy yesterday voted against this government to withdraw 26 pieces of legislation. That's a matter of record.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will take his place.

[ Page 539 ]

Standing order 42 is quite explicit that no member may speak twice to a question except to explain a relevant point of his speech that may have been misinterpreted or misquoted. I will commend to the second member for Victoria that he read that standing order and not gain the House on incorrect points of order.

MR. REYNOLDS: Speaking on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker, I have not mentioned the vote yesterday, as the second member for Victoria stated. The only thing I've talked about is the vote on Dawn Development, and he was yelling — I'm sure it was picked up — "How did Bellamy vote?" I told him how Bellamy voted; he voted in favour of it. If the second member for Victoria wants to talk about how Mr. Bellamy voted yesterday, let him wait for his next turn in the debate, as you have suggested to him. Then he can say what he wants and I will talk back to him at that time.

I could go on and on, but I think we all want to wrap up this debate, because it's such a good one. I want to have it on record, Mr. Speaker, that the new Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) has done a great job in his department. I commend him for bringing in this bill. I commend him for the work he's putting into his department. I know he's already been in contact with areas of my constituency that he's never been to. He's trying to find out in his new department what all these municipalities want, and he knows he will have my support and the support of the people in the municipalities in my area. I congratulate him on his appointment. I congratulate him on Bill 9, the Municipal Amendment Act, and I'm very proud to stand here and say that I support it.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I'm pleased that you cited standing order 42(l), which is precisely the standing order I'm rising under to indicate that a part of my comments yesterday have been misquoted or misunderstood by the member who just sat down. Let me read what I said:

"Perhaps what is necessary is to have a review of the things I was going to say between now and resumption of the sitting of the House tomorrow, at which time I can expand upon the shareholdings then declared by the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) and the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson). In the interim I'd like to move to adjourn the debate....

There is a vast difference between "can," which is an ability, and a commitment that one will. I think the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound — or wherever he is from — unconsciously misquoted that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. Let me advise the House that it is the practice under standing order 42 for a member who has finished speaking to use standing order 42 to stand again and correct a statement he might have inadvertently or incorrectly made, but that is normally done after his speech and not during debate on other matters. That is a courtesy; it is not in our standing orders, but I just thought I'd bring it to your attention.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reply in any detail right away to what was said by the hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, except in general terms. The remarks sounded to me like those of a promoter of Dawn Development. They sounded like the kind of province that we are moving into, where the great gods that we will be worshipping are the high-flying real estate speculators, the people who go to municipalities and get the zoning laws changed in their favour so that their land which was valued at $100,000 becomes worth $750,000 overnight. This is the kind of new rich who are benefiting from the radical-right, Social Credit revolution. It is not the ordinary people of this province. It is the Howe Street hustlers who are benefiting.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: There can be a lot of chatter, but that is the kind of sad province of British Columbia that we're living in and have been living in, particularly in these last four or five years.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I'm going to lecture. But I'm going to take my time and try to put in perspective what is happening in this little bill. I think it is rather unfortunate that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in introducing this very important legislation which is going to change the face of this province — in my opinion for the worse, for a long period of time — devoted about one page of Hansard to his introduction: "Specifically, the legislation provides for the removal of the power of regional districts to enact and enforce regional plans. These plans have been an unnecessary level of land use control."

They go a long way back, Mr. Speaker. I speak for a moment about the area, which has its green places, its industry and its recreation spots, known as the lower mainland — the great delta of the Fraser River — which will be despoiled if we abandon, as this bill does, the regional plans which have, with a great deal of dedication and contribution from public citizens of note.... One, for example, is Don Lanskail of the lumber industry who, as I happen to know for other reasons, was one of the active persons in developing the first regional green plan for the Fraser Valley. Those plans are wiped out by a line in this bill. The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound says: "What does it matter to the people of Vancouver what happens in Delta? And what does it matter to the people of Burnaby what happens in Vancouver?"

Interjection.

MR. MacDONALD: Oh, you stopped, but the regional....

Interjection.

MR. MacDONALD: Well, I've misquoted you. You didn't say Burnaby, that's perfectly true, but what you are saying in this bill is that every municipality....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I couldn't hear the Premier, I'm sorry.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: All right. But what the bill is doing is saying that Burnaby's business in terms of planning is just for Burnaby, and Vancouver's business in terms of planning is

[ Page 540 ]

just for Vancouver — it doesn't affect those other residents who live across Boundary Road. It's saying that what happens in West Vancouver where, for example, there are ski and recreation areas, has nothing to do with the people of Delta, who also happen to ski.

Interjection.

[3:00]

MR. MACDONALD: You restricted it, but the bill does not restrict it. The bill is eliminating regional planning throughout the whole lower mainland. The minister, with that momentous decision....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, the whole province, but I'm just speaking of the mainland at the present time. I'll mention the Victoria region too in a moment.

The minister, with one page, wipes out about 20 years of British Columbian history, from the slow development of the regional planning in the lower mainland area as a unit, then in other capital regions — all wiped out with one page of debate. Why? I'll come back later to the why and what kind of a province we're really creating.

What I'm saying now is that it is a great tragedy in terms of a livable British Columbia. It is a particular tragedy in terms of a livable lower mainland region, the Fraser Valley delta. What happens when you say that each municipality can do it on their own? Two things happen. To take the first point, you begin to have what is known as smokestack competition. Smokestack competition means that industries which may be beneficial in terms of employment, but that also can be very detrimental in making a livable area, are bid for by each municipality in order to increase its tax base.

The competition goes in to offer concessions to industry, whether it's a steel mill, automotive, trucking or whatever, to locate in that municipality. Each municipality has to bid in terms of lower taxes and things of that kind to try to attract the industry. But there is no kind of planning whatsoever in that kind of a situation. There is no kind of planning so that industry can be allotted to areas within the greater region which are beneficial and zoned for industry as part of the regional plan. I feel kind of embarrassed because I'm saying very commonsense things that have been long accepted in British Columbia, but they are being wiped out by this little bill which the minister devotes about five paragraphs to in his speech.

Sure, you're going to have, among other things, smokestack competition: municipalities bidding and giving particular concessions — I don't suppose under the table, but they're giving concessions — in order to attract that industry and develop and bigger tax base to bring down their mill rates. I'm not blaming the municipalities.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know, and if you want an example of that kind of....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Why didn't the minister say so, then, in his opening statement in introducing this bill abolishing regional planning? If this is the government's intention....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm getting some unsolicited help from the Premier and my good friend the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). I'm making serious points and I'm still in a good humour, and I should be more angry than I am, and I am a little bit angry.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is saying from his seat that municipalities want to bid against one another to attract industry. If that is part of the defence of the bill, why didn't the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) stand up and say that?

I can take you to places on this North American continent where they've had smokestack competition for industry between small municipalities. I think of the Chicago area, where they have Calumet, which is a famous old Indian name.

AN HON. MEMBER: What were you doing down there?

MR. MACDONALD: What was I doing in Calumet? I didn't go to see the smokestacks. Nobody visits Calumet to see the smokestacks. But a lot of people work there, and the area which was once a beautiful, sort of rural part of Chicago, because of the malplacement of industry, is a desert of acrid fumes and industrial pollution and bad planning, and little box-like houses where the steelworkers and others live, crammed right up against the great factories. Everybody knows we need factories, but plan them! Plan the location. We have done it. It's all there in the plan that is being wiped out in the regional district today. Out near Langley there's all kinds of industrial land waiting to be developed. B.C. Hydro has also purchased industrial lands. And so they should, because as industries expand we must have locations for them. But let's plan it.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Langley has a planning department.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Langley is one municipality, and all of them will have their planning departments. But all these little units.... That's what I'm trying to say: the idea that all the little units should plan one by one for their own interests was something that was rejected in this province of British Columbia about 20 years ago, because what happens in one municipality affects the lifestyle of people outside that municipality. Everybody knows that.

MRS. JOHNSTON: You're saying fire the local planning departments?

MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm not. You're trying to put words in my mouth. You're trying to say that I intend to fire the municipal planning departments. The answer is no. I do happen to know there are problems of jurisdiction between the municipal planning function and the regional planning function, and in my opinion there's a good example out here in the Capital Regional District. In my opinion, if the minister had addressed himself to that particular problem, in terms of looking carefully at the jurisdiction of each — what the

[ Page 541 ]

municipality did in its planning was purely within that municipality without regional implications, and the region did the rest — and clarified those lines of jurisdiction, I would support such action. And if, as my good friend Bill Vander Zalm — and I don't mind saying that on a personal, not political, basis — had been able to proceed with his legislation to expedite the approval process in an orderly way in this province of British Columbia, I would have been glad to support the expedition of such approval.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! oh!

MR. MACDONALD: No, the bill was doing.... All right, you're having your fun, but the bill was doing so much more than that. The government did two things, because it was far more than that. It was afraid to go ahead with the bill itself, and then through their political organization they leaked to poor Bill Vander Zalm false reports of the polls that had taken place in Surrey so that the fellow would not run for office again. [Laughter.] Oh, funny! I give you a little bit of real history and the class breaks out into laughter.

Interjection.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: Well, that one happens to be true. If you want to meet me privately I'll tell you more about it

I've given the first reason why I believe there should be regional planning as well as local municipal planning within regional areas. I'm going to give the second reason now.

The second reason is the same reason that the NDP considered when it brought in the Agricultural Land Reserve. That reason is that if every little municipality and every council — and they keep changing year by year — can make these decisions on its own, you're going to get a bunch of hotshots, real estate speculators, rezoners with a sharp pencil who know how to make money, unearned money on a fantastic scale, who will in time knock over this council.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: What Jimmy are you speaking of? I don't even know. Jimmy Rhodes? I'm as serious about my second point as I was about my first.

We brought in the agricultural land reserve because one by one — and at different times this happened — a municipal council would be knocked over by real estate speculators who could do what they wanted within that municipality. And then in time the people recovered and they elected the kind of council that protected the public interest as well as sought orderly development.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It's happened in Delta over the last seven years. Anybody who wants a neighbourhood pub and who's a friend of the Social Credit government can get the support of the Delta council four to three.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: That was granted by the Social Credit government.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: What are they?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Aren't they accountable to their people?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. MACDONALD: They will be accountable someday. But I'm telling you the history. One of them has been accountable to the courts, and that's the late mayor of the municipality, Tom Goode.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'm just pointing out that in the municipality of Delta you have the situation where all the elements come together and where the right kind of developer, whether it's a neighbourhood pub or the Spetifore development, will have that council behind him four to three. If you do not have regional planning, and if you leave it to every little council all over the lower mainland region, that will happen at various times to every one of those councils. For that reason, the NDP government brought in legislation which fortunately this government, although they hate it in their hearts, hasn't been able to dismantle completely — the agricultural land reserve. We knew very well that if it was left to each council, one by one they'd be knocked over by the money power of the speculator; green space in the province of B.C. would continue to disappear on an enormous scale before our eyes, and we would have been recreant to future generations.

What I'm talking about is the same thing when you give up regional planning. The two major reasons why, in my opinion, regional planning should continue and.... These 26 bills are initiating a new dark age in the history of British Columbia, and this is one of them. We shouldn't turn back the clock on something that people of all parties in the past have supported. In the case of the lower mainland, it is a livable region where the people can move about freely from one municipality to the other, where recreation and industry are planned, beaches and skiing are planned, and where somebody out in Delta does indeed have some say about a development of regional size in the city of Vancouver. Why shouldn't they? There are things that the GVRD does which affect the city of Vancouver.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: If the minister is saying that's not the case, he doesn't know what he's talking about. And they should, because we're all part of one great metropolitan area, where what happens in one place affects what happens in others. That's the 20 years of history that you're turning your back on. You come back to ask yourself why it's being done.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: You can make that kind of a proposition if you will, but....

Why is this being done? Why did this government, which for its first seven years of existence I think supported the regional planning idea, suddenly cut it off at this time? Why

[ Page 542 ]

are all the back-benchers and all the rest supporting this particular bill?

[3:15]

MR. REID: Because we've just come from the communities that are being dictated to by the GVRD weighted vote.

MR. MACDONALD: If you wanted to change the procedures of your regional planning, and you and I might disagree on how it might go, then we could sit down and discuss that. But what you're doing is taking a knife to the whole process of regional planning; and the livable nature of the area that you come from, as well as I, is going to be drastically changed in terms of future unborn generations if this kind of legislation is allowed to prevail. It won't for long, because inevitably public opinion will oblige a government of whatever stripe to protect the area as a whole. Don't think you can do it by protecting minute parts of it.

It's going to come back, but what damage will be done in the meantime by this irrational step? I come back to the question, why? The hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) discusses the Spetifore thing, and he has all the banalities which he expresses so well: if you invested money; have you ever done that in your life? Why shouldn't you have return to it? On Howe Street, the promoter doesn't invest the money — very, very seldom — except to hire some guy. They call him to "make market." Most of the time they don't invest the money; they get the escrow shares and so forth. We're not discussing Howe Street, but we ought to some day. We're talking about the Spetifore lands, which is the reason for this bill. I just want to take my time and give some of the implications of this particular legislation.

Here is an area of farmland between 500 and 600 acres. When I say farmland, everybody in the Social Credit ranks says: "It isn't farmland. It isn't." But all the land experts — forget the politicians — said it was farmland. The agricultural land reserve commission said it was farmland, based on the opinion of their experts. The politicians — the Delta council, four to three — said: "You can never use that as farmland. The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), who doesn't know a farm from a stock option, said it's not farmland because you never grow anything on it. In that particular area some of the first potatoes ever grown in the history of Canada were grown.

The owner was very anxious to get his land out of the farm reserve. I can't blame Mr. Spetifore for that. Everybody tries to promote their own interest in life, and there's no use being indignant about that. But what he did was to let the farm run down.

MR. REID: Because he couldn't make any money with it, that's why.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, well, I don't know about that. Other people can. He could have sold it as a farm if he didn't want to keep it up. There's no way that you can convince me why one of the first potato-growing areas in the whole of Canada — maybe the first; I'm not sure of that point — should suddenly become non-farmland.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't sell the potatoes.

MR. MACDONALD: I've obviously got somebody whom I will have to put down as doubtful, if not positively hostile, if not absolutely nuts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: I withdraw the last part, Mr. Speaker. I'm having somebody from Surrey chatter away, and I enjoy his interjections.

Mr. Spetifore had these 500 or 600 acres, which, if you go by the municipal assessment, were worth $500,000 or $600,000. But if he could get that out of the land reserve, what would it be worth? Who would get the money? Who would get the difference between, say, the $500,000 it's worth as farmland and the figures I'm about to give as to what it was worth outside of the agricultural land reserve? There was a big pile of money between those two values which you would call a speculative capital gain or windfall profit, all of it granted out there by a stroke of the pen of the cabinet of the province of British Columbia when they passed the order-in-council on January 16, 1981. So there was tremendous pressure, strongly supported four to three by the Delta council, to get that land out of the reserve.

The story is fairly well known. The present Speaker of the Legislature, the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson), convened a meeting....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have warned this assembly many times that the Speaker of the House cannot be drawn directly or indirectly into debate. Let me quote from Sir Erskine May: "Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege. His action cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or in any form of proceeding, except as a substantive motion. If there is no substantive motion, the member will withdraw any references to the Speaker."

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I'm reciting a history of the events leading up to the exclusion of the Spetifore lands from the agricultural land reserve. The Speaker was then simply the member for Delta; he was not the Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: On my point of order, are we then to ignore history as something that cannot be discussed or introduced into debate, particularly when the actions of the Speaker in question were as the member for Delta, not the Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is an indirect reference to the Speaker of this House. The citation from Sir Erskine May is quite clear. There is a mechanism available, but it is not during this debate. I will tell the House one more time: the Speaker may not, directly or indirectly, be brought into any reference in any debate. His action cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or in any form of proceeding except a substantive motion.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm abiding by your ruling, but I must say it is a most extraordinary thing that you have history, and a gap, and then you say: "A certain member

[ Page 543 ]

who shall be Mr. X..." — and I can't name.... Can I do that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon. member, the rules are clear.

MR. MACDONALD: "...convened the meeting in the Laurel Point Inn, not far from here, on July 14 to prep his buddies up to go before ELUC the next day to get the lands removed by ELUC from the agricultural land reserve."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Do you ever meet with your constituents?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but I don't meet quietly in a hotel room with cabinet ministers and Delta council members and even the minister of public works, who walked out of the meeting in indignation. Then, without anybody with a contrary voice knowing anything about the meeting in the Laurel Point Inn or about the meeting of ELUC, or having a chance to object, the thing that happened at ELUC the next day was a staged manoeuvre that had happened the night before. It took some time after that. ELUC removed the land from the Agricultural Land Commission, and then it wasn't until, I think, next January that the cabinet also did the same thing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I said that the result of that action was to create quick gold on an enormous scale for insiders, not the ordinary people of the province of British Columbia. I refuted what the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) was saying — that people had invested in it. They didn't invest in it — although some are right now. They're buying Dawn bonds — I know that — but that's a very late development, and I feel sorry for those people who happen to be buying that particular security because what is ahead of it in terms of mortgage loans is astronomical. When the cabinet of the province of British Columbia had released the Spetifore lands, Mr. Spetifore and his partners went to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is this on Bill 9?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, the Spetifore lands — that's what Bill 9 is all about. The Spetifore lands are being released by this bill, and I'm telling you the story of the Spetifore lands.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Stick to Bill 9.

MR. MACDONALD: What other reasons are there for Bill 9? Get up and tell us. Just to wipe out regional planning? Just to have smokestack competition between municipalities? Of course not. Bill 9 is the Spetifore amendment. A certain member of this House, who cannot be named, said it was coming. It was already coming. He didn't have to say that. It was already in the works. To wipe out the opposition of the GVRD to the Spetifore development — that's what the bill's doing, and I'm telling you about that development.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Wrong again, Alex.

MR. MACDONALD: Again? I haven't been wrong yet. How can I be wrong again?

The promoters went at once to the Bank of Commerce and they raised the sum of $17 million. Now here you have this land, which people said was too poor to farm, assessed at around $500,000 or $600,000, and they go to the bank after the Social Credit cabinet, with a stroke of its pen, had given this great windfall profit out there and raised $17 million on July 17, 1981. Then they go to the Bank of Montreal and they raise $9 million. And then Spetifore and sons, who were the owners of the land, have a mortgage on there which was $25 million at first but is now a mortgage for the incredible sum of $102 million. I was kind of amused at the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound taking exception to what I said earlier. He says that the Spetifores don't own the land any more. I know it was sold to Dawn Development for $48 million.

MRS. JOHNSTON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, according to the government bills before us Bill 9 appears to be the Municipal Amendment Act, 1983. I see no reference in this bill to the name Spetifore. Could we please have the member speak on Bill 9, the Municipal Amendment Act?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. There have been numerous references during this debate to developments and the principle of this bill as it applies to developments. However, I will ask the hon. second member for Vancouver East to be relevant to the bill and the principle of the bill. I am sure the member is quite prepared to do that.

MR. MACDONALD: I suggest, with respect, to you and your ruling that the hon. member for Surrey reads this bill in far too innocent a way. If we were to simply debate it as just a matter of planning and not appreciate the major effect it's going to have on this province in terms of the developments that are being allowed to go ahead because of it, then I suppose we could debate it very shortly. But I'm saying that it has major implications. Everybody knows that the Greater Vancouver Regional District, by a vote of a fair majority, turned down the Spetifore development. Everybody knows that this legislation brought in by this government will allow the Spetifore development, because all it needs now is Delta council, and Delta council is four to three for this or any other kind of development they want — four to three for the Social Credit Party; true forever in the ranks of death to the Social Credit Party. So this is an example of what we are doing. I think Sir Erskine May and Beauchesne and all of their friends would agree that I'm in order in pointing out the serious social implications. They also affect Vancouver East, because Vancouver East people enjoy the Fraser Valley region — Surrey, Delta and all the rest — as a recreation area.

[3:30]

As a result of this development, the plans of the promoters have got to be for extremely expensive housing. If you've committed yourself to this kind of mortgaging of the land to pay off the speculative gains that were made as a result of this rezoning that has been allowed by the government, you've got to charge a tremendous price for your housing. You're going to have to have super-rich housing in that area. The people of Vancouver, as well as the people of all of the lower mainland regions, are interested in low-cost, affordable housing for families. Do you really think that by releasing the prohibition against this development you are going to get low-cost, affordable housing? Housing for the super-rich, if it can be sold at all, to begin to recover these costs.

Interjection.

[ Page 544 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Developer's risk? There was no risk for the Spetifores. There's going to be risk for people further down the line, but the promoters have got their nest-egg already.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, I love that. The Premier wants to divert attention from what I'm saying by referring to the fact that I've got enough sense not to expose my lifestyle on too wide a scale.

The mortgages against the Spetifore development, including debentures to Royal Trust, total $163 million. What kind of a province are we going to have, where get-rich-quick people, with the help of a cabinet order like that, can have that kind of increased value attached to their land? And they share in it. The community gets nothing of that. Oh, I suppose there's a capital gains tax that filters back in time at the rate of 25 percent, so something comes back. But when we have people out there who are terribly hungry....

I saw in the paper this morning that a taxi-cab driver gets $120 a week. She has three children. She has diabetes and she may lose her licence — I think we all saw the story. When you have that very common kind of good, hard-working citizen in the province of British Columbia, and you turn around to the Spetifores, the Jim Andersons, the Dawns and the speculative fraternity, and you increase the value of this thing with a capital increment, which they on their figures have mortgaged now at $163 million.... How can you look in the mirror and say that there's any kind of social equity in what's happening in this province? How can you say this is good housing, when these built-in costs have to be looked after by those who buy the housing units and then on long mortgages try to bring up their families and pay off the encumbrances against the land in favour of the promoters? So what we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a bill which is very destructive of the environment of the province of British Columbia — and I've only mentioned one region, the lower mainland.

It is a terribly dangerous bill in terms of making it easier for get-rich-quick speculators to rip off the ordinary people of this province who work hard and don't make all that much and don't complain as much as they should and often don't understand some of the things that are going on. So what we have in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, in these 26 bills is not only a radical right revolution, which I don't think was approved by the people in the last election, but we also have a destruction of values that up to the present time were commonly shared between both parties in this House, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. The idea of planning livable regions and some kind of fairness out there has been cut away, and it should be opposed to the limits of our ability.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who is a former Attorney-General, made a comment in his speech with regard to the former mayor of Delta, who is before the courts on a planning matter. I know what his....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, it is a correction. The former mayor of Delta, who was also a....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Was the member misquoting a part of your speech?

MR. REYNOLDS: No, he was misquoting....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then it is not a point of order that you can rise on under this debate.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, he was quoting my speech when he mentioned....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If a part of the speech of the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has been misquoted or misrepresented, he may rise under standing order 42 and explain only that. Is that what the member is seeking to do?

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking to ask the former Attorney-General on a point of order if he would correct the fact that this gentleman, who was a mayor of Delta, was not before the courts on any matter to do with his service as a mayor. I don't....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I think a man's honour is at stake and I think this party that is very concerned about human rights would want to make sure they didn't infringe on another person's human rights.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a point of order. The member will take his chair. The most important thing at stake, I guess, is the rules of this House, which are quite clear and explicit and, I'm sure, understood by everyone who will take the time to read them.

On debate on Bill 9.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support Bill 9. I think the passage of this bill is rather urgent. Some of the members are commenting on why we are against regional planning. I don't think any of us in this province or in this House are against planning, but I think this bill is going to eliminate some of the duplicate levels of planning which have become the paramount exercise in itself — in other words to delay or to block. If you can keep planning for two or three years, you keep employed and you don't have to worry about other things. So a great deal of development in this province is held up.

I would like to point out that despite the NDP efforts.... Their standard stunt is to zero in on one little black spot on a great white sheet of paper, as I made the analogy one time earlier. Their stunt is to deflect attention from the real issue, and the real issue here is to eliminate duplicate planning.

On many occasions they pose themselves as the great defenders of local autonomy. Yet here is a bill that is trying to provide more local autonomy and they are against it. They are insisting that the regional districts have a power over local

[ Page 545 ]

autonomy. They make disparaging remarks about the intelligence of the elected council members in those municipalities — that they would make foolish decisions. I pointed out in an interjection that I think these elected members at the local level are accountable to the people there, So if they do the wrong things, they are certainly going to be held to accountability. Are the NDP saying that they believe in local autonomy but have no respect for the ability of locally elected aldermen to make decisions? Is that what they are trying to interject into this debate?

One could probably talk for a long time on this, but we have heard so much of this anti-development sentiment from the great defenders of farmland, the opposition. So the question arises in my mind: if they are so anti-development, why do they, as a party organization, get involved in development in Nanaimo? I'm sure that after the value of land increased and they benefited, they said: "No, we will not take the price increase."

One could go on indefinitely, but I think the point can best be made by asking: if they are such great defenders of farmland, why don't they take that fund and invest in farmland and go farming? Why do they act as developers? In other words, they have one set of principles that they speak on and a completely different code under which they practise. There is no use in belabouring the point. I think that is the point.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I expected the minister — particularly that minister, because he is the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing — to get up and attempt to defend this bill which we are debating now, which is that we move autonomy from regional districts and municipalities in some way. That's what the bill does. But the minister just said something about one construction job in Nanaimo, which has no relevance to this bill whatsoever. He said nothing. I'm surprised to see so many people on the treasury benches this afternoon. During the course of routine debate on second reading of a bill the House is usually very empty, particularly of government members. I know they've got other things to do, and they have meetings to attend and people to meet. I just met with some of my friends out on the front lawn — all 25,000 of them — just a short while ago. They're asking for the Premier of this province and asking why he isn't out there. My speech is not going to be great, Mr. Premier, and you have my permission to leave and meet with those 25,000 people out there on the front lawn. They're asking for you. They asked me to bring in a message: "Send the Premier out. We'd very much like to see him." I said I'd bring the message in to you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What can I say about a bill like this that hasn't already been said?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Maybe if all hon. members can come to order, the member can continue.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really appreciate your protection.

I want to talk about my own regional district in a few minutes, but, to start with, under Bill 9 the explanatory note says — and I'll read it into the record, at least for my own constituents: "Official plans are being eliminated as a deregulation measure to streamline the development approval process and to strengthen the autonomy of municipal government." Well, if ever an explanatory note was more wrong or more in error, it's that explanatory note under this bill.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member interjects across the floor: "Explain it to us." He's the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie). Has he read the bill? Has he heard from regional boards or the GVRD? An interesting point, Mr. Speaker. That minister made a promise to meet with the GVRD on August 23 to discuss this bill before it came before this House for second reading. August 23 is a month away. Has he met with the GVRD on this bill before its second reading? No. Has he kept his promise? No, he has not. Here we are debating this bill, and we'll be debating this bill for a long time yet, at least until that minister has the courtesy to meet with the GVRD, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and other regional district representatives in this province. In the meantime I suggest he read the bill, and if he doesn't understand it, I've got explanatory notes here which I'll loan him.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: John Mika? He's very good. Excellent. I bet you wish you had him.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, what this bill does basically is remove autonomy from the local regional districts. As I mentioned before....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I keep hearing a chirping sound. That's all right. Some of it is woofing, but most of it is chirping.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I have three large regional districts in my riding, and parts of two others. There have been problems within regional districts, but over the long term what regional districts have done is give people within local areas — in my riding at least, and throughout the province, I know very well — the ability to plan their own communities, what kind of industry they wanted in those communities, what kind of developments they wanted. People had a voice. People had input. That's what happened. And that's what's being taken away. That's the kind of power that is being removed from people in those areas and being centralized here under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in government under that minister, and in cabinet. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.

[3:45]

When this bill comes into effect, all existing regional plans and official regional plans are cancelled and will have no effect — retroactive legislation, as usual, by this government. That in itself is wrong, Mr. Speaker.

I want to give you a bit of background. We had a Premier in this province once.... Did the current Premier go outside? Did he go outside to meet with our friends? Oh, I'm pleased to hear that. That's great. I thought he'd stay in, because I was going to quote from his....

[ Page 546 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker. Well, I'm really pleased, just as a little aside, to see the Premier's finally gotten up the courage to go out and talk to some of our friends on the front lawn.

MR. REID: He's right here listening to you.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, there he is! I'm pleased to see the Premier in here for the moment, because I'm going to quote something from a statement put forward by his father. Here he is! This is my opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to discuss with the Premier certain aspects of this bill, and the natural gas line to Powell River, which is a very big topic — and I hope he'll agree with me when I.... Anyway, back to the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the natural gas line to Powell River would be an excellent debate at another time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I definitely intend to raise it at another time, Mr. Speaker. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from a document compiled in 1945 by a great former Premier of this province, the father of the Premier sitting beside me here, right now, and the next leader of the official opposition, after the next election in this province.

The former W.A. C. — you know what we called him at that time.... There were no regional districts in 1945. In fact, we didn't have regional districts in this province until 1966. Regional districts, by the way, to the hon. member who's quite loud....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Surrey! I can never remember where he's from. But wherever he's from he should go back. He will be back after the next election — back in Surrey.

I want to quote from this document that was part of a plan that W.A.C. Bennett, who later became Premier of this province for 20 years, took part in. Basically what he says here is that for the well-being of cities, districts, villages, unorganized areas, with populations growing, a plan, a way and a means of developing these areas in conjunction with municipalities and outlying areas must be formed. He said the only way to accomplish this.... Remember, I'm quoting from W.A.C. Bennett in 1945, when he sat on the commission called the Lower Mainland Regional Plan Commission. That's a long time ago. Even W.A.C. Bennett — your father, sir — agreed that planning should take place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you address the Chair, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We're having a little conversation over here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand, but it would be more appropriate if you would address the Chair, and the bill.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Even the former Premier of this province at that time agreed that regional plans and regional planning should be in place. He became Premier in 1952, I believe. It took him quite a while. By 1966 — and our party voted for this — he brought in the legislation forming regional districts in this province. We're all aware of the background of that. There was some controversy at the time, but the plan worked well. Our party voted for the concept, by the way.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Were you there?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No. The Premier asks if I was there — the present Premier, not the former Premier. No, I wasn't there. But I was here in the province, and I took part in those meetings. I remember when the then Municipal Affairs minister, Mr. Dan Campbell, came to Powell River. I don't know why, actually; he came up to tell us that we were going to have a regional district whether we liked it or not, and that was the end of the meeting. There were about 400 of us at that meeting. He got kind of a bad time, because he didn't properly explain functions of regional districts. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that regional districts were set up by the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, for another reason: not only for planning functions, but for another reason. The Premier at that time wanted to relieve the provincial government treasury of certain financial functions, so he set up regional districts so that people within areas, if they wanted a library, lighting system or sewer project, could have it; but they'd pay for it themselves and relieve the current provincial government of that financial burden. That was the other reason, of course, W.A.C. brought in the regional district concept.

I didn't mean to dwell on that aspect of it for so long, but I was interrupted by gentlemen to my left. I just wanted to make the point that the former Premier of this province agreed with planning, and here in Bill 9 you're taking it away. You're taking away local autonomy from regional districts and municipalities.

Less than two weeks ago this government received a proposed legislative framework for intermunicipal planning in metropolitan and economic areas. They forwarded to this government ten recommendations that I'm sure they would have discussed with that Minister of Municipal Affairs, had he met with them as promised, which he didn't. He's going to meet with them, I understand, at some point. I think the GVRD people are meeting this afternoon to discuss what we're discussing in this House today, are they not, Mr. Minister? The point is that here we are debating this bill without consultation with these regional districts and the GVRD. That's wrong.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What do you want to do? Make a suggestion.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Resign would be a good start on your part. However, later on in my speech I was going to offer some solutions to the government. To the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, one of the things you might consider doing is withdrawing the bill. We know you won't do that. You might consider amending the bill — we know you won't do that. So I'm suggesting to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, the House Leader, and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that a standing committee of this Legislature, which is in effect here while the House is sitting.... This bill should be taken before that all-party committee in this

[ Page 547 ]

Legislature, and the people, such as GVRD, who want to make representations regarding the contents of Bill 9, the principle of which we're discussing now, should be brought to Victoria so their views can be heard.

I'm terribly tempted to read every one of their ten recommendations into the record. I should do that. I wonder if the minister has seen this document. Have you seen this document? He hasn't seen it. I'll read it. Then you can read Hansard tomorrow and see the proposed legislative framework for intermunicipal planning and metropolitan and economic areas. I want you to understand that these ten recommendations not only apply to the lower mainland area but also to many rural areas, because the philosophy of what they're saying here applies all over the province. I didn't want to bore you with all this, but you asked for it and now you've got it.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You've got it? It's really worth reading into the record, and I'm sure my constituents would be very interested in these ten recommendations. I could send it up to them. I could do an article for my local newspapers. I could talk about it on my local radio, but.... You're sure you've got it, eh? Do you promise to meet with these people? Mr. Speaker, if the minister says he'll meet and consult with these people, I won't read this long document into the record. You're going to meet with them, aren't you, Mr. Minister? He says yes. He shakes his head. They'll be pleased to hear that this afternoon, wherever they're meeting — on the lower mainland somewhere, I guess.

Do you know who else is opposed to this bill? You won't believe this. Friends of the government really. An organization called HUDAC. That's the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, a group of professional developers. Also the Urban Development Institute, which is another organization — basically good people who are interested and involved in development projects. They have very, very deep concerns about this bill before us today. I don't think the government or the minister has met with these people either. I don't want to quote from this whole document, but in terms of HUDAC and the UDI people, I thought this one paragraph significant because it relates directly to planning functions and this bill. So quoting from the brief that HUDAC and the Urban Development Institute have given us.... Actually they gave it to the minister and presented a copy to us. They say:

"Within the GVRD, however, it has now become evident that the current official regional plan is well aligned with municipal positions and therefore provides little opportunity for conflict between the two levels of government or for becoming another hurdle in the development approval process."

What they're saying is that legislation now on the books, before Bill 9 was brought in, is totally adequate for the purposes of intermunicipal planning. Indeed, they go on to say:

"We are now convinced that there would be some major disadvantages associated with the loss of regional plans within the lower mainland and CRD regions."

The fact is that that applies to other parts of the province as well. When this group of people come out against this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, I think the government should pay some attention.

[4:00]

I was going to discuss briefly the implications of this legislation in terms of agricultural land. I don't suppose there's much point in dwelling on this too long, since you've pretty well emasculated the Agricultural Land Commission; you've taken away its funding; people have been fired and they have no clout since the government changed the legislation giving cabinet final approval on withdrawals of land from the agricultural land reserve. In any event, when the commission was operating, it operated well. They disagree with the principle of this bill, as has been stated often in this House. I wanted that on the record.

I want to quote from one other document before I take my place. I'm not going to tell you now what I'm quoting from, but it deals directly with this bill, and with land use. Some of the members may recognize it, because it was put forward by an old friend in this Legislature. I think I will tell you who it is from. This was written under Mr. Vander Zalm, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs; it's from a 1980 document he brought to this Legislature entitled: "Land Use Planning for Tomorrow." It was before the introduction of his famous Bill 9, as you will recall. By the way, the present Bill 9 goes far beyond Mr. Vander Zalm's legislation. You will recall the problems that that caused: the removal of Islands Trust and all those kinds of things in that particular bill.

In this document Mr. Vander Zalm, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, did allow for regional planning and did not completely wipe out the planning functions of regional districts throughout the province, even in that much-debated bill which was finally tossed out because there was an election underway and the government did not wish to alienate all the regional districts and municipalities in the province. Although the bill was introduced in this House it was never read, because there was an election under way. What we have before us now is a bill much, much broader in its scope and intent which in fact centralizes all planning and zoning powers here in Victoria under that minister. We know why the bill was brought in. I promised myself that I would not mention that one reason, the name Spetifore, in my speech, so I won't do it. But that's why that bill was brought in, and we all know it. This document is very lengthy, and I don't feel like reading it anyway. But in his preamble Mr. Vander Zalm allowed for regional districts to have some voice and some part in municipalities, in regional planning, in zoning, and some autonomy and some say in their own affairs. In this document we don't have it.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. Just getting back to my own riding, that's where my heart is, that's where my concerns are and that's where I wish I was, but here I am.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Premier says he did his best to keep me there, but here I am. I was elected to represent those people and that is exactly what I am attempting to do here this afternoon. I have discussed this matter with people in my riding, with every regional district, individual municipalities and regional board members in my riding. They oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I oppose this bill. I hope the government will reconsider. I've offered the minister some alternatives that he could take or at least seriously consider. I know in his closing remarks next week, when we finally complete

[ Page 548 ]

second reading of this bill — or the week after, whenever it is — he will give serious consideration to my proposals.

MS. BROWN: No, no. He's going to close the debate.

MR. BARNES: Dangerous Dan, over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps before recognizing the member, there has been great reference made to standing order 42. Standing order 42 also states: "In all cases Mr. Speaker shall inform the House that the reply of the mover of the original motion closes the debate." I know there has been some concern about that, so I hope that establishes the role of the Speaker in closing debate.

MR. BARNES: The intent of this legislation, the Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, is the concern of the members on this side of the House. It would appear as though the government wants us to believe that the intent of the legislation is to improve the local autonomy of municipalities for no other reason than to provide them with their democratic right to self-determination. Those of us who care about the right of local determination and the right to local representation on concerns have no complaint with that.

I was talking to our critic, the second member for Victoria, just a day or two ago and I said: "I'm not an expert on all aspects of regional planning and some of the more complicated procedures that are involved in getting approvals and getting the kinds of details from the specialists that we must rely upon to make some kind of sense out of it." I'm not even that sure that the members of the government know that much about it themselves.

The bill really doesn't have that much in it other than the fact that it seems to be taking away something. It's taking something away while at the same time it states that it is improving the possibilities for local self-determination for the municipalities. But it is taking something away, and that's the part that did attract my attention. What are they taking away? The right to self-determination? It would not appear so, because the bill claims that it is concerned about the right of the municipality to make decisions for itself, notwithstanding any broader concerns by adjacent communities, regions, districts, etc. Therefore it is insisting, Mr. Speaker, that local municipalities have that inalienable right to self-determination — to plan for themselves, notwithstanding anything that any regional district or any other body may wish. That's not really the situation, because they've taken something away. They have the right to self-determination but when it comes to questions of potential lucrative possibilities, gains or the planning of regions, such as the one in Delta that we've been talking about — the Spetifore lands, more recently known as the holdings of the Dawn Development.... That property is really the whole reason and the sole reason for this charade.

It is amazing to me that this government would go to such lengths in order to achieve one very self-fulfilling objective. It really is a very unfortunate situation we're experiencing these days in this Legislature. There was a time when we could believe that parliamentarians were committed to the principles they espoused and talked about, but I'm finding on this bill that when the government says it is concerned about local autonomy and the right of municipalities to make decisions for themselves, they take away one of the most important rights, not to mention all the reasons we need local people to make planning for themselves on a regional basis, rational planning to ensure there is efficiency in the use of services and the provision of the amenities that are necessary in the community. There are all kinds of reasons why we need cooperation at the local and regional level. The point that disturbs me is that the planning is the one main privilege, the one main right, that at one time was protected because of the collective decisions that were made at the regional level. The government is maintaining that it is going to give that right to municipalities, but what it is in fact doing is giving it to the municipality of Delta. It is turning the clock back and saying, "We want something and we're going to get it, no matter what."

I expect very soon to see a movement on that side of the House to abolish the Legislature itself in order to achieve their objectives. I know the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) finds that humorous; he's over there shaking his head and chuckling. But the minister has to admit that it has some merit, although suspect coming from an opposition member. Nonetheless, there is some possibility that that could happen. After all, this government has completely desensitized itself to the desperate attempts of the electorate to communicate with it with respect to local concerns and their right to communicate with their government on issues that concern them locally. While we sit in this Legislature this afternoon, well over 20,000 individuals, voters of this province, are demonstrating against initiatives by their democratically elected government. Those people have attempted to sit down with the Premier and representatives on the government side, to no avail. Yet the government will bring in a piece of legislation and say they are concerned about local autonomy and the rights of the individual. What about the rights of these people who are desperately trying to communicate with you? The Premier says: "Well, that's just too bad. I have no time to go out and talk to them. I am a busy, busy person, and if they have anything to say to me they can say it in the next election." Well, that's the Premier's prerogative.

MR. REID: Is that on Bill 9?

MR. BARNES: Yes, it is on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker. I'm speaking directly to the bill, because I'm talking about the contradictions that seem to evade the mentality of those people on that side of the House. There are many contradictions that come from that side of the House which I think we should point out, and this is one.

We are talking about the autonomy of municipalities. How well we remember just last year, when the city of Vancouver, with Mr. Harcourt, its mayor at the time, came over with a delegation, bringing a message from his council requesting that the provincial government amend the Vancouver charter so that the council could fulfil its mandate to the people of Vancouver, who voted overwhelmingly to amend the charter in order to allow a ward system to be implemented. They did that, Mr. Speaker, the year before, on two separate occasions. Now there is an example of local determination: a municipality, a city, that went to the people, got their vote — democratically so, with a clear majority — came to this government and said: "We are merely asking you to do your duty and fulfil your responsibilities as a government that respects the right of local politicians to self-determination. We have followed all the rules, and all we're asking you to do is the administrative detail of amending the charter, as you are now amending the Municipal Act. Just simply change a few words and allow us to carry on our

[ Page 549 ]

business." You said: "No, we're sorry; we're going to overrule it." In that instance it seems as though the government has a different perspective with respect to democratic rights and freedoms. So you see there are some contradictions. It's difficult for me not to impute some ulterior motive.

[4:15]

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're not allowed to.

MR. BARNES: That's quite true. The House Leader stated that I'm not allowed to impute any improper motives, and he is quite right. But I think the actions of the government speak for themselves. All they need to do is relate the facts as they are, and I think the public will have to make a determination as to whether this government is sincere when it comes up with these platitudinous statements about local autonomy and the right of municipalities to self-determination.

There are some other problems. The government goes on and on about self-determination. For instance, the city has the right to fire people; it has the right to do all kinds of horrible things to the public sector, which we've talked about under a bill that has been retired for the time being. Under that bill the government was saying that it cared about local rights, the autonomy of the individual. And it is a comparison. There again the government is giving the politically hazardous responsibilities to the local municipalities and regions, and taking for itself the kinds of central power it needs in order to dictate the ultimate consequences of any of those initiatives.

I'm opposed to the legislation, first, because I don't think it is a sincere attempt on the part of the government to provide an opportunity for local municipalities. I'm not sure how you're going to work this thing, because in one sense you are creating something that you will probably want to change as soon as you've resolved the problem with the Dawn Development land. We'll see what you come up with next year. You'll probably amend this after second thoughts and say: "Well, we made a mistake. We think we'll go back to regional planning and give back that responsibility." It just depends on the politics of the day. But clearly you are implicated in having conflict of interest on this particular bill. There seem to be clear indications that there are members who would profit if they were successful in getting the Spetifore or the Dawn Development land developed, and that is unfortunate. It would be far better if that were not a possibility, and perhaps it won't be. We'll probably have a great deal of difficulty nailing that one down. But that cloud does exist. It has existed for a long time. That is why this bill has a cloud over it. It doesn't seem quite believable.

We're at a very critical time, when it's difficult for me to allow myself to be manipulated by the kinds of smokescreens the government uses in talking about things that are really far from what is happening in this province, far from what is important to the people of British Columbia, while we play these games on behalf of the government. The people of British Columbia believe this government is a place unto itself. It is a government that is attempting to seize, to capture, to confiscate the fundamental rights and freedoms that people have enjoyed traditionally in this society. Those are harsh words, but it seems as though there is nothing that will stop this government from trying anything, no matter how blatant.

This amendment is suspect. Most of the bills that have been presented to this Legislature are suspect as well. The people of British Columbia seem to be powerless; they seem to be without any recourse. And the amazing thing about it is that despite all the provocation and the justifiable causes for them to become disruptive, they maintain their civility; they maintain their discipline, their respect for the parliamentary system and the right of any government that is democratically elected to serve uninterrupted. Wouldn't it be nice if the government began to respond in kind, with some respect and some courage, rather than gall? I know many members on that side of the House have said that it takes great courage to pursue some of these pieces of legislation. But, you know, courage has to be tempered with a sense of purpose and direction one can live with to enjoy the full experience of success. I can't see how this government can sincerely believe that it is going to feel good pursuing the course of action it is now on, in light of the kinds of desperate attempts by large numbers of people who come and plead for an audience.

It is very discouraging to have the Premier of the province say that he has no time to speak to the people because he feels it will only be a confrontation and therefore a waste of time. And that may be in your eyes, Mr. Speaker, somewhat of a diversion from the purpose of the bill, but it is only in the strictest sense. In the general sense it is every bit relevant, just as all the pieces of legislation are relevant. They are one and the same, coming from a central source and from a central mentality with a particular perspective on the problems that we face in this province. They seem to feel that due process and democratic rights stop at the golden gates of this Legislature and that everything inside here is up to the victor — the person who is successful at the polls. That's hardly correct. I don't know quite where we're going to go with it, but I'm afraid that this bill, though it may seem uninnocuous, is quite innocuous when you consider the ultimate intent.

I would like the members on that side of the House to tell me that we will never see any change effected from the recent decision by the Greater Vancouver Regional District to disallow the removal of the Dawn Development lands from the agricultural land reserve. I would like to hear the commitment from the Minister of Municipal Affairs that there will be no motive and there has been no motive. Can he assure us out of good faith that it will not happen unless he resigns himself. Because he knows that people are suspicious. He knows that people are going to be waiting for the day to come, and he knows that that is the only way he can show that the government is sincere when it said it is trying to do something that's right for the people. But I suspect this is arrogance, it's heavy-handed, it's blatant, and it is actually with impunity because there is very little that any of us can really do to stop that heavy-handed government with its huge majority that it is now trying to distort with the idea that it has a mandate to go on some kind of holy crusade which will destroy the fundamental rights and traditions in this society on the grounds that they have somehow developed an insight into the future and know what is best for British Columbians, notwithstanding 20,000 of them out there jamming at the door trying to get in to protest.

I'm going to oppose the bill. I think I will conclude by simply saying that if you really care about local autonomy and the right of municipalities to make decisions not overruled by other bodies — of course, other than yourselves — then why not consider the application by the city of Vancouver to have the Vancouver Charter amended, and why not give them their right to a ward system?

[ Page 550 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, that is an absolute analogous.... A perfect comparison to what you're doing with this piece of legislation, and you should exercise.... You should be consistent.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You blocked the Vancouver Charter for two weeks.

MR. BARNES: I beg your pardon, Mr....?

HON. MR. GARDOM: You wouldn't let it come to debate before the House last session.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Is that right? Well, can I have...?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Check the Journals.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon. members, at this point we're clearly out of order. We are on Bill 9. We're not discussing a committee report. Bill 9, please, and I commend that to all members.

MR. BARNES: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the House Leader for the government, has suggested that the opposition would not allow the Vancouver Charter to be brought before the House during the committee. He claims we had some reason for not doing so. You know what the real reason was, Mr. Speaker, for us not going along with that? They had it in an omnibus bill and were trying to pull a fastie on us. We wanted a clean amendment; we did not want it to be piggybacked on something that we did not want. They were playing games with us. If they bring that recommendation forward by itself with no strings attached, you bet we'll support it. You bet we will support it if it comes before this Legislature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is clearly reflecting now on other matters that have been before the House. Bill 9, please.

MR. BARNES: As I was saying, I realize that I have the opportunity to speak at length on this bill. I understand we have 40 minutes. At the risk of becoming classified what some public servants have been classified as in this beautiful public service of ours, "redundant".... You didn't say anything about repetitious or vexatious, but you did say redundant. I certainly wouldn't want to be guilty of being redundant. I think that when you take dead aim and make your point, that should be sufficient. I think you get my point.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if you would give me a round of applause for my tolerance under these very difficult circumstances.

MS. BROWN: I really wish that when the government decides to pay off its political debts and reward its friends it would take into account the impact of some of the decisions which it makes. I recognize that when the government makes promises to its friends — certainly during election times — it has to keep those promises, but after it becomes government it has all of the research facilities at its disposal to take a second look and try to measure the impact of those kinds of decisions before introducing them in the form of legislation.

If we take Bill 9 as part of the general package of 29 or 30 bills introduced in this House, we find that like so many of the other bills it is paying an election debt, and it is rewarding a friend. Like so many of the other bills in this package it is going to wreak absolute havoc on a large segment of the community. Although Bill 9 will allow Mr. Spetifore to develop his land in the way he wants to, despite the fact that by so doing he will be going counter to the wishes of regional politicians and to the people whom they represent, Bill 9 will also do a lot of damage to other areas. In case you are not aware of it, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Bill 9 does is to repeal all of the planning functions of the regional level of politics. In other words, whether it is the GVRD or a municipality on its own which took a long-term look at the development of its particular area and worked at preparing plans for some orderly growth and development in that area, all of those plans are going to be repealed. What this bill says is that in order for Mr. Spetifore to have the freedom to exploit his land in the way in which he wants to do it, municipalities like Burnaby, for example, will not be able to implement some of the plans made on behalf of the residents of that municipality.

What we find is that in order for this government to pay its election debts and to repay its friends, it has decided to sacrifice the people who live in other municipalities. I can only speak about Burnaby; I can't speak about Vancouver, Victoria or any of the other municipalities. I want to use my time to talk about what this government sacrificed in order to reward and pay off Mr. Spetifore.

[4:30]

I want to start out by quoting a statement made in 1969 by the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant. At that time he reported to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations: "The city, everywhere in the world, is increasingly unable to adjust. The challenge in the two decades ahead," the report went on, "is to double the houses, power systems, sanitation, schools, transportation — in fact, the whole complex pattern of urban living created over several centuries." He then went on to suggest that to cope with the pressure of new people, advance planning had become an imperative. "At least 5 percent of the national income," he suggested, "should be allocated to this particular function."

So it's not a decision being made in Delta or Victoria or Burnaby that planning is a good thing. The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations recognized that as people moved from the rural areas into the cities the pressure on the urban centres meant that planning had to be introduced, and that the failure to plan would result in chaos.

Planning is not a dirty word or even a new idea. It's not something that was thought up by either Burnaby council or the NDP. Planning came as a result of a lot of research and study on an international level. Certain parts of the world, like Canada and British Columbia, recognized the importance of what the secretary-general said. In fact, they did so even before the secretary-general said it. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the GVRD was not implemented by an NDP government. It was actually introduced by a Social Credit government in 1965 or 1966. So B.C. was ahead of the United Nations in that respect, which is one reason why I find it so difficult to understand this particular bill at this time to repeal

[ Page 551 ]

the planning functions of the regional and municipal governments.

It is not true that the exodus from the rural areas into the city has ceased. That is still going on. If anything, the pressure on the urban areas is escalating. I see that the member for the Fraser Valley is disagreeing with me. It's true that Chilliwack is growing, but so is Burnaby. It could be that Burnaby's a more pleasant place to live than anywhere else, and that's why the pressure on Burnaby's escalating and why the population of Burnaby's growing.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: You've got a secret you haven't told us.

MS. BROWN: Probably. I'm not going to deny that.

That's possibly the way it is, but what I do know for a fact is that the council in Burnaby took its responsibility for planning very seriously. As part of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, they participated in an overall plan for liveability of the community in 1966. So it started nearly 20 years ago. One of the reasons for that was.... I'm reading a report here, which was published, called "Urban Structure" and it talked about why. The report started out by saying: "The district of Burnaby, centrally located in the greater Vancouver metropolitan area, has, like all urban-oriented municipalities, a keen desire "to create" an environment that enhances the quality of life, an environment with which people can identify." That kind of thing doesn't come by ad hoc growth. That kind of thing has to be planned, and the planning function of the regional levels of government is very important to the quality of life of the people living in a region. I don't think that that should be bartered away lightly either to pay an election debt or for any other reason. I don't think that's the kind of thing that we give up easily. We shouldn't, because surely to goodness the government recognizes the importance of the environment in a community and the quality of life which the people in that community would like to enjoy. The report goes on to say that "one of the first requirements to achieve this general goal is the preparation and adoption of a master plan." Again, there is recognition on the part of the director of planning, Tony Parr, and of the municipal government that ad hockery is not the way to be sure of a good environment for a community or to enhance the quality of life of the people who live there. They talk about their goal being the preparation and adoption of a master plan.

This bill, in case you're wondering, talks about all regional and official plans being cancelled and having no effect. Of course, sections 807 and 808, which deal with regional planning, are also repealed in section 4 of the bill. I know I'm not supposed to deal with the sections, but I want to be sure that you know I'm sticking to the bill. So it said that "such a plan would establish planning goals capable of dealing with change, describe development programs to achieve stated objectives, and set down policies leading to the implementation of these objectives." Now there's one thing that you have to say about Burnaby: it set out to do things in an orderly fashion. It set out to create this plan, and then it stated what the objectives were, and then it talked about the implementation of these objectives.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It says that "one has to take into account the way in which various levels of government work and recognize their role and function in the metropolitan area; and more importantly, one has to gain some insight into the general desires and aspirations of people." I cannot understand how a government could ever ignore the general aspirations of the people who elected that government. Now this is not the only elected group in our society. We have a government elected at the municipal level, the regional level, the provincial level and the federal level, and one of the responsibilities that we have is to respect the other levels of government and to respect the fact that they were elected democratically by the people in their particular areas. We have to respect that. No government has the right, Mr. Speaker — you get better looking as the minutes go on; still not as good looking as Sophie, however — to barter away or to show disrespect for another level of government. That's what this bill has done, by repealing the planning functions of the municipal level.

It goes on to say that this first plan prepared by the planning arm of the municipal government that "attempts to formulate these complex matters, translate them into policies and give them physical form, so that people can feel at home, both in their immediate neighbourhood and in the metropolitan area as a whole."

At this point I have to digress just a little bit to tell you something about Burnaby, because I think it will help you to understand better why planning is so important to the municipality of Burnaby. Burnaby has the great fortune — or great misfortune, depending on how you look at it — of being located right smack in the centre of a transportation corridor. New Westminster uses it as a transportation route. Surrey uses it as a transportation route. Vancouver uses it as a transportation route, as does Coquitlam and everyone else. However, despite that, the people who are part of the community of Burnaby love and respect that area and would like to see that community protected.

Now Burnaby doesn't put up barricades. Burnaby doesn't say: "You cannot travel through Burnaby on your way to New Westminster." Burnaby doesn't say: "You cannot travel through Burnaby on your way to Surrey." Burnaby doesn't say: "You cannot travel through Burnaby on your way to Vancouver." Burnaby, Mr. Speaker, if the truth were known, has been used and abused by those other municipalities in terms of using it as a transportation corridor. Despite that, the only thing that Burnaby has asked is that there be a plan — an orderly transportation plan — which respects the communities and the neighbourhoods and the families and people who live there. Burnaby has worked very hard with the other members of the Greater Vancouver Regional District; it has cooperated and worked very hard with the other members to see to it that it serves its function and at the same time protects its neighbourhoods and protects its community.

MR. REID: Burnaby as a neighbourhood goes all the way to Hope, and then you'll want to protect all of that.

MS. BROWN: There they go again, picking on Burnaby. That's the reason why Burnaby needs three MLAs to stand on the floor of this House and fight. Right, Madam Member? Surrey is always attacking Burnaby. Despite that there are no hard feelings and no ill-will towards Surrey.

Interjections.

[ Page 552 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Would the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) obey the rules of the House, and would the speaker continue, please.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that Burnaby is accustomed to being attacked by Surrey. It's one of the facts of life Burnaby has to live with. Nonetheless, all Burnaby asks is that its planning section be allowed to retain its planning function so that the decisions being made for Burnaby are made at that local level. Burnaby has over the years, starting in 1966 with its first plan, and then in 1969 with its other plan, then on to 1971.... I'm going to keep right on going because it seems that the planning never ceases. And it mustn't; the planning mustn’t cease, because Burnaby is a growing and dynamic community, it is not static. It is growing, and so it prepares plans to try to deal with its goals.

In 1974 — I'm moving on to another phase in terms of its recommendations and planning — after holding a series of public meetings around the municipality and the community, and having direct input from the residents of Burnaby, the council passed a resolution to deal with a long-term overall plan that would cover a number of the concerns raised in those public meetings. It talked about a review of the municipal planning policies and a desire to help accommodate anticipated population growth to provide a range of urban opportunities within the municipality beyond the ones which existed at that time. The planning function has been a very important function of Burnaby's political life. No one who lives in Burnaby is uninterested in the planning that goes on.

[4:45]

As I mentioned before, we are continually under attack from the traffic going to and from other parts of the lower mainland. We recognize that we have a neighbourly and responsible duty to allow the traffic to go through, but we also have a responsibility to protect our neighbourhoods and our community, and that kind of thing cannot happen unless there is planning. The best people to plan that are not in Victoria; they are at the regional level. Surrey has a representative, as do New Westminster, Coquitlam and Vancouver, and everyone sits down together in peace and harmony to try to work out what is best for all of the communities involved. So in 1974 the resolution was passed, and the planning continued from there.

The only reason I'm bringing these plans to your attention is to give you, if I can, a visual image of what is being thrown away now. These plans have to be discarded, Mr. Speaker. All of the work that went into preparing them, everything, is now.... These are just some of the plans. There are lots of others and now they have to be dumped into the garbage, thrown away. They have to be done away with because this government, in its attempt to pay a political debt, has decided to sacrifice the people of Burnaby. I'm speaking for Burnaby because it is the area I represent, but the same thing is true of Vancouver, Victoria and all of the other areas. However, their representatives can speak for them. The planning and the work that has gone into trying to make Burnaby the best of all possible places to live, to work, to raise your kids and give them an education, health care and these other kinds of things — we are now told by this bill that all of that is going to be taken away. All those plans are to be thrown away. It says right here that all regional plans and official regional plans prepared or designated are to be repealed, cancelled, and to have no effect.

I'm not going to talk about the hundreds and thousands of dollars that went into the preparation of these plans. We're not going to discuss that or put a dollar value on it. I'm going to talk about the loss to the people of Burnaby of this piece of legislation, because they had direct input into those plans. There were meetings all over the municipality of Burnaby. Anybody could attend. It wasn't by invitation only. You didn't have to belong to a special club or group; you didn't need an advanced education. Anybody who cared about Burnaby, whether they lived there or not, could attend those public meetings, and they would have the ear of the politicians at the regional and local level and have some input into the development of those plans. We care about our neighbourhoods. You have to care about neighbourhoods when you live in a municipality that has five major transportation corridors running right through it. If you don't fight to protect those neighbourhoods, you're going to wake up one morning and find that the whole municipality is one giant transportation corridor; that all the people have been removed and the whole thing is turned over to trucks, cars, buses, vans, bicycles, horses, buggies, all coming from Surrey. That kind of thing.

So the battle to protect the neighbourhoods in Burnaby is something that never ceases, as my colleague from Burnaby–North (Mrs. Dailly) mentioned, and as I hope the member from Burnaby–Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) will get up and say something about. I am distressed about that weak link in the representation chain for Burnaby. Three people elected to represent Burnaby, and only two of us always fighting and speaking for Burnaby. That really concerns me. I have no objections to speaking on behalf of Burnaby–Willingdon, and neither does the member for Burnaby–North. We have to; we have no choice. We do it, and we do the best we can. But it really is unfair to the constituents of Burnaby–Willingdon that a piece of legislation is being introduced which is going to turn that part of Burnaby into a wasteland, and not one word from the representative from Burnaby–Willingdon about the evil that's going to be visited on his constituency as a result of this particular piece of legislation.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I'll speak for Burnaby. I've lived there longer than you have.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, she's lived longer than I have, so that's no big deal.

In 1980 the Greater Vancouver Regional District, trying to get some views on the development of its liveability plan and its regional plan, conducted a survey. I want to share the results of it with you. The second most important thing of concern....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It would be wonderful if just once the member for Surrey would listen.

MR. SKELLY: There's a purse-snatcher out there.

MR. REID: I'll get him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that's enough, hon. members.

MS. BROWN: I do too.

[ Page 553 ]

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to share with you the results of the survey of public concerns which was done in April, 1980. The number two issue of major concern to the people of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which includes Burnaby, was the protection of agricultural land; third, the reduction of traffic congestion; fourth, that the initiatives to improve government should include people to a greater extent. Three out of the four top issues of major concern when the survey was taken are going to be effectively wiped out by this piece of legislation. This is the tragedy of this legislation: in order to reward Mr. Spetifore and in order to pay a political debt.... A survey, which included Langley, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, as well as the other greater Vancouver areas, ranked in order of importance: (1) inflation, unemployment and crime; (2) the protection of agricultural land; (3) the reduction of traffic congestion; and (4) a greater involvement of people in the initiatives and decisions of government to improve their communities. Three of those four number one concerns are being wiped out by this piece of legislation.

I don't know what to say. What else can we do? How else can I impact on the government the seriousness of what they are trying to do? Surely to goodness it would have been possible to introduce a narrower piece of legislation, addressed specifically and only to the Spetifore problem. Surely there could have been a bill that said: the bill to allow Spetifore to exploit his land in any way he wants, even though it's contrary to the will and the wishes of the regional politicians. They did it for the Ganges sewer. They could have done that for Spetifore. Instead, everyone is going to suffer so that Spetifore can be rewarded.

There is something inherently unfair about that kind of government and that kind of legislation. It is not fair that the people of Burnaby who over the years, going back to 1965-66, have worked on a regional plan, on a transportation plan and on their Metrotown plan are going to find it all wiped out and eliminated so the government can pay a political debt. That is not fair. As a matter of fact, it should be illegal. There should be a law against that. No government should be permitted to sacrifice a whole municipality, or a number of municipalities, in order to reward one individual. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) should be on his feet speaking against this piece of legislation. The Attorney-General should recognize that this is a travesty. This is not law. This is not justice. It shouldn't be permitted to happen.

[5:00]

I got a letter here from Mayor Kirstein, dated April 20, 1982. He is the chairperson of the GVRD planning committee. I think it's "person," but he signed himself  "chairman so I have to respect his wishes. It says:

"Dear Mrs. Brown:

"It is my pleasure to provide you with a copy of the recently published plan for the lower mainland of British Columbia. The plan is the result of a cooperative endeavour by the four lower mainland regional districts to update the 1966 regional plan."

You know, the 1966 plan is almost 20 years old. It goes on:

"The updated plan has now been adopted by all four regional boards as their official regional plan."

That's the cooperation I was talking about. It goes on to say, surprise, "surprise, that" the update was funded in part by revenue-sharing grants provided through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs...." That's the same minister who is now dismantling.... If you want to talk about fiscal irresponsibility, he funds something, then he turns around and dismantles it. Then you wonder why this government is billions of dollars in debt. That's the kind of bungling confused handling on the part of that government that we have to deal with. First he funds it; he gives them the money and says: "Get together and update the '66 plan." Then he turns around and introduces legislation that says all regional plans are cancelled, repealed and have no effect. The letter goes on to say:

"The plan represents a recommitment to joint intermunicipal planning in the lower mainland, and the resolve of councils and regional boards to tackle the major issues facing the region.

"Recently the chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District board informed you that the board and its member municipalities wish to continue to play an active role in the cooperative regional planning function which has been carried out successfully for more than a decade in this area."

It's not just more than a decade; it's almost two decades that has been successful.

"The commitment to providing a province wide context for local and regional planning by the provincial government is welcome, but we are opposed to the elimination of direct local government involvement in the regional planning process."

This is what Mayor Kirstein said.

"The updated plan, " the letter continues, "is solid" — and I support what he is saying because I have read it and it is solid, Mr. Speaker — "and tangible evidence that the present regional panning process is working well." It's actually saving the government money. It's cutting down on duplication and inter-municipal battling and fighting. They are cooperating and working together. It is working well. The letter goes on to say:

"Undoubtedly it could be improved" — no question about that — "by timely and appropriate provincial input on provincewide policy concerns, and we hope that those aspects of Bill 9 will be retained. Cooperative governments working together make better plans and better communities."

I know from the bemused look on your face, Mr. Speaker, that you wonder whether I recognize that the light isn't working and that my time is just about up. I know that.

In the one or two seconds left to me I just want to say very briefly that the government is doing a disservice to the people of Burnaby and other municipalities by bartering off their rights to pay off a political debt to Mr. Spetifore. I am opposed to that, and I will remain opposed to that to the very end. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I have no option but to move adjournment of this debate, so that the government can have some time to rethink its position, until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

[ Page 554 ]

NAYS — 30

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. HOWARD: Could I ask leave of the House to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: We're all indebted to those who worked diligently on our behalf to get us here, and I'd like the House to join me in welcoming some friends from Kitimat, Mr. and Mrs. Adrian Brien, and Mr. Rob Goffinet.

MR. BARNES: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: With us this afternoon is a constituent of mine who is here to exercise his democratic right in solidarity protesting a restraint program that we know about: a young man by the name of Mr. Dave McKenzie, who is from Vancouver Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. BARNES: Please don't object. This is a very special day and we should be very pleased to have these citizens here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let's remember that the introduction of guests is a courtesy of the House to all members. Perhaps we could keep it to the point and to the introduction.

The Chair recognizes the member for Alberni on Bill 9.

MR. SKELLY: It's a pleasure for me to take part in this debate on one of the more critical pieces of legislation in this House. I'm sorry that the Premier left, because he's very seldom in the House.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Except today. This afternoon he sat in the House assiduously. He listened to all the speeches, and he never left the House for a minute. I understand he didn't even walk close to the windows. I was wondering why.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. We are on Bill 9: could we return to that debate.

MR. SKELLY: You're absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering why the Premier was in the House listening to the debate today when he is generally absent. I think it was because he was afraid to face the 20,000 to 25,000 people who were out demonstrating against this type of legislation.

[5:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Hon. member, I will advise you that personal references to another member are most unparliamentary, and I will further advise you that we are on Bill 9.

MR. SKELLY: You're absolutely right again, Mr. Speaker. There were a large number of people out on the grounds of the Legislature today demonstrating against this type of bill. There were people from church groups, people from women's organizations, working organizations, public sector unions, private sector unions, teachers' organizations, college organizations, and hospitals; the unemployed, small business people, farmers, and the disabled. There were thousands upon thousands of people out on the lawn demonstrating against this type of legislation brought in by this type of government that claims this type of mandate to put this type of legislation in the House. I hope — but I doubt it — that they've learned something about the mandate, or what they call a mandate, and how they really don't have a mandate at all to present this type of legislation in the House at this time.

Mr. Speaker, never have I seen, in my 11 years in this Legislature, when.... The police have virtually taken over the parliament buildings, and you can't move around in the parliament buildings.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again I must remind you....

MR. SKELLY: I have never experienced that type of thing, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! While second reading on a bill allows a lot of latitude, one must speak to that bill and not all bills. We are on Bill 9, municipal affairs, and I will ask the hon. member for Alberni to relate his remarks to that bill specifically.

MR. SKELLY: I will relate those remarks to that bill, Mr. Speaker, because if we continue to receive this type of legislation, or to be forced to debate this type of legislation, then I suspect that more and more we're going to be seeing these types of demonstrations, and more and more the security of this Legislature is going to be in question. The people of this province did not elect this government to present this type of legislation and to ram this type of legislation down their throats. That's why we see 20,000 to 25,000 people protesting on the lawn today, because of this type of bill.

Why is this type of bill being presented to the House? Ever since 1975, when they were first elected, this government has promised to get rid of the agricultural land reserve, to get rid of municipal zoning and planning regulations in order to give developers free wheel about the province to do whatever they please themselves to do and to earn an unfettered profit in the development of land. They worked out various strategies in order to get this into the Legislature,

[ Page 555 ]

going back all the way to the Bawlf report. Perhaps you remember the Bawlf committee, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) will remember the Bawlf committee, because he was the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time, and he's been constantly trying to slip this type of legislation through the House over the last seven to eight years.

He tried it with the Bawlf report. What he did was he hired, through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, three Social Credit back-benchers as kind of a private standing committee of the Legislature. They represented themselves around the province — not publicly — as a kind of select standing committee looking into the whole aspect of zoning and municipal governments, impediments to development, this type of thing. It was a back-bench committee, but it was paid through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in violation of the Constitution Act of this province; it was an illegal committee. They were sent around the province, even with members of Hansard assigned to that secret committee.

You'll all recall that the membership on the committee was the current Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt); Sam Bawlf, who was dumped from this Legislature; and George Kerster, who was also dumped from this Legislature after one term, after people found out who he was.

Well, what did this committee do? It held secret meetings around the province. They wanted to test public opinion on the development legislation and the planning legislation in the province. But, unable and unwilling to face the public and to find out what the public felt about this legislation, they held secret meetings around the province. I ran into them in Prince George one time. I heard from one of the city's staff. He said: "There's a select standing committee meeting here, and no NDP members showed up. Why is that?" So I phoned Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did have a select committee on small business — a select committee of our caucus, not paid for by the taxpayers, not paid for illegally out of the budget of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, not another one of.... It was probably the original dirty trick.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Two to one on Passarell.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask all hon. members to come to order.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the reason for that secret committee was to consult an invited group of guests as to how the legislation in this province should be changed in order to provide a free ride to developers who had objected to municipal planning and zoning legislation — much of it was brought in by the previous Social Credit government, the government prior to 1972 — and also ways of eliminating the agricultural land reserve. So this government has all along been attempting to slip this type of legislation through the House and to justify it on the basis that there's some kind of popular support out there; but they were afraid to consult the people as a whole. They only consulted their own invited friends in municipal offices and in developers' and builders' organizations.

They've tried it before, They've always been trying to get rid of the agricultural land reserve, but they know that studies have been done to show how popular that legislation is. Eighty percent of the people in the province of British Columbia, according to a study done by Environment Canada, even when they lived in the agricultural land reserve areas, favoured the continuation of the agricultural land reserve. That study is available to any member who wishes to go into the library and get it. It was done by the federal government, which is willing to publish the information in polls that comes to its attention. Eighty percent of the people living in agricultural land reserve areas supported that legislation, once the propaganda that had been distributed by the Social Credit Party had been stripped away and they saw what the value of that ALR would be to all of the people of this province.

Why was agricultural land protected in this province, Mr. Speaker? Why was that done in the first place? Because we recognized that the type of planning legislation that we had in this province balkanized planning. It allowed one municipality to take land out of the agricultural reserve while another municipality was protecting it, and so the interests of the people of the province as a whole were never protected. We needed agricultural land reserve legislation that recognized that it was in the interests of the people of the province as a whole to protect agricultural land in any one area of the province. That's why that legislation was brought in.

The member for Surrey who speaks from the back corner here mentioned George Spetifore's problems — how he could never make a buck farming his land or farming potatoes, how he set up a potato-chip manufacturing plant, and how, because he wasn't a friend of the Liberal government in Ottawa, it didn't work. He sounds like Peter Pocklington, the guy who claims to be the greatest businessman in the world, and who goes and runs for the leadership of the Conservative Party — probably with the support of half the members here — while his whole business empire is collapsing around him through his own mismanagement and his own ideological rigidity. He goes and blames it on the Liberal government; it's probably mismanagement on his part.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would all hon. members please come to order.

MR. SKELLY: In any case, Mr. Speaker, there is land in the agricultural reserve, and it's recognized that some of that land cannot be farmed profitably today. In this Legislature it was recognized back in 1972 and 1973, and probably right up until today — or until 1977 at any rate — that as stewards of the land we had an obligation to future generations to protect that land so that, even though it may not be profitable to farm it today or to farm it under the type of management that its current owner exercises, it would be available at some time in the future when food crops would be so valuable that it would be economic to farm that land. One of the things we did was say that this government and the people of this Legislature and of this province had some responsibility to future generations. If you don't feel that responsibility, then maybe you shouldn't be here. There were 25,000 people out on the lawn....

Interjection.

[ Page 556 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) please come to order.

MR. SKELLY: What was happening today, I suppose, on the lawn of the Legislature is that there were 25,000 people saying that maybe this government does not have that concern for future generations; that maybe the fault of this government is that they don't have that necessary concern for future generations that would lead them to develop and improve this type of legislation, that would lead them to develop and improve the Human Rights Code of British Columbia. It's just a lack of concern for future generations. What they seem to be here for, especially in terms of land that's in the agricultural land reserve, is to pay off their friends — those who have done them some political service, those who stand to make a profit from the subdivision of agricultural land.

They tried another route back in 1977 when.... There are several appeal procedures within the Agricultural Land Commission Act. There was an appeal to the commission. There was even an appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, if you could get the local government to sponsor your appeal. This property fell down in each case, in all of those appeals. So what the minister of the day did back in 1977 was present legislation that allowed for a political appeal. If you couldn't get your land out of the agricultural land reserve, and if two members of the Land Commission were willing to sign a certificate, then you could go behind the closed doors of cabinet and have your land taken out by a cabinet committee. It allowed a political appeal system, and that's the problem.

[5:30]

But one of the problems they didn't recognize in that system was that the Municipal Act of the day — the Municipal Act right up to the present — says that you cannot violate, and no individual municipality can violate, the provisions of an official community plan. The official community plan was something that was drawn up under the Municipal Act by regional districts, and each member municipality of the regional district was bound to respect that plan. They had all agreed to it in the first place. A majority of votes were required to pass that plan. It was approved by the cabinet of the day — in this case, the Social Credit cabinet under Premier W.A.C. Bennett. All of this was done in the case of the planning instrument for the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Now there's an opportunity for somebody in the Social Credit Party, or a friend of the Social Credit Party, to make money. Instead of doing what the Minister of Finance did a few years ago by passing a special section of the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act to allow his friends on Ganges to profit from a sewer system out there....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must ask you to withdraw that remark. It imputes a dishonourable motive to another hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: I will withdraw that remark, because I have a great deal left to talk about here.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I may withdraw that as well.

That was one way he could have gone in this case. He could simply have passed a section of the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, to remove the application of the Municipal Act from the property of a particular friend of the Social Credit Party, so that the friend could develop housing on that property and make big bucks. He didn't have to dismantle a whole section of valuable legislation that prevented some of the types of planning outrages that took place prior to the development of the official regional plan concept.

If it had no value, Mr. Speaker, why did they bring in the idea of an official regional plan? Because of the balkanization that had taken place. As municipalities developed it was possible in one municipality, if you wanted to attract industry, to make certain concessions to the industry; to say: "We'll allow you open zoning. You can move into this area and put up a pulp mill and we won't complain about the pollution. We'll even build a few roads out there and make tax concessions." At one time municipalities were allowed to make those kinds of concessions, and it allowed for a constant war between municipal governments to attract industry and development into those municipalities.

The provincial government recognized the economic damage that resulted from that. When the politicians changed on the municipal board of a bedroom municipality, and suddenly decided to go industrial and invite a pulp or steel mill into that municipality, it created tremendous problems with the residents in that area. One of the reasons official community plans were brought in was to try to eliminate some of the conflict that took place between municipalities. The most difficult area of all was the Greater Vancouver Regional District. There are very few electoral areas in that regional district. Mostly they are organized municipalities, and they did have this battle for industry, or in some cases a battle in residential communities to drive industry out to rural areas, which created problems in those areas. It created transportation problems, it created sewage service problems, it created garbage disposal problems and it created any number of problems. One of the reasons why official community plans were developed was to try to get those member municipalities together to discuss development issues and to discuss service issues, to discuss transportation issues, to come to some kind of a formulated plan which would govern all those municipalities. Some may have objected to it but the majority of municipalities in that area, once they agree to an official community plan, were bound to respect the wishes of the majority of people in the area. It's a regional democracy.

Now we come to a proposal from the government where they are trying to tell us: "That's no longer democracy. We don't define that as democracy any more." What the region is attempting to do now is to impose its will on one member municipality, a municipality that has decided it doesn't want to be a part of the municipal plan any more. There is more money in it if it allows this type of development and therefore it is like a spoiled child taking its toys and going home. It wants to get out of the official regional plan. It wants to get out of the game.

But you don't just affect one municipality; you destroy the whole planning process. Previous governments have had the courage to say: "No, we're not going to allow that. You've agreed to an official plan, and there is a process of changing that official plan. It is a democratic, representative process and you should go through that process." They did it with the Spetifore property and the region said no. Now, like a spoiled child, this municipality and its representative in the Legislature have come to this government and said: "The Greater Vancouver Regional District doesn't want us to allow

[ Page 557 ]

our friend to make a horrendous profit by taking his land out of the agricultural land reserve and upsetting the official community plan. So we want to tear down the whole edifice. We want to destroy the whole thing for the benefit of one friend, providing profit to some of our friends. We want to tear down the whole thing. We want to ruin the whole legal edifice in order that this spoiled child can take his marbles and go home."

That's the reason for this legislation, Mr. Speaker. It's unworthy of a government in a democratic society that government would structure its laws or remove laws in order to allow its friends to make a quick profit exploiting agricultural land, to violate the provincial interest in preserving that Crown land, to violate the interest that future generations have in protecting that Crown land. If somebody asks if I really believed this, I believe it. The people in a community have rights within that community. After making that statement, let me define what those rights are. They were previously defined in the Municipal Act. I'm not talking about the absolute right of a single landowner to do whatever he darn well pleases with his land in order to make a profit at the expense of other residents in the community and at the expense of future generations. I'm talking about the larger community in this province. We recognize that some people on the west coast of my constituency, for example, are fishermen. They don't grow too many fish in the interior of the province — salmon, halibut, those kinds of fish. They don't have a commercial fishery of the type we have on the west coast. We on the west coast feel obliged to protect our fishing industry. We could develop the whole waterfront on the west coast of Vancouver Island: build condominiums, log off all the trees, destroy the land. But we're bound by certain planning constrictions not to do so, in order to protect that fishing industry which provides food not only for us and our families on the west coast but also for people in the interior of British Columbia and all across Canada. Hopefully, if we are good stewards of the land and of the resource, it will provide food for our children and their children forever, as well as for the rest of the world. That's the obligation we see on this side of the floor.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The question of viability is a difficult one. What we're saying, and what the member for Surrey is saying, is: "Look, it's not viable for my friend to make a profit on his land right now. It may be possible in the future for my children to do so. In fact, it may be absolutely critical and necessary in the future for my children to do so." We may be taking food out of their mouths.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. One more time, please, I'll ask the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) not to interject. That member has had ample opportunity to speak and has done so, and now the Chair recognizes the member for Alberni, who will continue uninterrupted.

MR. SKELLY: We may be taking, and we realize that on the west coast, and that's why we respect the kind of planning statutes that had been brought into place in previous legislation. We realize how important that resource is, not only to ourselves, and we realize that it's difficult for fishermen to make a buck these days, but we realize how important that legislation is and how important the resource is, not just for ourselves and our local communities but in the broader context for people all over Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, and all over the world. There is an international interest in that resource. There may be some cost imposed on us locally in protecting that resource, but we realize that it's a valid cost, a cost we may have to pay. We realize as a result of that that some of our friends may not be able to make unlimited profits in the fishing industry. They may not be able to take unlimited catches in the fishing industry, but we have that obligation. We at least recognize that obligation in the broader context and to future generations.

That's why I'm saying that this legislation is dangerous legislation. What it does is say to the spoiled child: You have an absolute right to go in there and grab all the marbles and leave the game, or what's left of the game, and to heck with everybody who's left over. To heck with everybody who may come in the future. To heck with my children and my grandchildren; let them fend for themselves. Is that an example of the kind of stewardship of resources that we should be telling our children is the proper stewardship of resources? My son is in the gallery today. Do I have a right to say to him: "I made a good living off this world. I made a good living off the resources of British Columbia. I made a good living here. To heck with you." Do I have a right to do that? What I'm saying is that this is exactly the type of approach we should bring to this Legislature in discussing this legislation. Do we have a right to tear down the whole edifice, to tear down all of that planning that was put together by generations of people in order that the interest of the whole community can be expressed in planning legislation, that the interest of the broader community — British Columbia and Canada — can be expressed in that legislation, that the interest of the world, in the case of the fisheries, is expressed in that kind of legislation?

I say that in this Legislature we simply do not have the right. That's why I would vote against this type of legislation. What it does, Mr. Speaker, is take us back to a previous time when people could fight over the resource, communities could offer cheaper access to the resource at the expense of other communities — cheaper access for a time, but then it gets more and more expensive as more people move into that farmland, as more and more of that farmland is destroyed, and as more farmland is taken away not just from us but from everybody. Then, and only then probably, we'll realize the loss. We'll wish George Spetifore could give the $800 million back. But by that time all of the money in the world....

AN HON. MEMBER: What — $800 million?

MR. SKELLY: Or $80 million or $10 million. All of the money in the world will never restore that farmland to production again. That's why I'm saying we have no right to pass this type of legislation. Who's to say that next time it's not going to be a friend of Social Credit who wants to take his land out of the agricultural reserve and who gets the support of the local community to make a buck on farmland? Maybe after this it'll be absentee landlords, and of course when we open the floodgates, as we're doing by taking away this legislation, it could be everybody: absentee landlords, people who come in from other parts of the world and say: "They've passed the legislation, the floodgates are open,

[ Page 558 ]

now we have an opportunity to make a quick buck on farmland in British Columbia and take the money and run." What happens? What would happen if absentee landlords came in and began to develop the land and take the profits from that development and run — people who were no longer direct personal contacts and friends of Social Credit, where Social Credit members may be able to get the benefit? Because this legislation opens the floodgates.

[5:45]

If you want your friend to make a profit, why don't you pass a section of the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, as you did on Ganges? Why destroy the whole edifice, the whole rationale of community planning, the democratic process that was brought about through successive pieces of legislation that put together a democratic planning structure which has served this province well for years?

Mr. Speaker, for this reason we have to vote against the legislation. It violates the right of people in a region to decide how that region is going to be planned. It violates the principle that a region should not be balkanized so that one person can get more advantage out of the development process than others. It allows absentee developers to now come in and make a tremendous profit out of exploiting our farmland, exploiting our farmers and taking the profit out of the country. It is a dangerous piece of legislation, at least as dangerous as other pieces of legislation that have been presented in this House. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm absolutely opposed to it.

I'd like to mention a resolution that was just passed by the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board. It says:

"The Greater Vancouver Regional District Board is opposed to Bill 9, legislation which will remove all regional planning functions."

It emphasizes to the Minister of Municipal Affairs:

"Land use designation is but one small aspect of regional planning, wherein 95 percent of applications for amendment have received board support, and this should be the subject of ongoing discussion and negotiation. Further, the mainstream of planning activities concerning municipalities are for regional development services and are a necessary and major service which should not be eliminated, as in the proposed Bill 9, Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, and that the planning committee endorse the proposal that the four lower mainland regional district chairmen seek a meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs to explain the ramification of Bill 9 as proposed, for the areas covered by their respective jurisdictions. Motion passed by the GVRD Board of Directors, Wednesday, July 27."

Mr. Speaker, there is an obligation on the ministers of this government, who are attempting to force this legislation down the throats of the people of British Columbia — again, as in Bill 3 — to go out and consult with the people who are going to be affected by this legislation. Furthermore, to take into account the future generations of this province who are going to be affected by the fact that this legislation makes us poor and inadequate stewards of land and poor and inadequate servers of our children and our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I would urge the government to reconsider this legislation that's currently being debated in the Legislature.

To give them an opportunity to reconsider, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Ministry of Forests Act, I have the pleasure of presenting the five-year forest and range program for the years 1983 to 1988.

MR. NICOLSON: I rise on a point of order to draw your attention to page 422 of the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May. He admonishes us: "That no member do presume to take tobacco in the gallery of the House or at a committee table." The hon. minister who just rose to table a report, I'm sure, has a chaw in his cheek the size of that of a major league baseball manager, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a very interesting point of order, of which the chair has no knowledge.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member is absolutely wrong. I happen to have a Chiclet in my mouth — for the first time.

Hon. Mr. Rogers moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.