[ Page 1797 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Termination of government employees. Mr. Hanson –– 1797

Youth employment programs. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1798

British Columbia Teachers' Federation. Mr. Ree –– 1798

Mr. Barrett

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

On the amendment

Mr. Lockstead –– 1799

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1802

Mr. Skelly –– 1807

Division –– 1812

Mr. Barrett –– 1812

On the amendment

Mr. Lauk –– 1817

Amendments To Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1983 (Bill 12). Hon. Mr. Ritchie.

Introduction and first reading –– 1821

Amendments To Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983 (Bill 7). Hon. Mr. Ritchie.

Introduction and first reading –– 1821

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today I'd like to introduce my sister-in-law, Pat Michael, and her friend Gary Walsh. They are accompanied by Glen and Shirley Bath from the Capital Regional District. The other two are from the interior of our province.

MR. R. FRASER: The two people I'm going to introduce, who are in your gallery, came from Labour-oriented Australia, just to see us with our progressive legislation. Would the House please welcome my cousins, Dr. and Mrs. Ian Chester from Brisbane, Australia.

MR. GABELMANN: In your gallery this afternoon is the mother of a very dear friend of mine. I'd like the House to welcome Mrs. Ann den Hertog.

MR. REYNOLDS: On behalf of me and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), there are a number of people in your gallery that I would like to introduce. They are from the Asian Pacific Rim, students who are attending New Summits College in Vancouver. In the gallery with them is Mrs. Peggy Lee, who's a student counsellor; Lila Chen, the chairman of the board; Dr. Raymond Rodgers, the president; and Mr. Edward Strang, the vice-chairman of New Summits College. I'd like the House to make them all very welcome.

MR. CAMPBELL: In your gallery today is a constituent of mine, Darren Blois, from Vernon. He's going to the University of Victoria, and I'd like you to make him welcome, please.

MR. ROSE: In the members' gallery, I would like the House to welcome old friends of mine from Victoria, Bill and Jean Creese, and they are accompanied by my first wife Isabel.

MR. PARKS: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to the House one of the new persons in our Social Credit caucus research staff and his very charming wife: Charles Lugosi and his wife Olwin.

Oral Questions

TERMINATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Provincial Secretary. Last week members of the government, who asked not to be named, informed reporters that 400 additional government employees will be fired between now and March and a further 3,700 will be chopped next year. Has the Provincial Secretary decided to inform the 400 involved that their jobs will no longer exist? Has he decided to advise them?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome the first member for Victoria back to the House after his prolonged absence.

No, there has been no notification contemplated at this time. I would like the member to identify the particular ministries in which he's relating that there are going to be some terminations.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary is the person responsible. People under his ministry, under his authority, who have authority for government employees, either directly or indirectly, are advising the press that 400 jobs will be cut. Why does he feel that the opposition should have the responsibility for this? This is something that the government has undertaken in a callous way — to chop government employees....

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please.

MR. HANSON: I'll continue this as a supplementary if I can't get an answer on that from the minister. Is the Provincial Secretary not aware that that kind of statement — it was covered in the press — puts a cloud of uncertainty over all public sector employees? Is he not aware of that, and is he not aware of the fact that banks are not loaning government employees money? I've had accounts of that. They are not allowing leased accommodation to government employees; mortgages are being denied and calls are being made to personnel officers. Why will he not come clean with these people involved?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly the question is out of order on several grounds. The member may rephrase the question.

MR. HANSON: Is the Provincial Secretary aware that those kinds of informal reports to the press create a cloud of uncertainty that hangs over the livelihood of government employees?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Asking a minister to confirm or deny press reports in question period is out of order.

MR. HANSON: Does the government have plans to fire 400 more employees between now and March of next year?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, first of all I hope the member recognizes the fact that newspapers have made mistakes in various reports, and there is always the possibility that this is one of those occasions. But I think that the member should really address that question to the specific ministry to which he is referring, because any notices of intention of terminations originate from specific ministries and not from the Provincial Secretary's office. So what I'm saying to you, Mr. Member, is that you are addressing the question to the wrong minister. Address it to the specific minister who might have some intention of notices of terminations.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Is the Provincial Secretary's office not advised by the various ministries of government employees to be terminated? Does your ministry not receive notice from the various ministries of the cuts?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Notices of terminations come out of specific ministries. If you have some concerns about any

[ Page 1798 ]

particular cutbacks that might be emanating from a particular ministry, I think you should direct that question to the proper minister and not to the Provincial Secretary.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The Canada Employment Centre reports that 50,000 British Columbians have exhausted their UIC benefits in the past six months. Many of these people have been added to the welfare burden of British Columbia taxpayers. Has the government decided to increase the $40 million allotment under the employment development account for special employment initiatives?

[2:15]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, no, not at this time.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Some 25 percent of British Columbians under age 25 actively seeking employment are out of work. What initiatives has the minister taken to promote youth employment, especially for those who are denied access to post-secondary education because of cutbacks in the student assistance program?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, an open-ended question in itself elicits an open-ended answer, and I would....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd be happy to give an open-ended answer, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for the question. Of course we've had a number of initiatives in this government to help both young people and others to gain employment. Mr. Speaker, our youth employment program this summer, which was both for students and other young people out of work, was the most successful program in the history of this province for youth employment. Last year about 8,000 young people took advantage of that program. This year it will be closer to 10,000 or perhaps 11,000 people, with the increased funds that the government provided for that program. In addition we've had the most successful experience in Canada with our pre-apprenticeship programs and with our simulated apprenticeship programs.

I'd like to tell that member about our simulated apprenticeship programs, because that program was especially for those people....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The Leader of the Opposition thinks that's funny, but I'll tell you, Mr. Leader, that's the best program in this country for making sure that.... One of the indications of the economic recovery is that one of the simulated apprenticeship programs — an electrician program — at the college in Kamloops was cancelled this year because all of the young people found jobs, most of them in the Tumbler Ridge area. So I make no apologies for the programs that this government has, and the most important of those programs is to continue to develop the kind of economy that will flourish in British Columbia and make sure that our young people, and everyone else, have jobs to go to in the future.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, is the minister suggesting that because his programs are apparently so successful and have led to results that he's happy with he is content to see one out of four people under 25, who are actively looking for work, without work in this coming winter? Is he happy with that number?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker. No one would ever be happy with any unemployment. Whatever the unemployment rate is, it's always too high. This government understands that. That's why during the election campaign — which that party over there lost on May 5 — and later, in the programs that we have been developing, many of which are going to be before this Legislature in the next several months as we sit here to debate those important issues, we put the emphasis on the economy's recovery and on the private sector being allowed to get healthy enough to make sure that that figure comes down rapidly.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, if the provincial government programs are so successful, why is it that while recovery is taking place in every other part of this country British Columbia's economy continues to decline, and our unemployment figures continue to rise?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I guess what you....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Daimler Dave! I've got to show you these to remind you of the times you hired all the Daimler limousines in London, mister former Premier of British Columbia. Daimler Dave at his best in London, living off the fat of the trough, Mr. Speaker. Daimler Dave the strike-out king: three times and out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll say again, Mr. Speaker, no, we are not satisfied; yes, our programs are successful; and yes, they will get more successful. Rather than putting all of our children and our grandchildren and their grandchildren in debt with some kind of airy-fairy 1930s public works program, we are going to see the private sector provide the drive to build this province.

BRITISH COLUMBIA TEACHERS' FEDERATION

MR. REE: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Last week there was a meeting of the teachers of the North Vancouver Teachers' Federation. Less than 50 percent of the teachers were present. At that meeting they were being instructed with respect to participating in a Solidarity petition this coming Saturday. At that time these teachers were intimidated because they were told that if they did not participate in the petition or participate in a potential general strike later they would lose their status with the BCTF and thus not be able to teach in B.C. If they do lose their status with the BCTF, may they teach in the public system in B.C.? And does the federation have the authority to expel them if they do not participate in this petition, or in a general strike, if one is called?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise you that the member who asked the question approached me

[ Page 1799 ]

about it earlier, as a matter of fact about an hour ago, and I made the appropriate inquiry. I am not particularly interested in the names of those involved; frankly, it is not my business. However, I did look, and yes, the School Act is clear: there is a provision that it is compulsory for all teachers to have membership in the BCTF before they are eligible to teach in a public school in British Columbia. I might say, offhand, I think that is probably wise. I believe everybody should be a member of the BCTF. I understand, through some inquiries, that this matter has been debated in the House before; I am told that the last time was in 1976. I would respectfully suggest that any particular organizer for teachers in any school district who makes a statement like that, without even contacting the executive or table officers of the BCTF.... I would suggest that they would be somewhat alarmed that such a statement would be made by one of their members in the field, particularly to hold over an alleged threat that their membership will be withdrawn.

I thank the member for bringing the matter to my attention. There's really not much more I can say except that they do have the authority to withdraw, but I would say that would be highly unlikely.

MR. REE: A supplementary question, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Was I correct in hearing that they can expel a member if he would not participate in the conduct of this petition this weekend, or if they did not participate if a general strike was held? Is that what I heard. Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker. It's not for the Minister of Education to look into the reasons for policies or decisions made by the BCTF. What they do is entirely up to them. I would suggest that any action like that would be highly unlikely.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary question to the Minister of Education. I would ask the minister to explain to this House, in this very serious matter the member has raised, what right the BCTF has to arrogate to themselves power to look at people's files and punish people that the cabinet has now taken unto itself under Bill 3? How can we allow the BCTF to do that when the cabinet is going to do it? How can we allow private groups to have this authority when only the cabinet will be allowed to investigate people's files?

I want to know and be assured by the minister whether or not he will stop anybody from taking powers that cabinet is now going to have in a free society. I want to be sure that police don't have this power either. Will the minister assure us of that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Will the minister assure us of that?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that there's a question in there for the minister if he cares to answer it.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, before we engage in a supplementary, I must determine if there is an answer to the first supplementary. There's no answer, hon. member. The bell terminates question period.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued debate)

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to the Chair recognizing the member who has adjourned debate, perhaps we could have some order. If the members are going to discuss matters other than the amendment before us, they might wish to do this in some other area.

The member for New Westminster on a point of order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that this is the kind of chaos that's created when we have a totally uncommunicative government who never inform anybody what's happening.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I was just extending the member for Mackenzie some courtesy and notifying the House I was going to recognize him as soon as all members of the House had arrived at some order. Now on the amendment to Bill 9, the member for Mackenzie.

On the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate having the opportunity to complete my debate on this very important piece of legislation. It never rains but it pours. This morning we were on other municipal amendments, and this bill, along with Bill 7 and Bill 12, I believe, has to be considered as part of a package. They are all intertwined. This bill does give us some cause for concern.

As is well known and has been reported by, the press.... We have a new Clerk. You look good there. You should be there all the time, Mr. Premier.

Mr. Speaker, back to what I was hoping to get on with. This bill has been referred to many times as the Spetifore Amendment Act, and in effect gives the government the right to overrule regional boards, regional planners, municipalities, the Land Commission.... Is the Land Commission still in existence. or have they been scrapped'?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're on their way out.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They're on their way out — the Land Commission, that is. What I'm saying is the cabinet is taking unto itself, under this particular bill, the power to take out of the agricultural land reserve any land it wishes to. There have been many documented cases over the last several years where friends of government and the cabinet have attempted on behalf of their friends and colleagues to get land out of the agricultural land reserve. Only public pressure and public opinion in one or two cases have prevented this from

[ Page 1800 ]

happening, but under this bill we're sure that it will happen. In some instances we won't even hear about it. The Minister of Forests keeps hollering across the floor: "Misleading." Well, if he's interested, we can go through well-documented accounts and editorial opinions from all over the province in dealing with this bill.

[2:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I'll have to ask the Minister of Forests to withdraw the term "misleading" please.

If the minister simply withdraws, that will satisfy....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, there's no implication that member was intentionally misleading. He is misinformed, and through his misinformation he is inadvertently misleading the people in this chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Provincial Secretary on the same point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: My point of order is on the request to have the Minister of Forests withdraw that remark. It's been long-accepted parliamentary custom in this House that that particular terminology is acceptable. When it's not acceptable is when a member says that he's deliberately misleading. That's when it's offensive.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests made that quite clear. The Chair accepted that point of order, and the minister has satisfied the House. The member for Mackenzie continues.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, we do have a standing rule which provides an opportunity to members of this House if they feel another member, in his or her speech, has made an incorrect statement. That is covered by our standing orders. I think that it's an abuse of the rules of this House for that minister to make remarks like that when my colleague here is trying to present his case and his opinions on this particular bill. It is covered by our rules, and to let him make remarks like that would be completely wrong. There is an opportunity for him to make a correction if he feels an incorrect statement has been made.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point is well taken. I'll recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs next.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, the member for Mackenzie, in his opening remarks, is misleading the House. I will give you evidence of that. He opened up with his remarks....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will advise the Minister of Municipal Affairs he is now entering into debate, and he will have every opportunity to do that at some length during this amendment to Bill 9. I think we have resolved the matter, hon. members, to the Chair's satisfaction.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it is not resolved in respect to the House. The bill does not give anyone the authority to remove land from the agricultural land reserve.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be correctly taken as part of the debate, which the minister may wish to enter.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to get up and finish off the few minutes I have left. But I want to make this statement in regard to those last points of order. I'm not going to reflect on the points or the ruling, but I want to tell both of those ministers that I have never intentionally misled this House. Never! They may not agree with what I'm saying, and that is their privilege and their right, and as my colleague pointed out, they have the opportunity to correct those statements. But there is no problem, and that's....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You're ruining a terrible speech. You know that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests on a point of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just want the member from Mackenzie to be perfectly clear in his mind that I know that he, as an honourable member, would never intentionally mislead the House. I tried to make that very clear. I simply said that he's misinformed and is inadvertently....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the matter has been well canvassed. The member for Mackenzie continues on the amendment to Bill 9.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I accept the explanation.

Mr. Speaker, there are two other items I want to discuss under this bill before I have to take my seat. I want to read the explanatory notes on this bill, which are very short, so that the minister will remember what those notes are. "Official plans are being eliminated..." Regional districts will lose their autonomy — he nods his head yes. We've determined that many times in this debate. "...as a deregulation measure to streamline the development approval process and to strengthen the autonomy of municipal government." If you want to talk about misleading the House, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the part that says "strengthen the autonomy of municipal government." Quite frankly, nowhere in this bill — not in one section or in its principle — does it strengthen the autonomy of municipal or regional governments. It removes autonomy, Mr. Speaker. If I am incorrect, why did 600 municipal delegates at the UBCM convention in Penticton just a week ago ask that minister to withdraw this bill? This bill was introduced without consultation with regional districts, with municipalities....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Wrong again.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Who did he talk to? His uncle on a council somewhere? That doesn't count. The process that should have taken place is that a legislative committee....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that we are discussing Bill 9, not the method by which it was produced, the consultation that took place or those things that took place at the UBCM convention

[ Page 1801 ]

in Penticton last week. I would suggest the member address the bill under debate in the House right now, rather than what happened in Penticton.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, the strict principle of the item before us now is a hoist motion. I'm sure the member for Mackenzie can relate his remarks to the principle of the hoist.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I'm trying to give you reasons why the bill should be hoisted. This bill was introduced without consulting elected officials and planners and people actually involved in local government.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Wrong!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll tell you, I am right, and 600 delegates at the convention in Penticton last week will back me up.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just read the minutes of the convention that you supposedly attended, where you were condemned by the delegates, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forests has a sense of humour, but he does disturb the debate. I wish he would go out back to Lillooet and start chasing some of those spruce bugs that have been bothering him — one bug at a time. They will keep him occupied for a few weeks and let us get on with our speech.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote very briefly, if I may, from an editorial which appeared in the Times-Colonist on Friday, September 9, with regard to this bill.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Bad reporting.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister says: "Bad reporting." Well, why don't you take it to the Press Council if it's bad reporting?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: What good would that do?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We're not here to debate that. I'm just suggesting that if the minister has a problem, why doesn't he take it to the Press Council?

I don't want to read this whole editorial, because it's quite lengthy.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You might as well read it all.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I really don't have the time. I've only got about five minutes left.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have 11 minutes? Well, I'll read this much of it, because there are two other items I want to touch on before I sit down. This particular editorial, Mr. Speaker, reflects the feelings of most elected municipal and regional board officials. administrators, planners and treasurers in the municipalities in our province. This editorial is entitled: "Ritchie Displayed Stunning Naivety."

"Suppose a cadre of military planners drafted a five-day battle strategy. Can you imagine their general then dismissing them with the argument that he would not need their expertise for the next five days?

"Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Ritchie is a little like that hypothetical general. Just the other day the fledgling minister...."

He's a fledgling; he's proved that in the number of bills he introduced in debate in this Legislature. He displayed his ability at the Penticton convention, where he was heartily and resoundingly....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Endorsed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No. I was going to use a much stronger word, but I don't think it would be acceptable in this Legislature.

"Just the other day the fledgling minister maintained that once an official municipal plan was in place, planning departments were no longer needed, and the plan could be updated by consultants from the private sector every few years." What a bunch of nonsense! "'I fully believe that once an official municipal plan is in place there is no further need for planning personnel.' were the minister's exact words."

Are you telling me that this article is not correct? That you were misquoted? If you were misquoted, why don't you take it to the Press Council? Why don't you sue the reporter, the editorial staff, the paper? You would you know. Mr. Minister, you would sue that paper if you thought you had a leg to stand on. You would sue it in a minute, but you won't, because they're right. By your silence you admit it.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It's not important to me.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, it's not important to you? Fire people. Lay them off. No regional plans. Pull land out of the agricultural land reserve and give it away to your friends. Sell it. You don't care, do you? For all I know you probably got rich that way. I'm not accusing you of that, but I don't know that.

The article goes on to say: "That view displays a remarkable ignorance of the problems and pressures faced by municipal governments. Victoria Mayor Peter Pollen" — remember him? He's a friend of yours, isn't he? — "labelled Ritchie's comment 'mindless.'" That's going a little far. I'm not suggesting that, even in this House where we can say things which we can't say in the hall. I'm just quoting the article as written. It is also frightening when one remembers that this is the minister who links the province with local governments who have a missing link. "A few days later Ritchie had apparently been persuaded that municipal councils should indeed still take primary responsibility for managing development in their own communities." Well, that's a contradiction. One day you're saying: "Take it away. Throw them out. Fire them." And a few days later you say: "Well, they should take the responsibility."

I think the last part of this article was ruled out of order in this House two days ago.

[ Page 1802 ]

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I see I only have about one minute left. I move that the House do now adjourn.

[2:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 29

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

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 20. In recent days the House has been repeatedly abused as a result of frivolous motions to adjourn. On occasion the motions, while frivolous, are in order, but on other occasions the motions are already in violation of the orders of the House. This has been followed by appeals to the Chair with the Speaker's rulings having been challenged. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you could make it quite clear when a motion to adjourn is not in order, so that members challenging the Chair under such circumstances would know that they are guilty of disorderly conduct under standing order 20.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at this time the Chair indicates to the member that the previous motion was clearly in order. While there may be times when the points of order put forward by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications could be considered, this is not one of those times.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. This morning Your Honour dealt....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair has concluded the matter. We're not open for debate.

MR. D'ARCY: Okay. On Bill 9.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. D'ARCY: We're on a hoist on Bill 9. One of the reasons we need to give the government a significant amount of time to reconsider this and other centralized authoritarian, legislative pieces which they've put before the House is the the problem we just saw with what, we thought, was one of the more intelligent members of the government benches. Obviously the government benches are extremely tired: they caved in this morning at 5 o'clock. That very same point of order was raised this morning, and Your Honour ruled on it. If the member for Vancouver–Point Grey had been working and paying any attention at 5 o'clock this morning, he would not have raised that frivolous point. In any event, on Bill 9 and the hoist thereof and the reason.... I'm just giving some background, Mr. Speaker, as to why the government needs a break. Even their more intelligent members are failing to attend the deliberations of this chamber and making mistakes on frivolous matters.

We want to make it very clear that Bill 9 has absolutely nothing to do with local autonomy. It's interesting that back when the Social Credit government was a populist movement, and actually cared about people, they brought in planning. In spite of what the minister and the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson) and other apologists for the government have said, planning at the municipal level through the Municipal Act and regional district planning was not and is not a socialistic and communistic plot. It was not brought in by the New Democratic government. I don't even know whether the New Democratic Party of the day even endorsed it.

Planning at the municipal ministry level and the regional district and municipal level was in fact brought in by the original Social Credit government — the one that cared, the one that really believed in decentralization, the one that really believed that less government is good government and the one that listened to the people. There was a concern about not only local control but the direction that municipal development might take, and even development in unorganized areas that were not incorporated.

I am sure you know what I mean, because I am quite sure that coming from the Fraser Valley you have areas in your constituency that are not covered by municipal boundaries. Certainly there is a need, not to cut off the options of property owners and cut down the rights of individuals but simply to coordinate the interests of one property owner or developer with others and with the general mandated interests of the community as shown by the people whom they elect. I think it is very important that the electors of each individual community do elect and give a mandate at the municipal level. The government apologists are always talking about their mandate. "We have this 49 percent mandate, and even though 51 percent voted against us, we can do whatever we want and we will do whatever we want." The fact is that other levels of government have a mandate too. Throughout the sixties, the seventies, and into the eighties, through two changes of administration....

Very few members of this House were members when these changes were put into place. Municipal voters are the ones who actually pay the property taxes and actually see their commercial, industrial and residential property taxed. Under Social Credit those taxes go up drastically each and every year, far and beyond the level of inflation. A real increase is seen almost every year. When those voters go to the polls on election day, they have been giving mayors, aldermen and regional district directors a mandate to carry on with planning both at the municipal level and at the regional district level. This is not an isolated incident. Anybody who has paid close attention to what local government is doing,

[ Page 1803 ]

taken an interest or been a member of local government will know. I am sure there are a number here in the chamber who have. I assume everybody who has run for this chamber has had a public interest in local affairs long before they considered running for provincial office.

[3:00]

In municipality after municipality, large and small villages, townships such as Chilliwack and Esquimalt, large cities such as Vancouver, far flung regional districts with the massive areas to be concerned about and throughout the entire province with very few exceptions, overwhelmingly those taxpayers and those electors have given a mandate to aldermen, mayors and regional district directors who believed in planning. They believed in the proper management of developmental resources within their jurisdiction. They believed in coordinating their plans and interests of their own property owners with the plans and best interests of property owners in adjoining municipalities and adjoining neighbourhoods, and even in adjoining regional districts.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), I know, is a new kid on the block as far as knowing very much about municipal activity. But he should have bothered — and he still has a chance, and that is why we still want to give him that chance — to consult with municipally elected people with a mandate, whether or not they have any political persuasion at all. They may be non-partisan, they may lean toward the Social Credit Party or the Liberal Party — although there are not too many Liberals in B.C. — the New Democratic Party, the Conservatives or perhaps they have no politics. If he had consulted with them, he would know that in the West Kootenay, the Fraser Valley, up and down Vancouver Island, the Peace River and in the extreme northwest, regional district after regional district, electoral area after electoral area, village after village, town after town, township after township, city after city, not just once or twice, but in each and every election, which we all know come every two years at the local level, we are endorsing people, of whatever political persuasion, who believe in coordination and planning.

The minister and his treasury bench colleagues, who are so committed to centralized authoritarianism, have plenty of time to take a second look. They have plenty of time to consult — to go out there and listen to the people who gave them that 49 percent mandate. Those people not only pay the property taxes but they pay the provincial taxes, the user fees and the interest on the Social Credit debt, which will be close to $18 billion by the end of this fiscal year. Those people out there want and need more economic activity in this province, but they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to coordinated planning and development of their municipality and their regional district.

We hear this rather hackneyed expression about how the government or the people want to turn the clock back. Well, this is one case where I wish they would go back to the early or middle 1960s, back when the B.C. economy was growing steadily and inflation was low. They could even consult with the architect of municipal and regional district planning, Mr. Campbell, who I understand is living in happy retirement up there on Cortes Island. He's still around; they could consult with him.

They could even consult with that fine fellow from Kamloops, Phil Gaglardi, who was Minister of Highways at the time. He had a concern about this; he believed in planning and very much believed that the provincial government or some authority should have some jurisdiction over planning as it related to the Ministry of Highways and the tremendous expense that the Minister of Highways could be and often is subjected to by municipal decisions or willy-nilly development which happens like Topsy. You find out that you suddenly need another tunnel, another bridge or another four-lane highway, and perhaps you have other facilities which are underutilized and other infrastructure which have cost the taxpayer a tremendous amount of money. So he had an interest in this. And we all know, as often happens with government, that Flying Phil and Dapper Dan did not always agree on everything, but philosophically they knew that something had to be done to coordinate planning and give some local autonomy. The result, of course, was that the Highways ministry took certain planning functions and had certain responsibilities and participated, which they still do. That's one thing the Social Credit government have not chopped. There is still a municipal programs branch of the Ministry of Highways that participates with local government when there is an arterial or major highway running through a municipal area. It participates on projects such as drainage, curb and gutter, and so on, which, no doubt, you're very familiar with. You have the Lougheed Highway running right down through the middle of your riding.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, they may cut that out too, but that's one area where there has been participation.

So this is one area where the government really could set the clock back. They could go back and consult with some of their own Social Credit members who really believed in decentralization and local autonomy. They didn't want to have to make what some people might say are "silly little local decisions" down here in the ivory tower. They said that this may seem like a minor thing to people here in Victoria, but perhaps it's a major issue in Rossland or in Maple Ridge. They didn't want to be telling the local people what to do, so they said: "Here. you make those decisions." And they were right,

As with any development, of course, we know that regional districts and municipal planning, and so on, have matured over the years. They've taken on more functions, such as overall responsibility for hospital participation in capital financing, for coordinated sewer and water projects through regional districts and for recreation as well, which is very, very good, especially in an area like mine where you have a large industrial tax base and a number of dormitory or bedroom communities who do not have a large industrial tax base or even much of a commercial base. This sharing of revenue for various functions was a real step in the right direction. People of all political persuasions endorsed that. Now the minister wants to set the clock back and change that.

I want to go back for a minute to talking about the mandate the government claims they had and their commitment to democracy. Again, apologists for the government — there are very few available in this chamber; I suppose they're all doing research for the speeches they're going to give in their spirited defence of the minister and this bill.... I know that most of the government members have been staying in the precinct area, and I know that they're all working very hard. The member for Seymour is waiting for his chance to speak; he demanded it on Monday afternoon — whenever that was: 72 hours ago — and he's still waiting for his chance.

[ Page 1804 ]

I hope he takes his chance as soon as I finish these few remarks that I have to make.

One thing that is particularly relative to Bill 9 and why we want the government members to reconsider is that they said: "Well, we don't want to particularly step on the toes of the municipality of Delta," because they want to do something different from what the GVRD wants. I would love Delta, Castlegar and Prince George to have all the local autonomy they possibly could have. But the Greater Vancouver Regional District represents the electors who elect the people to the GVRD. They represent a very sizeable portion of the population of British Columbia, and certainly a sizeable proportion of the population of the lower mainland.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give some of the lazy government members who are not prepared to take their place in debate the opportunity to get on their feet and back that minister — particularly the members for Surrey and North Vancouver. If they were backing what their duly elected, mandated municipal councils had to say, they'd be supporting this hoist and opposing this bill. If they were doing their job....

MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the member's comment about the lazy members of the government side. When I look at the Votes and Proceedings and look at the number of people present from the opposition's side during the votes on September 20 — 7, 12, 10, 9, 9, 9, 9. Out of 22 members on that side, only once were there 12 members; the rest of the time there were fewer than 10 members. Fewer than half of their members were present in this House, and they're calling us lazy! I take exception to that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests. On the same point of order?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, another point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member was just getting into high flight on an excellent speech; however, his speech was about all the wrong things. He was talking about which members of this party have spoken and which have not. I think he should really address his remarks to the hoist motion before the House at this time.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I welcome what the member for Yale-Lillooet has to say. Certainly we're going to get to the hoist motion.

What I was relating to the House, Mr. Speaker, was the fact that the mandated, elected people who represent the actual people who pay property taxes in Surrey and in North Vancouver have said that they don't like this bill. They want their members to stand up and defend the actual property tax payers of North Vancouver and Surrey, but all they get is silence.

In passing, I do want to thank the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) for giving me such strong support. What he has said is that a few opposition members debating these bills before the House, with all seriousness and with good research, are in fact putting to shame all 35 government members. I think that is very significant.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the plans of regional districts. I know there are many regional districts with coordinated planning agencies in many municipalities. As I said earlier, this provincial government has 49 percent of the support of the population of B.C., and that's why they have a majority in this House. However, because they have a majority.... Certainly the greater Vancouver area is a smaller proportion than that. There's no question about it. As much as I said I would love to see the municipality of Delta have all the local autonomy they possibly could have — the same way I would like the city that I live in to have all the autonomy it could possibly have — while Delta is growing, thriving and has a progressive council, the fact is that it represents only 5 or 6 percent of the people of the lower mainland. Are they to make a decision? Dan Campbell, Phil Gaglardi and W.A.C. Bennett recognized this. Are they to be allowed to make decisions which would cost the other 90-plus percent of electors and property owners tremendous amounts of money in infrastructure? Are they to be allowed to make a decision in times of restraint that will cost this provincial government and the taxpayers of B.C. hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure perhaps for another tunnel under the Fraser River, a greater urgency for bridges across the Fraser River, extended water and sewer lines and for the tremendous cost of people commuting to and from their place of work? Those were the reasons that nearly 20 years ago a Social Credit government that cared made these changes. That's why I want the minister to consider the historical precedents for why these sections of the Municipal Act were put in place, and act on them.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker, I alluded a while ago to the fact that election after election, throughout the length and breadth of this province, electors went to the polls knowing that their personal property taxes, their cost of doing business, their cost of running their industry, would be directly affected by the kind of people they elected on municipal election day. And everywhere, almost unanimously, they have, over a period of nearly 20 years, elected people who believed in coordinated planning. It was not only good aesthetically, but good economically for their areas. It saved money. People got the best value for their dollars. It protected neighbourhoods and property values, and led not to stultifying growth but to organized growth, responsive to how people voted on election day.

I can't say whether this is an isolated case or simply peculiar to my own area, but Rossland-Trail has in it what's called the east end of the Kootenay-Boundary Regional District, which is, from a population point of view, roughly three quarters to 80 percent of Kootenay-Boundary. About 20 percent of Central Kootenay Regional District lives largely in the city of Castlegar and its immediate environs. Like every other MLA, I have a number of citizens who consider themselves developers, or who own property which they would like to see developed at some point in the future, whether for residential, commercial or industrial purposes. For years regional district planning didn't just sort of zap in there; it's a laborious, slow, exasperating process. You no doubt know that from Prince George, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't just happen. You wait for years with these draft plans; there are public meetings in the electoral areas and different communities; and people grab microphones and there are great fights; they come down to Victoria with the plans, which are rejected for some reason by Highways or Municipal Affairs. On and on it

[ Page 1805 ]

goes, while the developers, or the people who wish to develop their property, tear their hair. I sympathize with them, because they don't know what they're going to be allowed to do, or where they're going to be allowed to do it; what areas are going to be recommended to go into or come out of the agricultural land reserve; what areas are likely to be zoned residential — five-acre lots, half-acre lots, and so on and so forth.

Gradually, though, Mr. Speaker, after a period of agonizingly slow consultation, regional district after regional district, city after city, town after town, electoral area after electoral area, have put their development plans in place. They've come down to Victoria and been approved by the Municipal Affairs planners, who I understand have been cashiered summarily by the minister in many cases — or will be. Eventually these came back; and, Mr. Speaker, I said I didn't know whether my area is perhaps different in this respect, but the developers, and the people with property which they thought they would like to develop. were delighted. They were delighted that at long last these regional and municipal plans were in place, so they knew where the heck they were going. They knew what they could do, what they couldn't do. Of course, we know these plans are not set in stone; they can be amended, democratically. There's a process, just as zoning in an area can be changed either over a whole area or neighbourhood, or on an individual property basis. Municipal councils and regional district boards have that option. But at least people who had property knew where they were going with that property, and municipal taxpayers had some idea of what they had to do in terms of arterial street extensions, bridge construction, additions to sewer and water systems. Even the utility companies — private companies in my case, thank goodness: Inland Gas and West Kootenay Power and Light — had the opportunity to do their planning. B.C. Tel and so forth. Even the television cable companies could plan their budgets.

Now, through Bill 9, the minister says: "Scrap it all." Years of work, years of consultation, years of thoughtful planning, years of responding to what individual property owners wanted or didn't want, are being thrown out the window because the minister is too insensitive simply to go back and consult, even with his own Social Credit supporters, at the local government level. They don't believe in Bill 9. They believe in planning and coordination of plans between regional districts and municipal government. The Union of B.C. Municipalities, as we all know, had a convention recently with delegates of all political persuasions from all over the province, and while they want to like the minister, and maybe do on a personal basis because he's a very jolly fellow, they feel he has a lot to learn. A chap who claims he is, or was, a Socred supporter said that if the Minister of Municipal Affairs was going to a municipal school of the K to grade 12 level, he probably should start at the K level. We know he's not necessarily not bright, and I know that he's capable of learning quickly. Given six months, which is what we're asking for in this hoist, he could learn a lot.

Because he has a mind-set of not wanting to agree with the opposition, he probably wouldn't want to pay attention to what we're saying on this side of the House. I'm simply asking that he talk to people out there who have a mandate and are elected at the local level — maybe some people in the Fraser Valley, maybe even the mayor of Abbotsford. Who knows? Whether they came from large semi-rural or rural municipalities, medium-sized urban areas or traditional townships such as Oak Bay, almost unanimously the people who have a mandate from the taxpayers at the local level said they want the minister to withdraw the bill. In this motion we're simply asking the minister to reconsider Bill 9 six months from now. The municipal councillors went much further, demanding that he withdraw Bill 9.

The term "planning" has somewhat of a tarnished image, and I think that is unfortunate. For some reason it has come to imply that planners will sit in regional district and municipal government offices and play God with property interests, people, neighbourhoods, land and water resources. That is an unfortunate connotation because it is simply not true. The odd planner may be on something of an ego trip. That does happen occasionally. Politicians fall into that trap, and even clergymen occasionally. But most planners are professionals who follow policies set down by the people who hired them — the people with a mandate, the people elected by the property owners and taxpayers. If the planner doesn't follow the policies laid down by the elected people, they're in the same position as a deputy minister: they're insubordinate and could see their employment terminated. If the elected mandated people at the local level don't like any or all aspects of what a planner might recommend, or the various options put out, they have the option to change it. Of course, if the people don't like what the elected people do, every two years they have the option to change them.

Let's talk about what we might loosely define as the dictionary definition of planning. Planning is not designed to prevent, or to order people into doing specific things. In other words: "You must do this. You cannot do that." That's not the role of planning. Planning is an attempt to identify all of the bad development scenarios and options which their masters, or they themselves, might recommend as being costly or undesirable, or not in keeping with the societal needs of the community involved. Having identified those, it is also the job of a planner to identify all the good ways that development may take place in a given neighbourhood or set of hectares in a democratic municipality. Lots of good things could happen. and the planner wants to identify those things as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano rises on a point of order.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 8: "Every member is bound to attend the service...." I notice, as far as the opposition is concerned, that we only have two members present in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for his comment. It’s not really a point of order. Standing order 8 has been canvassed to some significant degree in the past three or four days. I think we could really dispense with any more concern about it. A quorum is in attendance, and I think that's the real business of the House at this point.

MR. D'ARCY: We're unlikely to have a quorum called for. I understand the government members are so exhausted that most of them are seeing double. But I want to thank the member for North Vancouver–Capilano for constantly giving me credit and complimenting me. He's constantly giving us credit for one or two individuals being able to take on that entire rag-tag bunch of authoritarian centralists.

[ Page 1806 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Forests on a point of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could clarify something for me regarding the matter of a quorum. I understand it requires a minimum of ten in the House. Is there nothing in the House rules that says that there should be some members from the opposition as well as from the government side to make up that quorum?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Standing orders are silent on that, hon. member.

[3:30]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate your understanding and the fact that you're protecting me. I only have a certain number of points that I want to make on this hoist motion on Bill 9. I only have a limited number of things I want to say. I'm quite sure that without these frivolous interruptions by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) and the member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland), I would have finished my remarks 10 or 15 minutes ago, and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) could have taken his place in the debate, because he has demanded to be heard. I don't want my colleague from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) hogging the floor here as soon as I'm finished. I think it's about time that we had a government member — perhaps an articulate person like the member for Yale-Lillooet — get up here and kill us with charisma, backing his colleague from Abbotsford.

If we could somehow remember back to before I was so rudely and frivolously interrupted....

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: One member apologizes, anyway.

I want to point out that planning by regional and municipal government was not started by some sort of socialist, communist conspiracy — duly elected or not. Planning through the GVRD or any other regional district was demanded, in fact, by a Social Credit government that understood and cared. That's why planning was put into place. They had that in mind, especially the greater Vancouver area, when they virtually ordered the local level of government to get on with the job; to stop competing for development, whether it be residential or industrial; to stop duplicating services; to stop competing with each other over who could have the biggest, best and most expensive sewer and water system; and to stop placing demands on the provincial government to build new tunnels and bridges when there could have been coordinated development.

Did that light just come on?

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Does that mean I have 30 seconds?

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Three minutes. I'm still learning the rules, Mr. Speaker, but I know you're going to make sure I don't forget the ones I do learn.

Mr. Speaker, before I sit down I want to say that we know that the mandated people at the local level know what they're doing. That's why they have a triple-A bond rating when they go to borrow money. Compare that with this provincial government, which has had its bond rating downgraded. That's one of the reasons that the government has to go to extreme austerity. It's because of their mismanagement of the economy and the provincial finances. When they have proved that they are good managers — all around the province; and they have a mandate — why would we want to take authority from them and centralize it here, under a minister who admits that he has never had any experience in local government? With that thought, that the government and the minister in particular take six months, I would now move that the House do now adjourn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 34, that motion cannot be made.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I have observed other members of the House make a motion, before the red light goes on, that the House do now adjourn. Mr. Speaker, sometimes in consultation with a Clerk and sometimes on his own, has accepted that motion, and on the basis of that precedent, with all deference and respect, I would ask you why that precedent is not being respected in this case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When the motion was made in respect to the red light.... This may be a point, but it was not the point I was making. The point I was making is that pursuant to standing order 34.... It says: "...but no second motion to the same effect shall be made until after some intermediate proceedings shall have been had." That is why I would take not that motion, but perhaps another type of adjournment motion could be accepted.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I was under the understanding — and perhaps you are correcting me — that a speech on a hoist motion for Bill 9 is intervening activity.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We had a similar motion not more than 40 minutes ago, and we have had no other intermediate proceedings.

MR. D'ARCY: Even though I find you a fine fellow, I feel persuaded that I must challenge your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you don't agree with the standing orders, you simply ask leave to have your motion accepted.

MR. SKELLY: Are you refusing adjournment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I am saying that there is another process.

MR. REE: The member did indicate that he was slow in learning, but there was no intervening House business since the last motion. In addition, he says he has challenged your ruling. But there is no ruling to challenge, because the House rules are set out in our standing orders. I presume we can carry on with the hoist of Bill 9.

[ Page 1807 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order relative to something the member for Rossland-Trail said, he called me "the articulate member from Yale-Lillooet." I don't know what articulate are but I hope it don't mean nothin' nasty, and he's gonna hafta withdraw.

MR. D'ARCY: I withdraw the offending remarks,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member withdraws. Could we have the next speaker on the amendment to Bill 3.

MR. D'ARCY: I understand that you are not accepting my challenge. Therefore I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There we are!

The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that member has no access to the floor. His period of time for debate was over, and unless he had made the motion prior to his time expiring, he is in no position to gain the floor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is absolutely correct, and the Chair cannot accept that.

I will ask the members to proceed on the amendment to Bill 9. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Alberni.

MR. SKELLY: I appreciate the opportunity to address the members of the Legislature on the hoist. I am sorry to see the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) in a confused and agitated state, wondering whether he should leave the House or stay in and listen to these pearls of wisdom, because I think the reasons for this hoist motion are very sound. I think the minister is a little put out about my comments on the battle of Dunkirk during the late hours last night, and that is why he is leaving the House. Well, that is unfortunate, because I think the reasons for this hoist motion are very sound, and the minister should at least be present in the House to hear these reasons.

I understand that Hansard is up there doing a Trojan job through every hour of the day and night, recording all of the worthwhile debate that has taken place — on this side of the House, at least — and they are having difficulty getting the Blues out on time, Mr. Speaker, which is your direct responsibility. I am not faulting Hansard for that, because they are doing a tremendous job with the resources they have. So it is difficult. Before this bill reaches the stage where we can vote on it, the minister will not have had an opportunity to review my remarks in the Blues, so I think it is important that he be in the House while the debate goes on. It is unfortunate that the minister, in his confused and agitated state, found it necessary to leave the House.

MR. D'ARCY: That's why he needs a six-month rest.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, we are only too willing to give that minister a six-month rest.

The minister generated a lot of confusion among some other people over his remarks in the last few weeks concerning regional zoning and the planning functions of municipalities and regional districts. Mr. Speaker will recall that in the discussion around Bill 9.... I'll quote a few lines here from the Vancouver Province of September 4, in which the minister is reported to have said:

"...Bill Ritchie wants to abolish planning departments in B.C.'s cities and towns, the Province has learned. 'I fully believe that once an official municipal plan is in place, there is no further need for planning personnel.... Official municipal plans should be reviewed once every ten years and that job can be contracted out to the private sector,' he said.... 'You don't need planners to tell you where to put a park or a sewer line....'"

Can this minister have been serious? Some people have to tell you, as the engineer from North Vancouver can tell you, that you shouldn't really build a sewer line that runs uphill. Sometimes you need experts to tell you what's uphill and what's downhill, especially in that government, which seems to be going downhill all the way.

MR. D'ARCY: And what smells!

MR. SKELLY: And what smells when you do it the wrong way. So, Mr. Speaker, this amazing minister generated a tremendous amount of confusion, as you will know, in municipalities and regional districts when he made these wild statements. "The head of Vancouver city council's planning and development committee, Alderman Marguerite Ford, called Ritchie's scheme 'outrageous.' 'What do you say to someone who is that dumb?'" I wouldn't have called the minister dumb, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We've got a little problem here, because you cannot use that device to bring unparliamentary language to the House. I'll ask you to withdraw that remark.

MR. SKELLY: I'll withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Also, hon. members, this point has been discussed many times, but even though we might be citing from a document or a newspaper — something that has been produced outside of this House — we should avoid, when in this House, not relating our remarks to the parliamentary courtesy of avoiding using a member's name and instead using the riding he represents or his portfolio.

MR. SKELLY: I'll endeavour to remember that in the future.

Where was I? "The head of Vancouver city council's planning and development committee" — the lady alderman; I can mention her name — "Alderman Marguerite Ford, called the member for Fraser Valley's scheme 'outrageous.' 'What do you say to someone who is that dumb?'" she asked — I suppose referring to the member for Central Fraser Valley. "'How do we plan B.C. Place?'"

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's still the unparliamentary reference. The member has withdrawn it, and we'll accept it at that, but if we could just avoid that type of comment.

MR. SKELLY: "'How do we plan B.C. Place?'"

MR. R. FRASER: We haven't been.

[ Page 1808 ]

MR. SKELLY: That's one of the problems with B.C. Place. It's been virtually unplanned. The provincial government seized the planning authority from the municipality, rammed B.C. Place down in the centre of Vancouver, and didn't pay any attention to the planning constraints in the area. It has taken a great deal of time and confrontation and negotiation finally to resolve those issues with the municipality around B.C. Place, whereas if they had embarked on a process of negotiations, respecting the planning requirements of the city of Vancouver, going through the various requirements of public meetings and applications for rezoning, then these problems would have been resolved amicably. There would have been no problems. B.C. Place would have been one of the least controversial developments in the last few years.

"'How do we deal with petitions,'" said respected Alderman Marguerite Ford — "'from residents who don't like their neighbour's garage?'" The member for Central Fraser Valley, she said, "'will turn Vancouver into another Detroit.'"

Or the comments of Vancouver's planning department:

"...said he was 'saddened' by the minister's plan. 'The ignorance of the provincial government is such that it doesn't realize we're already cutting. In the last few years we've cut budgets and manpower in the name of restraint.'"

"Mayor George Thom of Kitimat, president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, said" — and here he quotes the name of the member for Central Fraser Valley — "'... is eating too much of his own haggis.'" Well now, that's a racist comment.

"'Ever since he got this job he's had people running in circles.'" However, Mr. Speaker, one out of four isn't bad: "National president of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, Bob Flitton, applauded" — the member for Central Fraser Valley's — "idea."

In another article in the Vancouver Sun of September 6, 1983: "Municipal officials reacted with disbelief Monday to a statement by Municipal Affairs Minister Bill" — the member for Central Fraser Valley — "that community development plan revisions could be made by the private sector every five years." He must have changed his mind within two days, because it was ten years on September 4. "'Land use and planning are what we're all about,' said Vancouver's Mike Harcourt. 'Honest to God'" — the member for heaven — "'did he really say that? This is like a grade 1 student trying to teach a grade 12. I think...'" — the member for Central Fraser Valley — "'should go back to school.'"

[3:45]

Mr. Speaker, this member has caused a tremendous amount of confusion among municipal elected officials and municipal officers by the statements he has recently made concerning planning, statements that indicate that the minister does not have a sound basis in local government or the reasons for municipal and regional planning.

Here are some comments from the editorial pages of the Vancouver Province, September 8, 1983:

"With his ideas about doing away with local government planning departments, Municipal Affairs Minister...." — and here his name is mentioned, Mr. Speaker, but we'll call him the member for Central Fraser Valley — "has elevated to high political theory the notion that cities and towns should be allowed to grow like Topsy. Even in fairy tales nothing should grow like that.

"With a logic that reduces simplicity to the ridiculous, Mr. Ritchie" — sorry, Mr. Speaker; the member for Central Fraser Valley — "apparently believes that once an official plan for, say, ten years is in place, you don't need municipal planners to supervise development. Development can safely be left to the private sector.

"Much of the urban blight afflicting American cities, which Canadian cities have for the most part avoided, has resulted from a lack of planning."

And we all know the examples of that — for example, Dallas–Fort Worth, Mr. Speaker.

"There's nothing wrong with the profit motive so long as it operates within a framework that suits the community. A framework is all that planning seeks to ensure."

There has been a tremendous amount of concern in the province about the statements by the Minister for Municipal Affairs, and about his apparent lack of knowledge and information on the rationale behind regional planning and the need for regional and municipal planning. This is one of the reasons we're concerned about this bill, and why we feel that the minister should have some time to get a basic educational grounding in the rationale for municipal and regional planning. That's why we've put forward this hoist motion, Mr. Speaker. It will give the minister an opportunity to meet with experts in regional and municipal planning, an opportunity to check a few books out of the library on municipal planning and regional planning, an opportunity to talk to some of the planning personnel in his own ministry — if he hasn't fired them yet — or in the municipalities to find out what advantages have accrued to the province and to the citizens of this province from the fact that our cities and regions are well planned and well structured. He could talk to the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). That would be an excellent idea. Talk to the planning people within the Ministry of Highways who are concerned that if you build a highway at the cost of several million dollars through a municipal or regional area, and then have development in an unplanned way around that highway, it totally devalues the taxpayers' investment in that highway and turns it into a country street, so that through traffic is choked on that highway. The public whom we're here to serve are not well served by allowing development to take place in an unplanned way.

We think this six-month hoist will allow the minister to get in touch with the reality of municipal and regional planning. I'm sure the government, just reading through the newspapers of September 4, 6 and 8, when the minister made his wild statements about planning, have probably seen that there is good reason to support this hoist motion. And I'm sure that when the time comes to vote on this motion, perhaps 3, 4, 5 o'clock this morning, the government will have been convinced by the weight of our arguments that we should really give the minister a six-month try to see what he can learn about the municipal planning function.

Why would the minister be opposed to municipal and regional planning, and what has he got against planning staffs in municipalities and regional districts? Why would he want the government to assume all the rights in planning for regional districts? I think it's a question of money, Mr. Speaker, and we're talking about easy money. Some people in this province, and in this country, work for salaries. They invest their time in training for a career, either training on the job or going to university or trade school. They invest their

[ Page 1809 ]

time and energy in becoming productive workers, and they're generally paid on a salaried or hourly basis. We know from tax statistics that those salaries are taxed at a higher rate than any other form of income. Now we see that investing in a career, going to work and earning a salary is probably the riskiest investment you can make in this province, because although you don't need that pool of capital to invest, you're investing your life, your muscles, your brain in a job that the government may snap away from you in the space of a few days, weeks or months, and with no reason at all.

The same is true in the private sector. During the worst of the Depression, the major employer in my community told 2,000 people....

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under standing order 43 relevance is the key, and I do not see the relevance of the member's remarks with respect to the topic under discussion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A very good point, hon. member. We are dealing with an amendment to Bill 9, the Municipal Amendment Act, and I'm sure the member can relate his remarks to the amendment to that bill.

MR. SKELLY: I appreciate the member's concern, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps he was sleeping during the first part of my argument, where I asked why the minister would be opposed to regional planning. I said it was a question of money, easy money. I talked about some forms of income, and I want to deal with a number of those and show how differently these forms of incomes are taxed.

Salaries, as I pointed out — and I wouldn't have had to repeat this, Mr. Speaker, if the member hadn't interfered on the point of order under standing order 43 — are taxed at a higher rate than any other form of income, as you well know, being a salaried official. Also, it's a very risky investment when you decide, for example, to go into a political career. In some ridings you put your job on the line every four years,

Some people obtain their income through dividends and interest, and that does require a pool of investment capital. Many inherit that pool of investment capital. Some work for it, assembling their savings and investing them — they do a fine job in getting a return on their savings, and the best of luck to them. But their income is taxed at a lower rate than the income of people who have salaried incomes. If you don't trust my word for that — and I'm sure you would, Mr. Speaker, because you would trust the word of an hon. member of this House, as we all do....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't send him a note.

MR. SKELLY: Don't send me a note that says "Trust me."

From the point of view of vulnerability to taxation, another more attractive form of income is capital gains, as the accountant of the Penticton Credit Union well knows, provided he has somebody to check his figures. The most attractive form of income, from the point of view of vulnerability to taxes and tax avoidance, is capital gains. I'm sure all members would agree with that. I'm not questioning that. I'm not saying it's a tax dodge, because that would be illegal. That would be worse than rolling back the odometers on a car, and I wouldn't suggest that any member in this House would do that, or cheat on income tax. But what I'm saying is that capital gains is one of the most attractive forms of income because it's less vulnerable to taxation under federal tax laws, and that makes it the most subsidized form of investment.

MR. KEMPF: I'm rising on a point of order under standing order 43, Mr. Speaker. Although the story being told by the member for Alberni is all very interesting, although probably very false or not quite true....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I withdraw that. But it doesn't show any relevance whatsoever to the hoist on Bill 9 now before us, and I would ask that you bring that member to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Standing order 43 with respect to the member's debate has been raised a couple of times now, and I really will caution the member that he should relate his remarks at least to municipal affairs, and more appropriately the hoist amendment on this municipal affairs legislation. I am sure the member can do that.

MR. SKELLY: I thank that snoozing member for waking up half-way through my argument, Mr. Speaker, and having difficulty relating it, since he was sleeping through the first part. I am not going to go back over the first part; he can wait two or three days and read the Blues.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: You have to be careful in putting these arguments forward, so that the government can understand them.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: As I mentioned, capital gains are tax-exempt on 50 percent of the product after the cost of the transaction has been deducted. This is one of the least productive investments as far as the country is concerned, and as far as the people of British Columbia are concerned. For example, an investor could buy Krugerrands, the price of those South African gold coins could increase, he could sell them....

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I distinctly heard you warn the member now on his feet about relevance in this House. Clearly the present debate, because it holds no relevance whatsoever to the hoist motion before us, is an abuse of this House. It is an abuse of every member of this House, and I would ask that you either bring the member to order or ask him to take his seat.

[4:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is once again well taken. I will remind the member for Alberni that in spite of some levity that appears to be existing, standing order 43 is quite direct and self-explanatory. I have to advise the member that unless he continues his debate in order he will be told to discontinue his speech.

MR. SKELLY: I am sorry that the member saw fit to interfere at the time he did, because if he had heard the next

[ Page 1810 ]

line he would have been thunderstruck. They say that lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place, but he would have been thunderstruck by its relevance. I used the example of Krugerrands to show that that kind of investment producing a capital gain has no productive benefit whatsoever to the people of this country. It is a straight profit-taking effort.

One way of earning capital gains with minimal investment is through the up-zoning of land. Now you see the relevance of my remarks to this particular bill, and if that member, slouching back in his chair, looking at the statuary, had listened to the full import of my remarks he would have seen clearly the direction in which I was proceeding and wouldn't have interfered under standing order 43, although it is every member's right to do so.

We see that one of the ways of getting capital gains, a form of income that is less vulnerable to taxes.... In fact, it is only taxed at 50 percent of other forms of income, and therefore is a subsidized form of income. All of us taxpayers in the province subsidize that form of income. One way to obtain capital gains income is through upgrading the value of land through changing the zoning from a lower class of use — that is, a more restricted use — zoning, to a higher class of use: that is, less restrictions or more valuable use of the property through higher-density residential and industrial use. Does that take the investment of capital? You could get into property just by optioning the property, a very small percentage of the value; you don't have to put up very much money at all. You could use your persuasive talents on regional and provincial authorities who were responsible for land use planning and zoning. How you use those persuasive talents is up to you, but there are ways.

We know that the up-zoning of land can produce tremendous profits for the people who are able to secure that up-zoning. For example, if you own farmland and a developer comes to you and suggests that he can pay you twice the value of your land through upgrading the zoning and make a profit himself, and you're struggling along as a poor fruit-farmer in Boundary-Similkameen, being forced to tear up your fruit trees because you're not getting the kind of income out of that type of occupation, then you're going to be enticed by that developer's arguments of making possibly double or triple the value of your land. If you can't make any money in farming, even though it's probably in the best interests of the citizens of British Columbia, you're going to succumb to that developer's arguments to up-zone your land for, say, residential or industrial purposes, or for some other purpose that attracts a higher land price in the marketplace.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, the former Premier of British Columbia, called this difference in land priced at its current use and land priced at its potential use the unearned increment, because it wasn't earned by the sweat of anybody's brow. It wasn't earned by the intelligence applied to the development of the land. It was simply earned by having the land categorized to a different use under the regional or municipal plan. He called it the unearned increment, and said it should be taxed at the full rate. Why did he say that, Mr. Speaker? Because the opportunity to earn money from up-zoning land causes distortions in the development process, causes cities in British Columbia to develop in the same way as Dallas–Forth Worth, causes cities and regional areas in British Columbia to develop in the same way as Detroit, causes problems with highways, problems with public transportation, problems with the development and location of public schools, problems that require a tremendous amount of taxpayers' input to try to resolve those problems after the fact, when planning tries to deal with those problems before the fact.

If we have adequate planning in place, it makes sure that the taxpayers aren't forced to pay for the problems caused by unplanned development. And that's why we have municipal planning. That's why we have regional planning: so that the taxpayers don't incur an unnecessarily increased tax burden as a result of up-zoning of land which suits only the private developers and private property owners, and which also produces a subsidized income for people who don't really earn it and don't really work at it.

So this is one of the reasons why the government wants to abolish the regional planning process, why the government has this hostility towards regional and municipal planners, why the minister in particular.... I suppose at one time or another he or possibly one of his friends has attempted to make a profit from up-zoning land, and he's been thwarted by the interests of the public, as expressed through the regional or municipal plans. I can understand that minister's antagonism towards the whole process, because there he was, dreaming of making a tremendous profit that would only have been taxed at 50 percent, and he was thwarted by the planning agencies of that municipality or regional district — he or possibly one of his friends.

The basic problem with municipal planning is not really the planning process itself; it's the fact that that form of income, as a capital gain, is subsidized by the taxpayers of Canada. When the development takes place, whether planned or unplanned, it's the taxpayers who have to come in afterwards at tremendous expense to clean up the mess.

I think that none of the members on the government side would object to the planning process if they would understand some of its most successful aspects. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), I guess, after all his comments in the House, has left the House and has gone face down somewhere. But the Minister of Forests is one member who would clearly understand the value of the planning process, because one of the oldest planning statutes in the province of British Columbia is the Forest Act, passed in 1912. The Forest Act was one of the first planning statutes designed to protect the land base by assigning to that land base a certain use, and by denying developers the option of changing that use, in order to preserve the forest land base which would be available as productive forest land to us, to our children, and to citizens of this province forever. There was good reason. Those men, in this very same chamber, in 1912 — 71 years ago.... It's hard to imagine that they had the foresight that was required to protect that forest land base through a planning statute which exists to this day.

That type of planning is required at all levels in order to reflect the interests of all people of the province in the development of land. When we were in government, of course, we passed the Land Commission Act, which established that there was a provincial interest in the protection and preservation of farmland. In order to guarantee a supply of food to ourselves and to our children and to our descendants forever, we had to establish this provincial interest in farmland. That was a good statute. Eighty percent of the people in this province, even those living in the agricultural land reserve, have accepted that that statute was necessary. Both of

[ Page 1811 ]

those are planning statutes. It's very difficult — or used to be very difficult — for somebody to take land that had been assigned to forestry use and to use it for some other higher economic use without going through a very difficult planning and analysis process. In the same way it should be very difficult to remove farmland from the agricultural reserve without going through a series of hearings and a difficult planning and analysis process, because the interests of the public must be protected.

We have municipal and regional planning so that the interests of the community can be protected at the local level. This is a principle that's been accepted in this country for well over 100 years, because the municipal governments of this country are extremely important. They are the governments most closely in touch with the citizens of this province. They are the ones that are most directly affected by changes in land use, and their taxpayers are most directly impacted by any undesirable change in land use which causes problems which might require additional schools, sewering, water lines, streets and roads, and garbage service, all of those services financed by the taxpayers through public bodies. This is the reason why we have municipal planning.

We didn't always have municipal planning. We didn't always have municipalities. Do you know, Mr. Speaker — I'll give you three chances to answer this question — when it was first recommended that we have municipal governments in Canada?

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: You're wrong the first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The nineteenth century?

MR. SKELLY: Close. You're within a hundred years.

Let me read one paragraph from the report of the Earl of Durham, Her Majesty's High Commissioner and Governor General of British North America, this edition published in London in 1902 — but as you all know, Lord Durham was instructed to carry his commission out in North America after the rebellion in the colonies in 1837.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, this was a little after Alcibiades and a little before Dunkirk. I suspect that the Minister of Municipal Affairs will not have lost family in this engagement. However, Mr. Speaker, my family came to this country in 1819. My great-great grandfather, James Skelly, was a private in the Grenville Loyal Sedentary Volunteers at Grenville, Quebec, and drilled in the defence of this country against the rebels of 1837.

MR. KEMPF: He'd roll over in his grave if he heard your debate.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, is the green light on? I haven't even got to the end of my speech; that's a shame.

Well, I'll table the Durham report for the members, because I think a lot of them would enjoy reading it.

I move that the House do now adjourn.

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I didn't have a chance to finish my speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will decline, under standing order 34, to call the question.

MR. HOWARD: I challenge that decision, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair hasn't made a decision, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the words that you used were that you are not going to put the question to adjourn the House, pursuant to standing order 34. That's a decision of the Chair, and I challenge that decision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm just standing on one of our standing orders, hon. member. I didn't make the ruling; I'm just standing on the order.

MR. HOWARD: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. You didn't write the rules; you are just saying to the House that this is what the rule means to you. I challenge that decision of yours as to what that rule means.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give the guy a break.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right, hon. members, the Chair has been challenged.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 13

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

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this is the third occasion, to my knowledge, within 24 hours, to which the same challenge has been made to the Chair on the same standing order with the same ruling of the Chair having been sustained by the House. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a demonstration of disorderly conduct under standing order 20 and is an abuse of the House. I would like your

[ Page 1812 ]

ruling on whether or not this constitutes an abuse of the House under standing order 20 or whether we would need to put a substantive motion on the order paper to clarify what constitutes disorderly conduct in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, the Chair would like to consider your suggestion in some detail, so I'll take it under advisement.

MR. HOWARD: On that same point of order, Your Honour, if I could. I think the minister has probably misread standing order 20 or not read it at all, which wouldn't be the first time. I think he is saying for you to operate under standing order 20 that the conduct of members, without naming who they are, is grossly disorderly. That's what he is saying. I submit that that's what you can operate under that standing order.

Secondly, a challenge of the Speaker's ruling on one occasion may be supported by the House, but on another occasion there is always the possibility that it might not. We live in hope that perhaps we will be right sometimes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair will take your comments under advisement as the same time as those of the minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Under the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Chair will at the soonest possible time give advice to the House with respect to repeated challenges to the Chair on the same point of order, when the House has repeatedly sustained the Chair in its interpretation of the standing orders of the House. Surely at some stage this must be acknowledged to be an abuse of the House. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the enormous cost to the taxpayers of operating a House with frivolous delays has to be taken into account in terms of discharging the public trust.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister.

The Chair will recognize the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre for a brief remark; subsequent to this remark, the matter will be considered as closed.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, standing order 20 refers to the kind of conduct that is disruptive of the House in the face of the Chair. It has nothing to do with repeated motions or tedious and repetitious debate or any other kind of conduct which is dealt with under other standing orders.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, I'm not wrong. I'm absolutely not wrong. I'll tell you one thing. Let me give a solemn warning that if that standing order is misused in this House, that will be worse than closure or any other kind of thug-like tactics that the government can employ.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That will be enough, hon. members. Order, please.

The Chair will recognize the member for Rossland-Trail, very briefly.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm wondering whether Your Honour, in considering the various points of order that have been raised here, especially the one referred to by the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), will take into account that tedious, repetitive, frivolous and superficial points of order being constantly raised by members of this House could in themselves not be an abuse of the House under that same rule 20.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

[4:30]

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join with me this afternoon in welcoming Jennifer Veale from Saanich and Joan Rojek from Cranbrook. I would like all hon. members to give them a warm welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we will now get back to the hoist on Bill 9.

The question is called on the hoist motion on Bill 9.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 28

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

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now we will proceed to the debate on second reading of Bill 9.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, too, for the advice of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who doesn't know how many people are getting laid off in other departments.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down and I'll tell you.

[ Page 1813 ]

MR. BARRETT: No, you wouldn't tell us in question period.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I've had the opportunity to debate a public bill for a private purpose. Yes, this is the Spetifore bill. It's a public bill for a private purpose. This is the first time we've had the opportunity of having a government bring in a bill specifically aimed at protecting the development interests of a couple of promoters. Let us not confuse the citizens of British Columbia. This is a great advantage bill. Even the member who owns shares in Dawn Development heads for the door with a fake yawn — nothing like a little guilt to get you going.

MR. REYNOLDS: Sell your shares.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, let's have it right out in the open on a sunny afternoon. This government of promoters has brought in a public bill for a private purpose. If this bill passes, somebody is going to make a lot of money. Allegations and speculations are going to ring through the corridors all over British Columbia: if you want to get a deal on changing the zoning of land, get yourself elected to the Legislature, support this bill, and the deal is made. Some people serving in this chamber used to be on municipal councils. They know what zoning means.

This is not a new debate in this chamber. When I was a young man — many, many years ago — there was a Minister of Highways in this province who had a unique power that was unparalleled anywhere in the Commonwealth. Do you know what that was? It was amazing. It was the only highway divining rod anywhere in the world. You know what a divining rod is, Mr. Speaker. A divining rod is when somebody holds a dried branch out, walks along and discovers water. Just as the water is below this rod, power pulls down the rod and they discover a well. We had a Minister of Highways who had a divining rod in his hand and, lo and behold, persons close to him would hold this divining rod and they would discover where intersections were going to be in highways. It was amazing.

MS. SANFORD: Did that happen in B.C.?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, that happened in B.C. Because of this magical power of being able to walk along and discover where intersections were going to be, they bought property there. In our free enterprise system, having discovered where the highway was going to be built and where the intersection was going to be, they bought property there a few years ahead. Then the highway was built and then they sold the property to a gas station. Then they'd make a lot of money. That's known as free enterprise and bonkership, as the member from Surrey develops it. What did that mean, Mr. Speaker? It was better than buying lottery tickets. Why take a risk? If you just get out there and get your divining rod and know where the highway's going to go and buy up the land ahead of time, and bide your time, and if you were lucky, nine times out of ten the highway went right by and you sold the property and made a lot of money. You know, Mr. Speaker, some people even got rich doing that!

MS. SANFORD: Were they Socreds?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, they were Social Credit too. That's coincidental. But it's an interesting coincidence.

Now, Mr. Speaker, how much productive hard work went into the investment of money on land where a highway was going to go? Well, you have to get up early in the morning, get dressed, brush your teeth, pick up your divining rod and head for the bushes. There you discovered where a highway was going to go. Then you went down to the bank and bought an option on that property, maybe put up $10, and then turned the option into a fortune overnight. I don't want to give this chamber a lesson in how to make a quick buck, but I was here and I saw it happen.

Now we've got a bill in front of us that is a new form of land-divining rod. This is how it works. Up until now, zoning — that is, the regulation of the use of land — was in the hands of municipalities. So when they had this ability to plan, the local burghers would gather once or twice a week, and sit down and conscientiously plan where the gas station was going to be, where the housing development was going to be and whose property was going to be zoned, and there was consistency. Now this caused problems if you had a lot of land, and you didn't have any logical argument with the municipal council, and you wanted to sell your land, but your land was only zoned as farmland, and you knew that if you could change the zoning to gas station land, or housing land you could make a lot of money. So what you would do is go to the municipal council and say: "Friends, I would like my land zoning to be changed from farming to gas station land or housing development land." In many instances the municipal politicians would say: "No, you can't build a gas station there, and you can't build houses there, and that's the end of it."

Let's suppose you are a wealthy, prominent Social Credit supporter, and you go to the municipal council and the municipal council says no. You might get mad and go to Victoria, and in your anger approach the provincial government and say: "Mr. Speaker, you know that I've approached the lower mainland municipalities and the regional district, and they won't let me develop my land." Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that if you really got angry and you were in the chair, you might go into the corridor and call all those municipal politicians a bunch of communists because they won't let you develop your land. Have you ever heard of a Speaker of the Legislature calling those elected people who won't let those who want to zone their land get their way a bunch of communists? That's what happened. Out of that, because of the approach to the government, we got this bill. Now what is going on here today is that this is a bill to protect the friends of the government. If you can't get your land zoned at the municipal level so that you can make a huge profit, come over to Victoria, talk to a friendly government, and they'll bring in a little law. This is a public law to help private people.

[4:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now that we understand the game, let us read what the law says. You don't need a lawyer for this one, Mr. Speaker. If it passes, all you'll need is a fat bank account. It'll get fatter in a hurry. What this bill is going to do — and I read from it.... Even those ordinary citizens out there who are not wise in the ways of intricate legislative language will understand what it is. It has one page, and section (5) says: "The following section is added...." It is known in my terms as the Spetifore amendment. I quote: "Elimination of regional plans and official regional plans. All regional plans and official regional plans prepared or designated before

[ Page 1814 ]

sections 807 and 808 were repealed are cancelled and have no effect." The fix is in, gang. If this passes, it means that you never have to mess around with any zoning at the local level anymore. Just come over and talk to your happy friends here in Victoria, and you can have your land rezoned. It's better than the old minister's divining rod. You don't even take the risk of where a highway's going; the fix is in before that. In the old days, when you had to take a divining rod to make money out of highway property.... They've even taken the risk out of that. They're saying: "Come on over to Victoria. We're going to pass a law. Sit down and tell us what you need, and we'll do the rezoning."

Since there are young people in this province who are not yet wise to the ways of rampant free enterprise, they may go out and use some of their hard-earned welfare cheque money, put a down payment on a piece of property, come up to a government member and say they'd like to be an entrepreneur and produce something — buy a piece of land and fertilize it in any manner that is customary with those who are close to the earth. Having spent a few months doing that, they then proceed to apply for rezoning of the land. That is a lesson in free enterprise capitalism. The lesson is: get there firstest with the mostest; it is not what you know, but who you know. And if this bill passes, it means that if you're friendly with the government you're going to get the rezoning.

Now that is going to make for some strange friendships. Some people are actually going to be seen in public endorsing Social Credit. That's a rare thing. That is a stigma that few people are willing to risk. However, money does do away with stigmas. And the legislation may be stigmatized in terms of the approach. So let us understand — in clear layman's language — that you don't need a lawyer, you don't need a municipal council; all you need is a friend in government, and the fix is in. How do I know that, Mr. Speaker — as the minister laughs and cavorts? He is chuckling with one of the ministers who knows all about this process. In the case of the Gloucester property — which was a subject of debate which would be appropriate to this bill, Mr. Speaker — that Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) showed up at the hearings. Perhaps unbeknownst to him, his remarks were being taped verbatim, and he made an appeal for constituents to have their land rezoned.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Ha, ha! Do you take up the case of everybody who wants his land rezoned?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I take up cases for my constituents.

MR. BARRETT: You see, my friends? The member appears himself. Oh, it is interesting, Mr. Speaker. Although the minister is anxious to interrupt, I'll bet you a cup of coffee at midnight — if we could wager, which we can't — that he's not going to speak on this bill. Oh, he's going to interrupt. He's going to hurl insults, and you know how sensitive I am about those kinds of insults. I don't show it on the outside, but I really cry on the inside when they call me names. I'll bear those scars, and I'll press on. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? I'll bet you a cup of coffee that minister doesn't get up and say a single word about this bill.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, not the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) either. No, sirree, Bob, this is the fix bill.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I'm in fantastic shape. I'll never use legislation like this to make a fast buck, I'll tell you, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's parliament, huh? That's free enterprise? Mr. Speaker, it's a public bill for a private purpose. Now having made the case....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, does the member wish to participate in this debate?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, that's good. I was worried that you might bear some semblance to a commitment to speak in the chamber, other than heckle. I want to say this: the bill is very simple; it is the fix bill. No longer will municipal politicians have the right to determine zoning where gas stations go, where hotels go, where houses go. All you have to be is a developer and come over here to Victoria, and they'll impose the decision on the local ratepayers. For those of you who are developers, those of you who are promoters, those of you who believe in a fast buck of non-productive work in raising the value of land simply by rezoning, this is going to be a hallowed day. If this bill passes — and I think it will — it is going to make a lot of people a lot of money in a short time.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I may be absent, but I've never been absent-minded.

Mr. Speaker, having drawn the attention of that articulate rapier-like debater, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), and having your rapt attention in the chair, I now go on to make the further point that this bill will allow a lot of people to make a lot of money in a hurry by having zoning be changed with political influence. I know that'll come as a shock to a whole generation under the age of 30. But you know, Mr. Speaker, it has happened once or twice in the world that politicians do favours for friends.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, they use their influence to use the laws of the land to prevail on a decision that can make someone a lot of money. Do you know what that means? If you know what company to invest in ahead of time, before this bill passes, you're going to make a lot of money. There has been some speculation that members of this august chamber, who by their disclosure papers have been participants and investors in a company known as Dawn Development.... Oh! What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? What interest does Dawn Development have in this bill?

[ Page 1815 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: How will this affect it? It means that the poor ratepayer throughout the province, the poor homeowner throughout the province, has to pay the speculators' profits. They've got an in with this government. And when this bill passes, that land is going to be rezoned. As I stand here and breathe, instant millionaires are going to be made. You don't have to buy a lottery ticket; just wait for this bill to pass. If you've got some connections you're going to get rich. Do you own Dawn shares yet? Not yet. Better run out there and buy them, because this thing's going to pass,

So that's how it goes. And then when these stories come out in the newspapers and are fed to the children of this nation, some of them become cynical about politicians. They say: "Ach! All politicians are crooked." Well, they're able to make that generalization out of this specific bill. Some of them are going to hit the gravy train when this bill passes. All of a sudden some lucky people who bought a piece of land at a price, when it was zoned as farmland.... When this bill passes, they're going to sell it at ten times the value because it'll be rezoned for housing.

Is there anybody in the gallery who has a share in this? If you're up there, don't smile, don't wave your hand, just hope the bill passes, and your banker will be smiling for you.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: There is no gallery in debate? Is there anybody in the chamber who will benefit from this bill passing, Mr. Speaker? I see a lot of strangers and very few friends, especially when I talk this way. Isn't it interesting that they've got their heads down on the tables and are quiet? No heckling, no interruptions. Just get this guy to shut up and get him out of here. We'll pass this bill and everything'll be okay, and a lot of people are going to make a lot of money. If he'd only shut up and get out of here, we'd all be better off, because it costs a lot of money to the taxpayer to have this chamber....

For those history buffs, and for the others who were born at the time who are present in this chamber, in 1837 a British lord came to this country at the request of Upper and Lower Canada to settle the problem of local control of the development of property. His name was Lord Durham. He wasn't Irish, and the problems of Ireland were not yet known. Lord Durham's progeny are still alive in Britain. As a matter of fact, I had the honour of running into one of his great-grandsons some years ago. He asked me if I was from the colonies, where his grandfather had been. And I said yes, I was from one of the colonial outposts where political influence still has a hand in how land is zoned. In his 1841 report Lord Durham wrote a paragraph warning the citizens of the new, yet-to-be-developed country of Canada about losing control of land, and the alienation that that would cause to younger people as the country grew because access to land ownership would be restricted if it was held in the hands of the few and allowed to come on the market in a controlled basis to provide vast profits. This is what he wrote some 140 years ago. He suggested that in the development of Canada a commission be established to lay out a method whereby the developing nation could solve its problems. He says:

"The same commission should form a plan of local government by elective bodies, subordinate to the general Legislature and exercising a complete control over such local affairs as do not come within the province of general legislation. The plan so framed should be an act of the Imperial Parliament so as to prevent the general Legislature from encroaching on the power of the local bodies."

[5:00]

One hundred and forty years ago Lord Durham warned that as much as regional parts of Canada should develop provincial governments, the provincial government should never be allowed to have the power from the imperial government to take away from the local administrations the powers of local bodies that should indeed deal essentially with land. That was the basic foundation of the disharmony in Canada when he arrived. Now, because of that, we have built up in this province a system of municipal involvement in planning by friends and neighbours and communities in the type of community they want to live in. It was never questioned before, until we got a brand-new Minister of Municipal Affairs, who said: "From now on I'm going to bring in this bill and I'm going to have all that power to myself."

It's open season for the fast-buck boys. It's open season for speculative land development that adds absolutely nothing productive to the community, that does not involve any hard work, that does not involve any rolling up of one's sleeves or pulling up one's bootstraps and making their way through the system in the free enterprise manner of slugging. This is a bill to protect those who have friends in government, to guarantee them that they're going to make a lot of money.

Most British Columbians who have been observers of the Spetifore land case understand exactly what this bill will do. As a focus of dispute we have a very large parcel of land, the original owner of which has sold out his share for some $100 million to a group of promoters. That group of promoters, becoming the owners of this large body of land, has for the past period of time been attempting to influence elected officials at the municipal level to change the zoning of their land. They have been unsuccessful. I think there are 32 separate governments in the greater regional district board, all of whom have been accused of being communist by a Speaker. It's the largest elected body...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: ...of communists outside of the Soviet Union, according to the Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. No reference can be made to the Speaker of the Assembly. I'll ask the hon. member to withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please proceed.

Interjections

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. The member for Delta....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That doesn't apply, either, hon. member. There can be no reference made to the Speaker of this House or the member for Delta.

[ Page 1816 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Did you read in it...?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You're objecting. Okay.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That has been clearly established.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my own House Leader objects to my identifying the member for Delta, so I will not identify him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw any reference.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw any reference.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you to the House Leader.

An unknown MLA, who was quoted by name in the newspapers, who shall remain unidentified by me in this chamber, immediately attacked the whole regional group of elected politicians as being communist because they wouldn't rezone this land. May Brown was called a commie. The mayor of West Vancouver was called a commie.

MR. REID: I know them both and neither one of them are commies.

MR. BARRETT: Can you imagine what the good burghers and citizens of West Vancouver would do if they woke up and found out that their mayor was a commie? The whole hill would go upside down.

MR. REID: They know better.

MR. BARRETT: Who was it?

MR. REID: He made a mistake.

MR. BARRETT: He made a mistake — whoever "he" was and whose name I shall not refer to because it's against the rules.

MR. REID: He's wrong.

MR. BARRETT: Did he resign?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he just called him a comic; he was wrong but he didn't resign. Anyway, somebody called them commies.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You might as well tar the whole works with the brush, if you want something. Then that same unnamed member went on to say, "By golly, by gosh, the Legislature will deal with that problem,  and his prediction was unerringly correct. Lo and behold, we have this bill. This is not the anti-commie bill, folks; this is the line-the-pockets bill.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You couldn't play me back to myself. My friend, you play me back anytime; I live with a conscience. You'll be voting for promoters who are going to skin the people of this province for tens of millions of dollars when this bill goes through. It is sleazy, but it's crass. You've got to give them credit for having crass. You've got to give them credit for having gall. They didn't fudge it and they didn't beat around the bush. When they're out to get in the trough, they make it plain, boy: here's the trough; go to it; put your snout right in and make all the money you want.

This is farmland. When this bill passes, it'll become housing land. Every planning democratically arrived at at the municipal level will be thrown aside. Unfortunately....

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as much as the government is upset, you will notice that I am not wrong. Had I been wrong I would have been called to order.

This is the developers' bill. Now the question is going to arise: have those promoters ever given any money to the Social Credit Party? Yes. I'm not going to raise that question. Not me. But somebody writing for a newspaper might. Some citizen touched with a level of cynicism beyond my awareness might say, "Golly gee, if I'm going to make tens of millions of dollars out of them passing this bill in this House, maybe I should help their campaign funds." Don't you all think that would be accidental, coincidental and nothing to do with payola? Somebody out there is going to ask that question, but hopefully it'll be a letter to the editor, and forgotten.

How much time, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ten minutes, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Ten minutes left in a career that has been distinguished by egg-timers and, perhaps, mistakes by voters. Nonetheless, one thing about it....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, no, it's not hard for me to understand this bill. This is just a straight, crass grab for money. This is a payoff. It is. And the Spetifore investors are going to get rich when this bill passes the House. That's a statement of fact. Anybody who's got shares in that company is going to make a lot of money when this bill passes, and some of the members of this assembly have shares in that company and they're going to make a lot of money. There is actually a section in our standing orders that says that people who have a pecuniary interest in legislation should not vote. It will be interesting to see if those members, who on their disclosure papers show that they own shares in Dawn Development, will absent themselves from this House when this vote is taken. Because they will make money as soon as this thing passes. Those lucky members who bought shares in Dawn Development will make a lot of money as soon as this bill passes.

Interjection.

[ Page 1817 ]

MR. BARRETT: If I were wrong, I'd be thrown out of here for making such a charge.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member. I'm not being thrown out. I'm making some direct charges, and the cabinet is silent. Would I be right, Mr. Speaker, in presuming that they feel the sooner this is over with — this little temporary discomfort, this little ripple of gas — then we'll bring in the oil. They're going to get rich. They're going to be rolling in dough. And who's going to pay for it? The taxpayers. But they're not here, and we don't allow television cameras or radio broadcasts in here to see what's going on, because if those people out there saw, or heard on the radio, what was going on in here they might not vote for these people anymore.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank my House Leader, too, for informing me of where the situation is. That's indeed the case. This is the Spetifore amendment. This is a bill that will make a lot of friends of this government very rich. This is a direct result of the election of this government. This is a bill that will allow the minister to directly rezone land without any explanation or accountability. It will give unto that Minister of Municipal Affairs the right to play God with people's property, with no appeal. It will make that minister the single most powerful person in land use in this province. It will mean that friends will get in and enemies won't, and there'll be no accountability by that minister to the public. The minister is very nervous and edgy about this, and I know it.

At the recent UBCM convention the minister was asked by elected officials who are members of his own party why he's presenting this bill, and he did not answer. The minister is being challenged in editorials throughout this province in far more cautious language than I've used, and he still won't answer. But he and I both know that if this passes he will have the power to make people rich overnight. It's unparalleled power not present in any other jurisdiction. Only here in British Columbia will rampant power be used directly by a minister who could, indeed, influence the fortunes of citizens who know how to talk to the minister and how to have zoning changed.

Because of that I find it necessary to move that the motion before us be amended by leaving out all of the words follow "that" and substituting therefore the following: "it is the opinion of this House that cooperation between municipalities and regional districts is necessary for orderly regional development." And I have so signed the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reasoned amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the opposition opposes Bill 9, but the reasoned amendment states the principle upon which this bill should be considered at this stage. We think that the government, in moving to legislate in this manner, has quite clearly abandoned what has been a developing area of government, not only in British Columbia but throughout North America. It should be pointed out that as a result of Bill 9, if it passes, British Columbia will be the only jurisdiction in North America in which regional planning mechanisms will not be in place. One must ask oneself why this has to be the case here. Other members of the opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition, who just spoke, have pointed out that this will allow a very arbitrary power in the hands of the provincial government that could lead to expressions of financial support for their friends and not be in keeping with good planning policy at the regional and local levels.

[5:15]

This kind of government is discriminatory. It is the kind of government that could lead to corruption, and it should be discouraged. Legislation which eliminates the regional plan would also cause confusion and inequities between municipalities. It seems to us that the services and the interim municipal services which are required will suffer duplication, and overlapping may take place. Differentials in taxation cannot be cured by other forms of legislation if regional planning is eliminated.

It has been said that this is a developers' bill. I want to point out to the members of the Legislature that there are regions where there is no planning, and although this bill does not eliminate municipal planning as yet, we have heard the rather alarming statements of the new Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to his lack of confidence, even in ongoing municipal planning. That kind of statement was based on a lack of knowledge with respect to how municipal governments perform and what their responsibilities and duties should be.

In the past history of this province we have seen too many examples where the lack of regional and municipal planning has caused increased taxation burdens on municipalities and on the provincial government. It has also caused the kind of development which has been more than just an eyesore; it's been an environmental disaster. It has been said that there are no zoning bylaws in Houston, Texas, in the United States. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I invite all hon. members to travel down to Houston — at their own expense, of course, during these times of restraint — and have a look at the development that has taken place in the city of Houston. There is no zoning there. Yes, the developers can make a big dollar there, and as a matter of fact, my understanding is that a lot of Canadian investors have made some return on their investments in Houston. I hear, through the grapevine, that some have lost considerable amounts of money.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The Bank of Commerce has an office there.

MR. LAUK: I wouldn't in the least doubt that the Bank of Commerce has an office there. Wherever there's a disaster it seems that the Bank of Commerce is there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gary's right behind them.

MR. LAUK: Yes, I'm right behind them with a broom and a shovel.

Houston is a tremendous example. I think we can see where a lack of zoning and municipal planning has destroyed any kind of community atmosphere. It's made the city into probably, as has been said by the American Institute of Architects, "one of the ugliest cities in the world." The

[ Page 1818 ]

buildings themselves are rather well designed and attractive, but the plan of the city makes the city the most disorganized and chaotic-looking city anywhere in the world. Those are not my observations necessarily; those are the observations of the American Institute of Architects.

I would also like to point out that in the United States we have had many distinguished architects, as we have had in Canada, who criticize and have criticized Houston. And over the years one of the most distinguished members of that institute, Frank Lloyd Wright, has made some very important contributions not only to the theory but to the practice of design and architectural planning of buildings, and to town planning itself. Frank Lloyd Wright pointed out, as long ago as 1937, that "without a regional mechanism for planning, cities will become terrible eyesores" in the United States. This was at a time when the freeway system was a concept. Many bright and creative people such as Wright pointed out that this would lead to the destruction of the community feeling in municipalities, cities, towns and those unincorporated areas in between. He argued that there should be a development towards a regional planning mechanism, and indeed postwar development in the United States and Canada has gone along those lines.

The previous Social Credit administration under W.A.C. Bennett brought in the regional district concept, and over the years we have seen that the planning groups within these districts have succeeded in turning the corner insofar as well-planned towns and cities are concerned in British Columbia. The role of the provincial government in the past has not been a salutary one. It seems to me that the decisions made by the provincial government without support from regional planning have proven the point that I am making here today. We have seen subdivisions in unincorporated areas; we have seen subdivisions allowed arbitrarily by the provincial government in unincorporated areas, which has caused great hardships to those purchasing homes in such subdivisions. The only thing that it has allowed for, it seems to me, is great profit-taking on the part of those who started the developments. Profit-taking aside, we owe a responsibility at all levels of government to our citizens in British Columbia who may buy homes in such subdivisions, to protect them from, among other things, the lack of services provided by local municipalities.

We have seen this before. Most of the hon. members have served in one capacity or another at the municipal level, and they have seen where the arbitrary planning of subdivisions outside of municipal boundaries has caused a pressure and a drain on municipal taxation and services to the extent where there is a great deal of resentment between the community involved in the subdivision and the communities in the municipality itself. We are talking about fire and police service, sewage and water, and services of another nature — street repair and so on. Also, school districts have a difficult time in coordinating the kinds of activities that require the resources of a community in the region rather than isolated communities in and around it.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The bill doesn't touch that, Gary.

MR. LAUK: The minister says the bill doesn't touch what I am talking about, but I would argue that the bill does, by eliminating regional planning, refocus the responsibility for such coordination onto the provincial government, and I think that the role of the provincial government in the past has been that we should not support such a move.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It doesn't eliminate the regional district, just the plan.

MR. LAUK: The whole point of a regional district, it seems to me, is regional planning. Otherwise there is no point to a regional district. Look at the kind of decisions that have been made, the strip development that has occurred even within municipalities that have discouraged planning. This brings me again to the statement made recently by the new Minister of Municipal Affairs — that he has no confidence in municipal planning, let alone regional planning. Strip development has left some cities in the Okanagan, for example, that would otherwise be very beautiful cities in part an ugly eyesore along the strip-development areas.

The other point that I wanted to raise — and I want to dwell on this for a moment — is that if we eliminate the regional district planning mechanism, there will be more bureaucracy and a greater burden on the provincial government's resources. In the past we have not been impressed with the provincial government's decisions. Provincial government resources will lead to more bureaucracy, more expense for the provincial taxpayer, more chaos and a lack of coordination between municipalities in the regional district.

There's a greater burden on the provincial government. It is the kind of penny-wise and pound-foolish attitude taken by the government in introducing such legislation. It will be no time at all before legitimate demands upon the provincial government by people in municipalities and regional districts will be such that the provincial government will have to respond. Well, how are they going to respond? They're going to have to respond with more tax money and more bureaucrats at the provincial level moving in and planning these types of things.

The most clear example of this is the rapid transit planning in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Two years ago this provincial government demanded that the GVRD come up with a rapid transit plan as quickly as possible. As soon as the provincial government heard that the GVRD was ready with a plan, they moved in quickly with legislation to take control of the rapid transit planning mechanism away from the GVRD. It seems hypocritical, to me, for the government now to argue that the regional planning mechanism hasn't worked. It hasn't worked because of the unjustified, selfish and rather ill-advised arbitrary interference on the part of the provincial government in the regional planning mechanism.

In November 1980 a regional plan was ready; it was to be presented to the minister. A meeting was called. During the time between the calling of the meeting and the time that the meeting took place, the government of the day quickly introduced legislation. The minister acted arbitrarily and took the planning away from the GVRD. Why? Well, on the surface it appears to us as if the government had been planning all along to have a special deal with the ALRT system, and the GVRD was planning along the lines of a more conventional system. There was a competitive interest.

Democracy only works when you respect the democratic decisions made by lawfully elected bodies which have the responsibility of making such decisions. Democracy is not the kind of philosophy where the government of the day says: "Democracy works fine as long as everybody agrees with

[ Page 1819 ]

us." That's not democracy at all. The democratic system is such that we must allow and respect the different decisions made by various levels of government. We must live with them, because they are decisions made by democratically elected officials at the regional level, in this case. The voluminous planning report by the GVRD was shelved. The cost of that plan was quite extensive; however, the cost of the proposal in that plan was, I would say, less than 50 percent of the ultimate cost of the ALRT system subsequently imposed by the provincial government.

So it's not a question of efficiency — it's not even a question of modern equipment — that the provincial government interfered with its ALRT system as opposed to the conventional system at that time. Had they respected the decisions and plans of the GVRD, I contend that we would have a system that would work much better than the ALRT, with proven equipment, and at half the cost, and probably servicing municipalities and regions in the greater Vancouver district much sooner than the ALRT program for the same district. We have big promises that the ALRT system will reach out to New Westminster and eventually out to Dewdney, Delta and Richmond. But we know that the costs are so great these days that that's not a likelihood for some considerable time — perhaps not until the turn of the century — the way the finances of the province are going.

Had we adopted a conventional system, the major construction of the line out to New Westminster, I would say, would already be substantially underway. Instead, after three years, we have the ALRT system stalling, staggering and careening off the walls with all kinds of complexities and delays, and with overrun after overrun. It seems to me that had the government respected the decision of the GVRD in this matter, we would have a more viable, practical, conservative and intelligent rapid transit system underway in the greater Vancouver district.

[5:30]

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

Why did the government interfere? First of all, they demanded that the GVRD speed up its planning for rapid transit. Was this hypocrisy? Was this two-faced? Listen to the evidence, and you tell me: as soon as the GVRD came up with this plan, the government intervened. It seems to me that all along the government had hoped the GVRD would continue to delay or take more time in planning the rapid transit system so that they could come in with the ALRT system and say: "Oh, well, you're taking too much time, and here we go." They said that anyway, but it was so false in the face of the facts that they could not sell that story to the public. The real reason was that they were about to be committed to the ALRT system and they intervened because of their own supervening judgment on the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think we can safely say that because the provincial government is elected from time to time it is the final arbitrator and the final decision-maker in all matters. The public, when they elect a provincial government, do so with a view to the fact that we have various levels of government and those levels will be respected, because those individuals elected to other levels are elected by the same voter and we must assume that that voter has in mind the division of responsibility between the regional districts and municipalities on the one hand and the provincial and federal governments on the other. We think it is unfair, undemocratic, arbitrary and in this sense dictatorial that the government intervened with its ALRT system.

However, it is now underway. It is going to cost at least twice as much, it is badly planned, it is going to be delayed and delayed because of financial problems, and we don't think that the transit system will reach out to New Westminster in this decade. It is our view that the construction plans are unrealistic in view of the financial overruns that are being faced, and this at a time when the inflationary factor is stabilizing in Canada and we still see that the locked-in contract and the agreement of the provincial government — through its foolishness and its rather petulant intervention — is going to cost them much more than the conventional system.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The conventional system had its own problems, but we feel that at the regional level those problems could have been worked out in a cooperative manner. We think that any arbitrary move under the guise of efficiency or restraint is a move that will eventually cost more and will be disruptive in the community and divisive among the people in that community.

Either this Bill 9 will eventually lead to that greater burden upon the provincial government through bureaucracy and cost, or there will be no planning at all. If there is no planning at all and the government does not respond, then I ask you to consider the situation we were in before and after the Second World War, where if there was a fire on the border between one municipality or another, or between a municipality and an unincorporated area, we quite often saw the firetruck stop at the boundary and refuse to go and assist in that fire. Just as often as not that didn't happen, but it happened often enough to cause all of us in the province grave concern about the safety of our citizens. We felt it was important that this kind of inequity in municipalities be in some sense eliminated by regional coordination. The minister quite rightly points out that the bill will not abolish that altogether, but it is an example of the kind of chaotic situation we were in prior to the regional district planning that was put in place under the W.A.C. Bennett administration.

There were inequities also between municipalities with respect to services. These inequities should be pointed out under this bill. It is not just a question of eyesore and environment; it is a question of inequities of service. Taxes from just across the border could shoot up or shoot down. Some subdivisions were paying lower taxes than the municipality because the municipality had greater service responsibilities. The municipality, for example, provided a first-class fire service and police protection. On the other hand, the subdivisions would mooch, if you like, on the municipality, so that the taxpayers within the municipalities were rather upset, and justifiably so, that they were paying in some cases twice or three times the taxes of those in a subdivision and yet they were paying and subsidizing those subdivision taxpayers with the fire, police and other services.

I feel that Bill 9 is a move toward that kind of chaos again. As I have charged here today, if these demands are increased, the provincial government, having eliminated the regional district planning groups, will have to move in on its own and try to coordinate. They will find that the planning has to continue, they will hire their own bureaucrats, they will pay

[ Page 1820 ]

them ever-increasing salaries, there will be all that bureaucratic centralized cost and overlapping and duplication. If the government steadfastly refuses to provide resources to fill this vacuum, I argue that it will be left to no planning, which is worse, and the chaos that would follow is clear.

I wanted to raise another example of why this bill is so important in attacking the good record of regional planning, and that is the intervention of B.C. Place. I recognize that B.C. Place as a Crown corporation is right in the middle of the city of Vancouver and therefore concerns itself with the municipality of Vancouver. But B.C. Place is not just a project in the middle of another town; it is in the middle of the biggest city in the province, and indeed one of the most important cities in Canada and North America. The core of the city of Vancouver is the cultural, social and economic hub for over 1.5 million people in the province, and it services the same number. It is unfair to require of the taxpayers of Vancouver the kind of expense that would be required by new provincial projects within the city core, without some kind of regional development. It is also unfair to expect the municipalities in the greater Vancouver districts outside of the city to remain silent, and without some contribution in planning with respect to such a big project as B.C. Place. If it were only for the city of Vancouver we would perhaps call it Vancouver Place. It's a provincial project in the biggest city in the province, and planning with respect to B.C. Place should concern not only the city of Vancouver but the regional district. When you eliminate the regional planning mechanism you eliminate that opportunity.

B.C. Place has already made an offer to supply planners, at its own cost, to the city of Vancouver and to any other organizations which will be involved in the development at that site. It seems to us a cruel irony that the bill has not even passed second reading and already the Crown corporation is offering provincial taxpayers' resources to the municipalities to fill the vacuum.

We have to ask the question of the government: why Bill 9? You argue restraint. We say that this is increasing the cost to the provincial taxpayer. How are you arguing restraint? It doesn't make any sense. Already the Crown corporation — which is the provincial government — is making these offers of expending money on salaries and other costs for planners to work with the city in arriving at a cooperative zoning plan for the project.

For orderly regional development it seems to us that we need to have the regional planning groups in place. Let me offer a suggestion: if there's a feeling that there's duplication or that it's too expensive, there are ways to impose — if you like — efficiency measures, to some degree, from the provincial level. But not the elimination of the regional planning group altogether. We don't believe — and we have all the evidence in the world to prove that our beliefs are true — that the motivation of the government is restraint. We think the motivation is simply to allow more freedom for the government to make arbitrary decisions on zoning and planning within regional areas which will, in turn, enrich a few developers on the argument that it's the great old free enterprise system. It seems to us that the only people who profit by the free enterprise system are friends — and only a handful at that — of the government of the day. That kind of political patronage and corruption should be discouraged, not encouraged, in the province of British Columbia.

There should be some plan and statement on behalf of the government where equitable and judicial separation and planning take place, and it is not left up to the government of the day to use their very great powers under the Municipal Act to supersede and overule the decisions of municipalities and. Indeed, not even have to bother now with the regional districts.

It has been said that Bill 9 is the Spetifore amendment. Let's canvass that just for a moment. We have seen that this bill came hard on the heels of a decision of the Greater Vancouver Regional District to reject the idea of developing the Spetifore land. In spite of the intemperate remarks of some provincial politicians, that remark was made by a cross-section of municipal politicians who were elected for that purpose. After careful consideration and considerable public hearings, that decision was made in deference to the total community plan in the regional district. This, it seemed, bothered some members of the Social Credit Party, to the extent where they have imposed upon the government the idea that regional planning should be eliminated altogether.

The rather intemperate remarks aside, the people on the regional district — who were of every political point of view — voted against and rejected the Spetifore deal. But the fact that prominent members of the House were in some way involved in that development is highly suspicious, and has yet to be answered. That has to be answered, because it appears to the public that this bill came hard on the heels of that allegation and was designed to allow this development to occur in the face of, and in opposition to, the elected officials' position on the Greater Vancouver Regional District. I think that's really a fair way of stating the facts. Without exaggerating the involvement of some hon. members of the House in this project, it seems important that a full statement be made to the House before this bill is passed. Otherwise, it's just another piece of evidence, if you like, that this bill is introduced for private gain, for personal reasons and from narrow political points of view, rather than from an interest in the orderly regional development of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and other regional districts.

It should also be pointed out — and it has already been pointed out, but I would like to emphasize the point — that apart from the handful of people who are directly involved in the Spetifore deal, there's virtually no support for this bill, including the so-called conservative groups, the planning groups — HUDAC and so on — who have clearly stated that they want some form of regional planning. It seems to us that the government has not acted upon any desire to fulfil a demand placed upon them by any identifiable public group. A narrow group, yes, but a private group, has made a demand. The government should only react to public demands for justice and equity, not to private demands for personal aggrandizement and financial success. It seems deplorable to us that the government would act on motives of fulfilling the financial and free enterprise dreams of a handful of people, in the face of absolutely no demand on the part of public groups.

The board of the GVRD, by resolution, has attacked Bill 9. The capital regional district chairman attacked it. The chairman of the lower mainland regional district has condemned the bill. The Union of B.C. Municipalities has attacked the bill. The Planning Institute of B.C. has criticized the bill. The Vancouver city council has criticized the bill, unanimously I think, or perhaps with one dissenting vote. And the Urban Development Institute — if their position hasn't changed in the last little while — are not in favour of Bill 9. We asked the government to produce a list of what

[ Page 1821 ]

groups, other than the Social Credit Party, are in favour of Bill 9. We've had no answer.

[5:45]

The ironic thing is that this eliminates even the rather draconian piece of legislation introduced by the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, the land use act. The government of the day resisted it and then fought a campaign, giving the people of British Columbia the impression that it was in favour of regional planning, and that the powers of the regions and municipalities would in no way be destroyed or pulled back. That was a false front to the people of the province. The government was elected on a platform of regional planning, if you like. The very fact of their rejecting the land use bill indicated to the public that they were in support of regional planning, where in fact right afterwards, on July 7, they introduced Bill 9, which goes much farther than the land use act. It eliminates regional planning in a holus-bolus way and allows — if you've seen the other provisions that are already in place under the Municipal Act — maximum arbitrary power to the Minister of Municipal Affairs to interfere in the regional districts and, indeed, in the municipalities.

So I ask again: where is the evidence that the government is responding to a public demand? I think it's clear, and any right-thinking and reasonable person would agree, that the impression was left with the public of British Columbia that the Social Credit Party was in favour of regional planning, because of their rejection of the land use bill. Shortly after, we find that they've reversed themselves. On what grounds? There was no public demand. We have searched diligently for it. We cannot find it. On the contrary, the major groups that are keenly interested in development in the regional areas have criticized the bill. The only people in support of it seem to be the government and their developer friends.

If this bill is important in the legislative package, I ask the government to search its conscience: should a bill be introduced on narrow political grounds? Should the bill not represent a public demand? You can even argue that some of the bills in the dirty dozen represent in part a public demand. It may not be the majority today, but it represents in part a public demand. Bill 9 is one of those bills that is totally confusing to us as legislators in a democratic system. On this side of the House we say: what on earth has happened here?

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) had a similar experience in his own constituency. It's a much more complex issue, it seems to me, involving the land in his constituency. We all know about the controversy surrounding that, and the attempts to take that land out of the agricultural land reserve. The government acted, I think, rather badly, and again out of crass and narrow interests, albeit competing political pressures on the government of the day; but there are better ways to handle political pressures than by giving in to the most venal of them. It seems to me that the government should respond to a higher motivation, to one of public demand and greater public good, rather than to give in on the narrow political pressures placed upon them.

I think the Spetifore situation cannot go unanswered forever. There must be an explanation, a disclosure of the various financial interests involved. The public has a right to know what has transpired there. We have got to know about the various corporate transactions and exchanges. We have got to know who owned the shares — not just at disclosure time under the act, but in fairness we have got to know who was involved at any time in the development of Spetifore. Otherwise, the public, and we who represent part of that public — in this issue, at least we think we represent the total public — have a right to the full disclosure of all the transactions of everyone involved in order to make the proper political decision. That's what the issue is: a political decision. That's why in our standing orders and our house rules we have provision for such disclosure, and in all honour members should stand in their places in this House and indicate their full and complete involvement from day one. It is the honourable thing to do, and to do otherwise would be a serious mistake and would bring criticism and disrespect on all politicians in the province.

I would like to move adjournment of this debate until later today.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair, ]

AMENDMENTS TO
PROPERTY TAX REFORM ACT (NO. 2), 1983

Hon. Mr. Ritchie presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 12, intituled Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1983.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 12.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

AMENDMENTS TO
PROPERTY TAX REFORM ACT (NO. 1), 1983

Hon. Mr. Ritchie presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 7, intituled Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 7.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.