[ Page 1823 ]

CONTENTS

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

On the amendment.

Mr. Lauk –– 1823

Mr. Lea –– 1824

W. Rose –– 1828

Mrs. Dailly –– 1834

Mr. Stupich –– 1839

Ms. Brown –– 1845

Mr. Passarell –– 1849

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1854

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1864

Mr. Hanson –– 1864

W. Skelly –– 1869

Mr. Macdonald –– 1874

Mr. Barnes –– 1878

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1883

On the motion.

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 1885

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 2) 6), Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1886

Ms. Sanford –– 1887

Mr., Howard — 1892

Mr. Nicolson –– 1896

Mr. Mitchell –– 1899

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1983

The House met at 8:07 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege, and this is the first opportunity that I have had to raise the matter because it took some time to research. It has to do with the response given to the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) during the oral question period today, and the response by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). When the minister was asked whether or not a teacher could be denied membership to the BCTF because he may or may not show up to some rally or job action planned for some time — and I've forgotten those details — the minister responded: "It's entirely up to them" — meaning the BCTF — "whether or not a teacher can be expelled from membership in the B.C. Teachers' Federation."

That's not entirely true, Mr. Speaker. I think that the minister, either deliberately or unintentionally, misled this House, If the minister gives information that is misleading, either intentionally or unintentionally, it impairs the ability of this House — which is based on trust of a minister of the Crown — to provide information which is reliable so far as he knows.

I see that you are going to be preoccupied with a member of the Clerks' table, Mr. Speaker, but may I proceed?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. At this time it is the opinion of the Chair that the member is engaged upon a debate on the subject. The member has made a point. The matter which he wishes referred as a matter of privilege has been stated, and debate on the matter is not permitted. The member continues on the specifics of the motion.

MR. ROSE: I will certainly confine myself to the specific question on hand.

I think I've laid the basis for my question of privilege, and I hope you'll take it under advisement, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I say this is that section 142(9) of the School Act says that the federation's bylaws are subject to approval by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Section 142(2) says that if the BCTF tries to expel a teacher there's an appeal, within ten days, according to the act, to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It is clearly not up to the BCTF in the final analysis whether or not to expel a teacher, but up to a minister, the cabinet or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will undertake a review of the matter, without prejudice to the member, and bring the findings to the House at the earliest opportunity.

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

Leave granted.

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

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983
(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: On the reasoned amendment

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I thought someone else was going to speak on the question of privilege, because I have a motion prepared….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the member has taken his seat and the business of the House has commenced. The Chair has undertaken to bring an observation, or whatever the Chair decides to do on the matter raised by the member, back to the House at the earliest opportunity. That undertaking having been given, the matter is concluded.

MR. ROSE: Well, I will file the motion under the appropriate standing order.

On the amendment.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: I've been reliably informed by an hon. member that I have 20 minutes left. Is that correct?

Two minutes? It dropped a zero some place. That's okay, because I've been speaking on this reasoned amendment in the hall during the adjournment, so I really have an extra two hours. Of course Hansard didn't record it, and they were some of the best points I had to make.

To summarize the points I made prior to the supper adjournment on the reasoned amendment: I pointed out that this was a narrow-view type of bill that I had argued, and, I think, demonstrated to hon. members that with some evidence this bill, rather than being a bill based upon public demand, was widely opposed by various groups within British Columbia and that there was no identifiable group in favour of it except a small private group which was interested in private investment with particular reference to the Spetifore land deal. It was therefore appropriate for this House to consider whether or not the great machinery of state should be brought about to make amendments to legislation that would encourage private profit-taking at the expense of laws for the public good.

I also pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that lack of regional development planning led to the kind of chaos that we had seen prior to it being introduced to our system, and that regional development planning, if not done at the regional district level, would be forced upon the provincial government. The government would either have to respond using its resources and add another level of bureaucracy, or it would decline to enter into regional planning and we'd have chaos, strip development and improper development at the local and regional levels.

It is for all of those reasons that I urge all hon. members to support this reasoned amendment as adding to and defining the principle of second reading of the bill.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[8:15]

Motion negatived on the following division:

[ Page 1824 ]

YEAS –– 13

NAYS — 25

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

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 41 says: "When the question under discussion does not appear on the order paper or has not been printed and distributed, any member may require it to be read at any time during the debate, but not so as to interrupt a member while speaking." I wonder if I could have the amendment read.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In order to satisfy the hon. member for Prince Rupert and to advise him what the motion is, the motion to Bill 9 is that the motion be amended by leaving out all the words following that and substituting the following: "It is the opinion of this House that cooperation between municipalities and regional districts is necessary for orderly regional development." It's duly signed by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. LEA: Thank you. I'd like to take my place now, Mr. Speaker, to enter debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Seeing no other members, the Chair recognizes the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, how could anyone reading the amendment — "It is the opinion of this House that cooperation between municipalities and regional districts is necessary for orderly regional development" — vote against it? No one can vote against it.

Before we can take action in regard to the functions of planning at the regional and municipal levels, we have to identify some of the problems that exist. Those of us from rural areas — well, I suppose all of us — have different kinds of problems than those who come from more urban areas that have regional districts. I venture to say that in Vancouver a great many people, when they hear the words GVRD, don't know what they mean, but in a rural area people know what the regional district is because it seems to affect them more immediately, and it's one of the functions they use to govern themselves at the local level. It doesn't appear to have the same recognition in the more urban areas.

In my constituency the regional district includes Prince Rupert, Port Edward and the Queen Charlotte Islands, and things don't really work that well, because there are 80 miles of water between the Queen Charlottes and the other area of the regional district, and there isn't a lot in common between the two areas.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Your mayor wants to wipe them out.

MR. LEA: My mayor may do what he wants. That's part of the conflict; in my area Mayor Lester is the mayor of Prince Rupert and the chairman of the regional district; and over on the Queen Charlotte Islands people feel that maybe the mayor of Prince Rupert may have a different idea of the way things should go within the regional district because of what he represents as opposed to what the directors in the more rural area or the islands represent. There always seems to be that conflict between the rural and the urban areas of a regional district. The same thing, I know, happens in the member for Omineca’s (Mr. Kempf) riding, where….

MR. KEMPF: The sooner we do away with them, the better we'll be.

MR. LEA: Well, I don't know. I wouldn't like to do away with county government, and that's what we're talking about. Regional district, county government, call it what you will, I don't see…. I agreed with the former minister, the hon. Bill Vander Zalm, about the county system; I think there's something to be said….

MR. MICHAEL: How can you agree with people who aren't with us anymore?

MR. LEA: I agreed with him at the time, Mr. Member. It was well known, both in my riding and down in this Legislature, that I agreed with him on county government.

As I see it, we at the provincial level should be getting rid of a great deal of the administration that we do. I think we should become more of a Legislature and be legislators more than administrators, and I'd like to see us here pass rules and laws, generally, that are administered at the local level.

For instance, the Highways department. Why should Victoria decide which road is going to be gravelled outside of Prince George? Why shouldn't the people of Prince George decide which one of the roads they want to gravel, set their own priorities, and do it through a local regional or county system of government?

It's not putting more government on people that we're talking about. What we're talking about is transferring some of the government from Victoria and returning it to the county or regional district level. There's a great deal of difference.

MR. RITCHIE: Don't forget that this is going to be in Hansard.

MR. LEA: Yes, it is going to be in Hansard, and I don't mind a bit, because I'm willing to tell you that the people I talk to around the province pretty much agree that one of the things they don't like is trying to deal with a centralized government. What happens when you have a centralized government in administration is that you pass a rule or a law in Victoria — call it legislation, call it regulation — and then you ask the civil service to go out and apply this general rule throughout the province. You find that the rule or regulation

[ Page 1825 ]

will fit perfectly one place, not at all in another, and somewhat somewhere else. I've spoken about that before.

That is a problem of centralized bureaucracy. I don't think that was the intention of the provincial government when we were established. We were not established to be the centralized authority. That's what bothers us so much, Mr. Speaker, about this legislation and other legislation we've seen come through the House.

I would like to see the county system extended in many ways. I think it's possible to decentralize the system. We're only going to learn from experience; we can't work out a perfect plan for how to decentralize; we're going to have some trial and error as we do it, But there are some moves that I think could be made that would be a start — not taking away from the regional district planning, as this piece of legislation does, but allowing more of it to be done at the regional district and not administered from a central bureaucracy.

[8:30]

I think it's possible, for instance, for the Forest Service — we could even go into the resource areas. We don't just have to have local government look after supplying services to people. I think they could take more of an administrative role in many areas. The legislation for the Criminal Code comes to us from the federal government. It is not administered by the federal government; it's administered by the province. It seems to work quite well. It's at least decentralizing the administration to a local response. I can't see why we can't do that also. Why can't we pass legislation in this House laying out some standards that we'd like to see in place for British Columbia, and lay out the general rules we see need to be applied throughout the province, but let those acts of this Legislature be administered by regional and municipal governments throughout the province? We do it for the municipalities, we do it for the regional districts now — especially in terms of the regional districts: we ask them to do a job and we don't really give them the proper legislation to do the job, nor do we give them authority to do the job. We don't say to them: "Here is some responsibility for you, and you are answerable to the electorate at the local level."

It seems to make more sense, if you have a problem at the local level and if you have locally elected people, to walk down the street and say: "Listen, Fred, I have a little problem down here. You know the corner just past Jake's place?" And the local guy says: "Yes, I know that. I know the problem. I was there looking at it the other day." And you are liable to get some action that is going to meet community approval. The whole thrust of Bill 9 is exactly the other way around.

I would like to share with the House some experiences I had when I was the Minister of Highways. I think there are probably even legislators in here who don't understand the power of the Minister of Highways over land development and zoning; it is immense and it hasn't been changed. It would make any of the other ministers look like pikers, when it comes to the development the Minister of Highways has control over. The Minister of Highways has control over the land on each side of the highway for, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, half a mile, and you know that if you have that in most small towns in British Columbia you have complete control. Access to the highway, where you are going to develop and what you have to do before you can get the access permit are dictated to you by the Ministry of Highways. For the most part it is another central function, and there is another function that I think should be turned over — except the arterial highways; the access to them has to be a matter of some agreement with the Ministry of Highways.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

One of the things that happens, Mr. Speaker…. I watched this in Duncan, as a perfect example — the Cowichan-Malahat constituency — where I think they have had at least five bypasses around the town over the years, They allowed development to happen on that bypass; then they had to move it again. Then they have to move it again, then they have to move it again, and each time you move it you are probably moving into tougher engineering country, and it follows that it is going to be more expensive. What we don't do is protect that first bypass from development so we don't have to keep building these new bypass roads around communities. Take away the planning function and in the long run, I guarantee you, it's going to cost you a lot more money for the Ministry of Highways.

The minister shakes his head. I know that it is tempting when you first become a minister to pretend that you have had all the experience in the world, but I will tell you there are many people in this community of the Legislature who have had a great deal of experience…. When I am talking about the problems of rural areas in regional districts and the way they interplay with municipalities…. I see the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) shaking his head that he agrees with me in some of the problems I am pointing out. I also would bet you that all the rural members in here — at least all the rural members — would agree with me on the desire of rural people for a decentralized system. They would much rather make decisions that affect them by themselves and on their own than have the decisions made from afar.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: This legislation does not do that.

MR. MICHAEL: Have you read the bill?

MR. LEA: Yes, I have.

What they are doing by this bill, Mr. Speaker, is taking out all the holds everywhere. It is going to be a developer's heyday. It is not going to be developed the way we want it.

The more I see legislation coming through this House the more I see of the Fraser Institute and the way they think. The Fraser Institute is against zoning. I think you would have a hard time selling to British Columbians the idea of no zoning. If you actually went out to them and put it to them and said: "Look, do you want to live in a community with no zoning…?" For instance, as British Columbians, if we buy a house in a residential area and there is an empty lot in the residential area, would we want a foundry to start up in this residential area, or would we as a community say: "Look, it might be very economic for the foundry, it might be the most economic place for the foundry to situate, but there are some things that we as British Columbians put above profit"? I believe we would put above profit the desire to keep our residential neighbourhoods residential. I don't think there is any doubt that British Columbians favour zoning.

What are we going to do about the feeling of alienation that people in this province have towards central governments, both the provincial…?

[ Page 1826 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, could you possibly speak to the minister? I don't mind heckling at all, but I do like it to be heckling that makes some sense. Every time he opens his mouth, the minister shows his lack of knowledge about municipal government. It is not just my side of the House that is saying that. The very people he is there to serve — the elected officials of regional districts and the elected officials of municipalities — agree with me that this minister doesn't know his job. It's a very common feeling: the minister doesn't know his job. When he first took the portfolio, he thought he'd use his own mind; he thought he would say something. The minute he did, the Premier jumped on him and said: "You shut up, Mr. Minister. You just speak when my deputy tells you to speak."

But the question is: how do we improve the planning functions of regional districts and municipalities? The answer is not to do away with them — to do away with them is foolhardy — but to try to improve the system. To make it work better for the communities would seem to me the way we would all want to go. Now I have to assume — and the minister doesn't have to be so defensive — that the minister thinks what he's doing will be good for British Columbia. That's what makes a horse race; that's what makes politics. The minister is perfectly entitled to his opinion, but it seems to me that when his opinion is opposed by so many at the regional and municipal level, it would pay the minister to at least pull back and say: "Am I necessarily correct?" Why would he want to do it when all of these people who have years and years of experience are saying that what he's putting forward won't work? I think it would be a crazy statement to say that they're all pinkos or all left-wing kooks. I suppose there are some left-wing kooks, and some righ-twing kooks, on councils.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's democracy.

MR. LEA: That's right, that is democracy. They're making the choice themselves about who they are going to put on there, and it appears to me that the provincial government isn't really satisfied with the choice of the local people. The local people have gone out and voted and said: "These are our elected officers at the local level." The provincial government says: "We don't particularly like the way you're running things, so we're going to take it over. And we're going to tell you what is best for you." I suppose in one way I should be happy, because if I read correctly what people are telling me, and I think I do, they're telling me that they really want to get away from the centralized approach. So we're all hearing the same message. But the answers that we're coming up with are different.

We have the local people telling us that the government, with Bill 9, is going a way that they don't want to go. So what is it the government knows that they don't know? Why are all of these local people being so obstinate? Is it a case of just plain obstinacy? Are they just naturally unreasonable people? Are they stupid people? Are they people who don't have the experience to make that kind of decision? Are they people who don't know the local areas? I think there is an obligation on the part of government to get up and tell us why all of these local people don't know what they're talking about.

The local people are politicians too, Mr. Speaker. I always get a kick out of it when I run into an alderman and he says: "You politicians." I don't know what they think they are. They're politicians too. They are the politicians, I would think, who are the closest to the communities. When they tell us that they're not satisfied, en masse, the vast majority of the regional district people — and this is an unarguable point….

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You can yell across the floor all you want, but it is a fact that the minister went to the last UBCM meeting and they told him in no uncertain terms, in a loud united voice, that they don't want this legislation, that they don't feel it will work for them. So what is it that they want that's so unreasonable that the government won't go along with it? On the face of it, it looks stupid. You'd think that the government…. I'm sure the government doesn't want those people to be politically angry at them. There will be another election some time. There are going to be votes to be counted. So you have to assume that the government doesn't want all of the local elected people angry with the government. It doesn't make sense.

So what is it? What's this driving urge to take political flak at the UBCM — the minister's resignation called for, the minister not receiving a good reception. I don't care which side of the House you're from, I just happen to believe that when you go to a convention like that it's nice to meet a smiling face and have people get along with you and say: "Gee, Mr. Minister, we really are pleased with the kind of work you're doing. You are meeting our expectations and you're doing what we as local people want." So I have to assume that the minister doesn't enjoy that.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Oh, just the pinkos and the commies were mad at you. Well, I'll be sure to tell Mayor Thom from Kitimat that you think that. He'll be quite surprised to find out that he's either a pinko or a commie. Isn't that right, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) ?

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know what he is.

MR. LEA: Oh, he doesn't know what he is. One of those crazy apolitical animals who only wants to do a good job for his community and doesn't want to get involved in partisan politics: that's how I read Mayor Thom, and I know him quite well. I don't see Mayor Thom as some sort of crazy. I don't see him as an inexperienced person. I see him as a concerned local politician who wants the best not only for his community, but for the other communities that he's accepted some responsibility for by becoming the president of the UBCM. I see these people as good British Columbians. Whether they are pink, red, green or blue in terms of political hue, I see them as good, sound local politicians to whom local people have said, "Here's our trust, and here's our authority to do a job for us."

[8:45]

It would be a pity if the people didn't have a chance to vote for politicians over and over again. If the municipal governments or municipal politicians are not doing the job that the people like or want or think is proper, they will get rid of them at the next election. The government keeps saying, "We won the election on May 5; therefore we have a mandate

[ Page 1827 ]

to do anything we want." Social Credit won another term of government. That doesn't mean people can't take exception to anything the government does. In another speech last night I read from a book which talked about the paranoia of people who feel the urge for power, such as this government seems to feel. Do they think democracy is getting the opportunity to vote every four or five years at the general election? Is that all it amounts to? After you walk down to the polls and put down your X, the government forever after May 5 — or whatever election day it is — says, "We won the election. We have a mandate to govern and we'll do what we want." Surely the people in this province mean something. Surely the people in this province have the right to have the government listen to them when they speak. Whether the government likes it or not, 45 percent of the people in this province voted NDP.

MR. MICHAEL: Fifty-one percent voted for us.

MR. LEA: Absolutely. But, Mr. Speaker, do they honestly think that you can run a province or a country by saying, "We got 51 percent; now we'll do nothing?" There is something called general will.

I'm going to take you back to a situation in the United States to give you an illustration of what I mean. In the United States people overwhelmingly — as overwhelmingly as this government got its mandate — voted for prohibition. But the minority was so opposed to prohibition that it would not meet the general will of the United States, even though there was….

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the member is far out of line and not relevant at all. I would appreciate it if he would get back to his reasoned motion. Then maybe I can make some sensible notes from what he's saying so that I may respond when the opportunity should arise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken. If the hon. members would curtail some of their comments back and forth, possibly the member could be relevant in his debate.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the need for cooperation between people, and about the democratic process that makes that cooperation possible. I'm saying this piece of legislation is one that is not cooperative between governments. You can win a vote by the majority, but if the majority insists on carrying out actions that don't meet the general will of the minority, then that rule or law or decree is not valid within a democratic system. At no time before bringing in this legislation package did the Social Credit government not meet the general will of the minority — those who voted against them. But I suggest that Bill 9 does not meet the general will of the minority.

There is other legislation in this package that does not meet the general will of the minority. There is a bit more to democracy than counting heads and saying you won by 51 percent, or lost by 42 percent. I had always assumed that once election day was over it was government's obligation to govern for everyone. I resent it when I keep hearing from across the floor: "We won the May 5 election, " or "We got 51 percent." Yes, that's a fact, but that does not relieve the government of its obligation, under a democratic system, to govern on behalf of everyone, including the minority, and not to take action that does not meet the general will of those minorities.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Even though we may be the minority party in this House, we are not here to express just the minority point of view, Mr. Speaker. In a democratic system, our obligation, as an opposition, is larger than that. That's what we know and that's what we're trying to let the Social Credit know: that their obligation is larger than to represent just the 51 percent that elected them. It speaks for itself. When you start talking about the philosophic understanding of a democratic system, it does leave them cold. They do think you're talking airy-fairy nonsense. They do think you're silly. That's a fact, and that's the problem. They do not understand that they have obligations under a democratic system that is not autocratic. You don't get elected and then say: "We will do exactly what we want." You don't bring in Bill 9 and not pay any regard to the municipalities, the elected officials and the regional districts. It's just not democracy.

I'm inclined to think the Social Credit really do believe you mark your X and that's it until the next time you mark your X. It's not the way of the old Social Credit, but it is the way of the new Social Credit. Why is that? It's that way because the old Social Credit was a populist party that wanted to work on behalf of people, that wanted to help people who couldn't help themselves — not take away protection from people who cannot help themselves. but give them protection. That's what government is all about. If government isn't for that, then it isn't for anything.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, they're absolutely right; I do not understand what they're saying. I hear the words but the philosophy they expound is one that I don't understand how anyone could believe it. I don't understand the arrogance.

It has been said that once the system doesn't serve the wealthy, they'll change the system. That's what we're seeing here. This once proud Social Credit Party, that had the interests of the little guy and the local people in mind, has forsaken them. They've become conservatives, not Social Credit. They're not even progressive conservatives; they're just plain old-fashioned nineteenth century conservatives who believe there's no such thing as a democratic model that will fit their….

MR. KEMPF: You don't even believe in that.

MR. LEA: If I don't believe in it, then I don't believe in this country. We're not talking about left or right; we're not talking about a different approach to how we change the economics of this province; we're talking about the basic democratic structure that we've all said we believe in. Yet when we stand in this House and talk about the democratic model that we're based on, these guys say: "Gee, Graham, you don't really believe that." They find it incredible that anybody would be stupid enough to believe what I'm saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: We believe you don't.

MR. LEA: I see. They believe they do, but I don't.

[ Page 1828 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. LEA: That's it. Because, you see, it's inconceivable to them…. They say: "Well, old Lea over there's a socialist, so how in the world…? We know that there's a guy who doesn't believe in the democratic system." They know that right down where they live, Mr. Speaker. They really believe it, because they see us as an aberration in the system. They feel that it's fair and okay to do anything at all. It allows them to be immoral, because keeping us out of office is more important than having a moral system of government. That's what they think. That just happens to be, I think, a very dangerous thing for any society. When you have one group…. Up until this legislation, we thought that we disagreed with their policies, but we thought we had an agreement — I think — on the system, on the process. We're finding out now that we have no agreement on the process, and nothing points it out any more than Bill 9.

Bill 9 is a piece of legislation that takes away the planning process from the regional level.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Not entirely.

MR. LEA: The minister says "not entirely." Can you be a little bit pregnant? It takes away planning functions from the regional district and from the municipality.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, settlement planning still continues.

MR. LEA: No, no, no. Mr. Speaker, why…?

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the bill.

MR. LEA: They keep saying that. On every piece of legislation, they say: "Read the bill!" Probably the only people I know in any government system who don't read the bills are back-benchers. I think we all speak from a little experience. I'll bet there are a lot of back-benchers who'll get up and vote for this legislation without having read it. On the opposition side, because you have to talk about the legislation, you have to become familiar with it, right? I'll bet you that I…. Boy, I just wish there were some way to prove it, because I'll bet you that there are going to be members voting on legislation that they haven't read. They're going to vote on it. Why? Because they trust the government, and one of the things that nobody should do is completely trust the government.

I don't trust the government when I'm in it. One of the things we have to do in this province, in every other province and in every place there's a democracy is keep an eye on the government, and we have mechanisms in our society to do that. We have a loyal opposition whose job it is to keep an eye on the government, because we realize that people have weaknesses and we realize that the government doesn't always have the right idea. There's a free press to keep its eye on the government. But it's also the role of the back bench, as ordinary members of this House, to keep their eye on government and not just to take everything on blind faith because they're pals of yours or they belong to the same political party.

I'll say one thing: when we were in government, we had back-benchers voting against us. I'm not going to get up and say we liked it. Nobody likes it. You'd like to have them all in line. But, boy, when you have them all in line, you're in trouble, because you need a back bench that's got jam. You need a back bench that's not going to let you get away with it when you're government. And a back bench can be powerful. Oftentimes they don't realize how powerful they can be. But think about it. Those big, fancy offices that the ministers are in, those big, fancy cars, the jet travel…. You know something? You control it, back bench. And if you want to make them squirm on a piece of legislation, just threaten to take it away from them, and see the power you've got. Tell them that you're going to go into the House and vote with your conscience, and see the power you've got. In our system, the back bench should have that power. It's only when they give up their right to independence that a government can become arrogant and overbearing in our system. That's the only time.

[9:00]

At some point I think we all tend to answer for our sins. I think that a back-bencher who doesn't do his or her duty by the people who elected them — but even more importantly, I think, by their own conscience — will live to regret it, because we have not yet seen the effects of this legislation or of other legislation. Right now we're only against it from some philosophic, practical or altruistic sense, but when this legislation and other legislation that is going through this session takes its effect, I think the people in this province are going to really understand what this session has been all about, what the opposition has been talking about, what Solidarity has been talking about and what the elected officials at the local level have been talking about. Because this government feels that they can be absolutely right. I just don't think that it's possible for anybody to be absolutely right.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The continuation of the debate on the reasoned motion to amend Bill 9….

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member had used his time under standing orders and he did not have the opportunity to make a motion after the red light came on. I'm glad that you identified that and called for the next speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Member. The Speaker did not hear any such motion, in any event.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoyed the speech of my friend from Prince Rupert and also the intellectual contributions of those on the other side, who feel that wise-acre comments and heckling are going to pass for some sort of sophisticated debate in his House. I notice that they often use ridicule to shout down somebody who is attempting to make a point. I'd like to make the following point — that we would welcome them into the debate. It would be, I think, a pleasure to hear from some of those people who undoubtedly have a vast knowledge of the whole field — especially of municipal affairs, and I speak of the minister. He's obviously learning extremely fast — this is known as, I suppose, being bloodied in battle.

There have been some times that we don't necessarily want to move that Bill 9 be given a six-month hoist, but that the minister be given a six-month hoist. Nevertheless, we're

[ Page 1829 ]

stuck with the bill and we're stuck with the minister, whether we like it or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You're stuck with two bills.

MR. ROSE: We know he's a very pleasant fellow, but being pleasant isn't always the answer to solve all of our problems. The minister is going to grope his way through these things. He's going to be a little bit like the Merrill Lynch ads — the bull in the china shop: lots of bull and not much china shop. I know he's going to get himself into all kinds of trouble, but he knows, because he's an experienced man, that ultimately he'll learn his job and he'll learn what he's doing. He won't learn anything if he has a mania to run roughshod over everyone, even if he's smiling when he's doing it. I commend that bit of advice. I hope it's not presumptuous, coming from a lowly back-bencher.

I was really taken aback when I heard the minister, in one of his heckles, suggest that the planning function was not being removed from regional districts, because I had an opportunity to look at the bill. I don't very often do this, because I think it ruins someone's speech on the bill if he reads it too much. One of the things that can get people into a lot of trouble in the Legislature is actually reading the bill. I've known ministers who never read the bill. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)….

When I was asking a number of questions on the bill, it was quite obvious that he hadn't read the bill. So it was a little bit like people who hadn't read the bill asking the minister questions, and he hadn't read the bill; it was a little bit like the blind leading the blind.

I took the trouble to dig out the bill. I'd like to read to you from the explanatory note: "Official plans are being eliminated as a deregulation measure to streamline the development approval process and to strengthen the autonomy of municipal government." I think that's a laudable aim: to strengthen the autonomy of municipal government. A large question in the minds of municipal authorities is whether or not their autonomy has indeed been strengthened. But it is arguable, at least, that that has happened. But also….

He's not coming to get me, is he, Mr. Speaker? That minister comes over as menacingly as a kind of a Kojak of consumer affairs. I was a little bit worried because I had my reading glasses on, and he looked particularly sinister through these glasses.

Anyway, as I was saying before the minister made his move towards me, "official plans are being eliminated." Well, that's plain enough. Now down here under section 5 we add a section that is headed and underlined: "Elimination of regional plans and official regional plans." When the minister says that we're going to retain a planning function within the regions….

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Settlement plans.

MR. ROSE: No, no. It's the regional plans that are being eliminated. Look, I'll read that for you too because I know you have certain problems in reading: "Section 808.1. All regional plans and official regional plans prepared or designated before section 807 and 808 were repealed are cancelled and have no effect." It seems to me that that's the end of it. Now we're going to substitute this in section 6: "Section 809(l) is repealed and the following substituted: (1) A regional board may prepare an official settlement plan." What is the teeth in a settlement plan? Where are the powers articulated…? Are those in regulations to come? They are there, but they are going to be really strong regional powers. Oh, I know. Two, three, four or five mayors who are pals and who live in contiguous municipalities are going to get together some afternoon or evening over coffee — you know, at a little reception, we’ll call it — and they're going to come to some kind of conclusion about some kind of airy-fairy, no-power settlement plan that will last until the first developer comes in there and wants to change something. That is exactly what concerns us the most.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: They can't do it.

MR. ROSE: What do you mean they can't do it? Mr. Speaker, I've been in municipal politics; I know the powers of municipalities, and I commend that kind of experience to the minister. It is a really important experience that he should have. It's not that he can't learn it; I'm not suggesting that he's not able. He's bright. I'm not suggesting that he is incompetent or even not conscientious, but what I am saying is that I don't think he realizes the implications. He has a particular mind-set and very little is going to change him. An official settlement plan has not got the strength or power of regional plans.

The minister says: "Oh, well, you want to centralize all authority." I don't want to centralize all authority. I don't want to centralize all the authority in the school boards. We talked on that the other night at length, even ad nauseam. However, when we're talking about Bill 9, as we are this evening, it seems to be sensible to centralize all power, especially when it comes to planning. However, when we're talking about education, which began as a municipal or a school district municipality…. Now we're going to centralize all power, including taxation power and the powers to make decisions for school boards, in the hands of the ministry as strongly as it exists even in places like the Kremlin.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether speaking in the House is going to convince anybody of anything. I have been speaking in the House for many years, and I don't know if I've changed anybody's mind on the other side. About the best we can do is to try to prevent things from going wrong in the first place, but if they do go wrong, we will at least be in a position to say: "I told you so. "I think it would be nice…. I know that there are certain members across there who would be pleased if we didn't try and debate and that sort of thing and, as they say, stall and hold everything up. That would please them. Again, that isn t our function or our job.

There is no democracy in truth. Because a lot of people believe in something or are against something doesn't make it true. That is a misnomer. But in a democracy, those people who hold the majority views in our form of government have a right to govern. I don't quarrel with that idea.

MR. KEMPF: You take exception to what Graham said. That's the opposite of what your colleague said a few minutes ago. He said the minority rules.

MR. ROSE: Look, the minority doesn't rule anything. The majority can be tyrannical. The majority in a democracy is supposed to consider the minority's views, to make certain that it doesn't run roughshod; otherwise, we wouldn't have any particular kind of democracy.

[ Page 1830 ]

There are floating majorities. There was a majority on May 5. There are other kinds of majorities on various issues at different times. If that were the case, why would people such as the leaders of the country in the various political parties go up and down in the polls? Majorities are very fleeting things. It's like a snapshot. A majority taken by a poll — the best poll of all is election day, and I don't argue with that one — are snapshots. They are examples of majorities that are instantaneous, and that's just about as long as they last.

MR. KEMPF: Then we'd have to have a general election every six months.

MR. ROSE: I know that. That's why we have a parliament. If we were going to proceed on that route — that all we did was look at a particular polling result on any particular day, and we made up our minds on that — then there would be no need for people who took strong positions in parliament ' either pro or con, on a particular issue. I agree with the hon. member for Omineca on that point.

So there are a majority of people over here who want Bill 9 to pass. If they want it to pass, after they keep us up night after night, I'm quite sure that it will pass. I don't think there is any doubt about that; ultimately that bill is going to pass. But there is another majority of people out there in the great white north, and they're called municipal aldermen. They as a majority are opposed to this bill.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Possibly the hon. member for Omineca could temper his comments with silence, and the member for Coquitlam-Moody could direct his comments to the Chair.

[9:15]

MR. ROSE: Thank you for protecting me from that Social Crediter, Mr. Speaker. If it weren't for him I'm quite sure that my adrenalin wouldn't flow quite as rapidly as it does. I thank him for his comments, because he's an astute observer. The problem is that he's so busy observing that he very seldom speaks. I would like to have him get up and debate with us.

MR. KEMPF: Will you relinquish your spot?

MR. ROSE: What do you think I am, a leopard? I'm not going to give up my spots to you. If you want to speak, then you get up when I'm finished, because I haven't said all I want to.

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the majority of municipal people. The majority of municipal people were assembled at convention in Penticton last weekend. They passed the following resolution, and this affects Bill 9:

"Whereas the government of British Columbia introduced Bill 9, Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, in the Legislature on July 7, and whereas this legislation would amend the Municipal Act by removing regional planning as a function of regional districts and making official settlement plans optional…."

Do you hear that, Mr. Speaker? Municipal settlement plans are going to be optional. In other words, planning is going to be at the whim of whatever group of municipal leaders happens to get together. It's not going to be something that people can depend on. They're going to be optional.

"…and whereas the present provisions of the Municipal Act have permitted rural and resource communities to establish effective means for planning of electoral areas and for the solution of development problems in urban fringe areas, and whereas the same provisions have enabled communities in the lower mainland and capital regions to coordinate their development in cooperation with their neighbours in a cost-effective way with maximum local autonomy" — do you hear that, Mr. Minister? — "therefore be it resolved that Bill 9, Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, is unacceptable and inappropriate…."

There's what the municipal leaders, assembled in plenary convention, have passed by a virtually unanimous majority.

"…to the needs of British Columbia's communities and that sections 2 to 6 of Bill 9 be withdrawn forthwith, and be it further resolved that the Minister of Municipal Affairs be requested to meet with a special committee composed of regional district directors on the UBCM executive and the table officers of UBCM to determine acceptable and appropriate ways of improving planning legislation."

I can't see what could be plainer than that. That is about the most explicit statement of British Columbia's municipalities that one could expect from any group of people. For the government to say that they have a majority and they're acting on the wishes of the majority is far-fetched if not fatuous. It's something that I can't understand. It is beyond my comprehension. I won't use some other terms like I'm shocked and dismayed, but that is about as pejorative as I can get.

That's why we put up the motion that we're considering here this evening, and for the benefit of those people who tuned in late the motion should be restated here: "That the motion be amended by leaving out all the words following '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.'" Now that's a pretty namby-pamby motion. I don't know who put it forward, but it isn't strong.

MS. BROWN: I would retract that if I were you.

MR. ROSE: I'll retract that if you feel offended, but what I'm suggesting is that I know why it's like that. That's why I wanted to tell you that.

That seems to be an eminently reasonable kind of motion.

MR. COCKE: Motherhood.

MR. ROSE: It's a motherhood motion, because if we had put in the motion that we want regional planning to be returned to the districts then it would have been ruled out of order, as being contrary to the clause in the bill. So we had to make a mild and, if not namby-pamby, a motherhood motion, as my hon. friend for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said, not because we wanted such a motion in here, but simply because we had to find a motion upon which we could speak and express our views that would be in order, or else we couldn't express our views at all.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

[ Page 1831 ]

I think it's very clear how the municipalities feet, how this side of the House feels, and also why we have this bill before us which is called the Spetifore amendment. It seems to me that there are legitimate complaints that could be made by developers. I don't argue that. For anybody to get any kind of development plan or rezoning through a municipal council is a pretty arduous event. For any simple kind of rezoning you have to be involved with Highways, with Health, with official and regional plans, with Fisheries, with Wildlife, and bank protection, and the whole works. Nobody's going to question that it is a difficult thing and that it should be streamlined. Nobody's suggesting that there shouldn't be one central office — if you want to centralize — in any municipality or group of municipalities that could look at an application and make sure it doesn't take a year to two years to get it through. I don't think anybody would argue with that.

The reason behind the motion and the bill we have here tonight is that people are extremely frustrated with the lethargic way governments often proceed. I know why this is: because there have been all kinds of sharpies moving in on the development scheme — and I'm not talking about just the big-timers. I know of a case where a three-lot subdivision was allowed in Powell River, and the water source was on one of the lots. When there was a purchase of that property from the original developer, one of the first things he did after the land was sold — and the man was guaranteed water rights — was to cut the water off. I don't know whether you realize the seriousness of that, Mr. Speaker, but if you go through a whole summer without access to water because the person who owned that land has broken the line and will not let you get on that property to fix the line, you are in pretty severe trouble. I can name you that case. Six months have passed. The surveyors cannot get on that property, because if they do without the permission of the owner, then what happens….

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, it's difficult for the minister to follow the debate on this particular reasoned amendment if he's going to be talking about broken waterlines and those sorts of things. I'd appreciate it if he'd get back on track and deal with the motion at hand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the member's hope to explain his reasons for supporting the amendment; however, the Chair reminds the member that staying to the subject is important.

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I hate to disturb the minister with interesting anecdotes. The only thing I can say in defence of this mild excursion I had into a personal experience is that it's about as in order and related to the bill as last night's speech by the minister where he fought World War II all over again and concluded that we only won it because of the Tories. We listened to that drivel for 20 minutes and nobody objected to it. We didn't find it particularly interesting, but we were too polite. We knew that he was reliving his youth, and we didn't want to disturb his mythology. We were listening to his anecdotes, and now we know a little bit better how his mind works.

Aside from all that, what I was attempting to do, Mr. Speaker, was express the frustrations of certain people in dealing with municipal and provincial governments and provincial government departments when they have a very serious problem involving the use of the land and its resources. I was attempting to say that it was because of this frustration building up among our people — people who are not necessarily developers, but homeowners and purchasers — a tremendous antipathy about red tape and bureaucracy and government. We have to realize how this came about. What I'm suggesting to you is that there are real horror stories out there. I can relate some others, because I was a municipal alderman.

In Langley, for instance, they had a lot of piddling little private water systems that developers put in. Sometimes they went dry. What could you do when someone phoned you, as an alderman or a Member of Parliament? You phone up the clerk of the city and he says: It’s a private water system; there's nothing we can do about that."

I'm saying that there are too many steps that impede development, but they're there to protect the public because of examples such as I've just quoted. Probably that says enough to make the main point.

I believe that it is an anti-planning government. If you had had a regional district in the Kelowna area when I went there in 1950 you wouldn't have the thing blacktopped and have another Kingsway from the Vernon road nearly to Rutland. It's a mess. When you don't have proper planning you have urban sprawl. Surrey just about went broke in the late fifties because of urban sprawl. Developers got in there, and there were extended water lines…. You have to have planning, not only just within a municipality — and I understand that this is not being distorted too much, except that the minister has already threatened or at least floated the trial balloon that there should be private planners. After all, if the plans were made, why would you not turn these things over to private planners? I heard the minister on the air on Rafe Mair's show the other morning, and even Rafe Mair — and everybody knows that he has a certain credibility within this House, as a former minister of the Crown….

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I heard the minister being interviewed on Mr. Mair's show the other morning. Mr. Mair admitted that he was a member of a council in Kamloops at one time and they used a private planner and he was afraid of conflict of interest. He said that the private planners get together with the developers — there is a potential for that. That trial balloon is dropped like a hot potato, at least for now. I will come back to that in a little while. In this province it took a long time to develop an acceptance even of planning. It was a dirty word; only socialists used that term about 30 years ago. Now planning is more and more acceptable, but I get the feeling that really it isn't all that acceptable yet over there because it causes people to lose what they regard as certain inalienable freedoms. It gets in the way and it prevents people from doing what they would like to do with the land.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member for Coquitlam-Moody kindly remind himself that planning in the local municipalities is not the issue. It is regional planning we are talking about, and you should relate your arguments to your reasoned amendment.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order. I am rising under standing order…the one dealing with the Speaker. Standing order 10 says: "Mr. Speaker shall not take part in any

[ Page 1832 ]

debates before the House." I just thought I would remind you of that, Mr. Speaker.

[9:30]

MR. PARKS: On the point of order on which the hon. member has just risen, I think it would be equally if not more appropriate, Mr. Speaker, if, in taking her comments to heart, you very succinctly but forcibly ask her to keep in mind standing order 20. In my opinion there was no way it could be interpreted that you were taking part in the debate, but the frivolous point of order she has attempted to raise is clearly, in my opinion, a breach of standing order 20.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will consider both points.

MS. BROWN: Further to the matter raised by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, under standing order 20 he has accused me of conduct which is grossly disorderly. All I did was to bring to the Speaker's attention that unwittingly the Speaker was participating in the debate on the floor of this House. How that could ever be categorized as being grossly disorderly, Mr. Speaker, really baffles the imagination of anyone but a lawyer from Maillardville-Coquitlam.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I wish you would draw to the attention of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds standing order 143.

MR. ROSE: I don't wish to carry on the points of order. While people are going from page 1 to page 143 one by one, perhaps they will have an idea….

HON. MR. HEWITT: It gives you an idea how boring your speech is.

MR. ROSE: Would the minister mind tilting his head just a little bit the other way? The glare is bothering me.

MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order. On behalf of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), myself and the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), I find that comment made by the member for Coquitlam-Moody a personal reflection. [Laughter].

MR. ROSE: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that I might have missed that comment by a hair and that I would be pleased to withdraw. I congratulate the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) on an excellent riposte.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member for Coquitlam Moody would just continue with his debate on the reasoned amendment….

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to continue the point of order, but the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) suggested the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) was frivolous. I think that is a bit much. As a matter of fact I think she probably has a point of privilege, although if she doesn't care to raise it then I don't either.

What I was saying when I was asked to resume my seat earlier, before this whole series of points of order designed to distract me put me off my true course, which is to defeat this bill by way of this motion, if I can possibly do it…. What I was suggesting is that what exists in here is a sentiment that is anti-planning in the first place. Someone said — I think it was you, Mr. Speaker — that the issue wasn't municipal planning but regional planning. But if you have a bias against planning it's against planning. The adjective really doesn't matter. I think that anything that interferes with somebody's right to do what they like with their land is resented by certain people, regardless of the impact their decisions may have on their neighbours. That is the issue here. That is the main issue here and perhaps it's the only issue here. All this hogwash about autonomy and all the rest of it is merely coverup for what really exists. In the minds of people who think like 1825 Texas cattle barons, as in the old song from Oklahoma: "There's land, lots of land and there's sunny skies above…." Or is it starry? Depends on the time of day, I suppose. "Don't fence me in…."

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Tilbury Island — land of hope and glory….

MR. ROSE: No, that's another one. That wasn't even written by an Englishman, by the way.

I think we've seen over the years a sequence, when both regional and municipal planning have become more and more acceptable to more and more people. As a matter of fact, in a complex, urban society such as ours it is impossible to do without it. That really is the point of issue there. Once upon a time a man, when there was land, lots of land and a starry sky above, could do anything he wished with his land, and it didn't bother his neighbours.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then the farmers came in.

MR. ROSE: Well, the cowman and the rancher can be friends. But his home was his castle and certainly nobody should intrude on it at all. Do anything you like with your land. You can build on it, you can put an outhouse on it, you can put a tannery on it, you can put a steel mill on it. Do anything you like, build on it, mine it, throw it away, dig it up, put a gravel pit on it. Who cares what your neighbours think of you?

We don't feel that way anymore. We have rules for orderly, urban conduct and rules for orderly, interurban conduct. If we can't do that, we have the kind of jungle that exists in unplanned areas like Hong Kong or Houston, Texas, or many other places that are not very desirable places to live.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry, I've never been to Belfast, so I wouldn't know about where you came from. I haven't been there. I know they throw a lot of rocks at one another there.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: How about Glasgow?

MR. ROSE: I've just been on the outskirts of Glasgow and it's very good. It's a wonderful place to come from, Mr. Speaker.

I'm trying to develop the argument that regional planning is merely an extension — and, if you like, a restriction on freedom — of the kind of rules we need to have in order to live in an orderly way in society. Once upon a time there were only 33-foot or 65 x 120 lots. Why were they that shape in the first place? Because everybody had to build his house at the

[ Page 1833 ]

front so he could have the garden and the outhouse at the back. That's why they're 65 x 120 feet. That's why the shape exists. You could make them 65 x 120 feet and turn them on their side and you'd have a much larger front yard but you'd have a lot of trouble siting all those outhouses. That's why they're shaped the way they are in North America. Another thing that was thought was that it would be a good idea to have all the houses with the same set-back. Because we had the same set-back and require it, that reduces a person's freedom on their land. Because we have fires, and we had several severe fires, including the fire in Vancouver — I wasn't quite around for that so I don't remember it well — there is another intrusion on somebody's rights, because you have to have a certain kind of side-yard. Then we moved on from there and we decided it would be better to have all the factories in one area of the community and have all the homes in another part. So we got into zoning — various kinds of uses of the land. We found that we should have certain areas that should be commercial, industrial, agricultural and all down the line. There are many refinements.

MR. MICHAEL: Parks.

MR. ROSE: We should have certain land that should be parkland. We now accept these things, but when they were brought in they were an intrusion on the personal freedoms of people to do what they wished with their land. Now what we are saying — and what we have said ever since 1967 — is that the individual municipal planning involving the kinds of things that I have just described — commercial, urban, parks and whatever — is not good enough. I partially represent three municipalities and share them with my friend for Mallardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks). What we have found out now is that if you don't have some legal coordination among those three municipalities, then what's to prevent one municipality from zoning a beautiful residential area on their border and find the other municipality ignoring that and putting a tannery or meat-packing plant or chicken eviscerator or what-have-you right next door? There is nothing to prevent that.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't in the government when we did Panco Poultry. We are talking about regional planning and we are not going to chicken out on that.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: We can talk about a lot of things that you did. What did you do? Sell the ferries and buy them back? Are you going to do the same with the B.C. Systems Corporation?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order. I don't know what the member currently talking is speaking of. I am sure it has nothing to do with the amendment — fowl comments like he is using have no place in this debate.

MR. ROSE: I hope all these intrusions and comebacks don't detract too much from my time. I am trying to make the point that you cannot eliminate urban planning and have a civilized urban society. It is just not possible. I think that the bill is based on some sort of ideological cul-de-sac. It is inane and it is nonsense. Because I feel that way so strongly, I would like to move that this House do now adjourn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker reminds the member for Coquitlam-Moody of standing 44 and therefore declines to put the question.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that an adjournment motion is always in order. The member gave a reason for the adjournment motion. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I certainly can't understand why it was turned down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker reminds the member for New Westminster that he is not making a ruling; he is declining to take the motion on standing order 44.

MR. COCKE: Under these circumstances we insist upon a ruling. How can we have an orderly House? The Speaker, under standing order 9, must supervise an orderly House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As the member for New Westminster is aware, it is the members that change the rules in the House, not the Speaker.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I would like to read it: "If Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of a committee of the whole House shall be of the opinion that a motion for the adjournment of a debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress. or do leave the chair, is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or he may decline to propose the question to the House."

Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that in your opinion there has been an abuse of the rules of the House under rule 44. You have so ruled, have you not, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has not ruled.

[9:45]

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you have not ruled on whether a point of order is in order or is not in order, could you suggest to me how you can keep order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will make that point by reminding hon. members of standing order 20.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, by not putting the question to the House, have you not ruled that there has been an abuse of the rules under standing order 44?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Referring to standing order 44, hon. member. the Chair has declined to accept the motion on the basis that it is an abuse of the standing orders of the members. I have declined on the basis of the standing orders made up by the members.

MR. LEA: Then, Mr. Speaker, I'd like you to satisfy me, as a member, on one other point: What is the difference between pointing out that rule 44 has been abused and ruling that rule 44 has? I don't think you can say, through semantics, that you haven't ruled.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please repeat that?

MR. LEA: What you have plainly said, Mr. Speaker, is that you have the right, under rule 44, to make a decision as to

[ Page 1834 ]

whether there has been an abuse in the House by a certain member. Have you not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has declined to accept the motion on the strength of standing order 44.

MR. LEA: Okay, Mr. Speaker, I understand that. On what grounds have you declined?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Standing order 44.

MR. LEA: Yes, but on what grounds? You have ruled that there has been an abuse, and I'm asking you what the abuse has been. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the member has a right to know how he abused the rules.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the strength of the power vested in the Chair, the Chair declines to accept the motion on the basis of standing order 44.

MR. LEA: I understand that, but you must have made your mind up on something, Mr. Speaker. You can't do it willy-nilly. If the government House Leader made the same motion, would you accept it'?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member is now reminded by the Chair that he will either take his place in the debate or will take his chair.

MR. LEA: Could I ask you one thing first, Mr. Speaker? Would you endeavour to bring back…? I'm honestly in a quandary here. I'm not trying to obstruct you, but I would like to have some explanation from the Chair, if not now, then at a later date, as to how you can rule without ruling. Surely, Mr. Speaker, you must make up your mind whether it's an infraction of standing order 44 based on something, or is it just a whim? There has to be some rule.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) had been in the House last evening, then he would know that what he is asking for is already underway: that is, that the Chair has undertaken to bring to the House a digest of precisely the kind of scene that he is trying to establish.

Furthermore, standing order 44 is binding upon the Chair. Whenever the Chair is of the opinion that any abuse is not in the best interests of the House, he may decline to put forward a motion which he considers to be an abuse. That is an obligation of the Chair. To say that is a ruling which is subject to challenge is absurd. If you take that same rationale and apply it to standing order 3, I'll show you how absurd it is, Mr. Speaker: "If at the hour of 6 o'clock p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed upon for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 o'clock p.m." Following through with the hon. member for Prince Rupert's logic, which means that the standing order is subject to appeal to the House, how in the ever-lovin' blue-eyed world shall we appeal the Speaker's decision after he has left the chamber? I say it's absurd. These rules are here for us to abide by, not subject to appeal, and therefore I commend you for having made your observation, which is an observation that standing order 44 shall persist in this case.

MR. LEA: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like the Minister of Agriculture to withdraw the remark that I was trying to cause a scene. It was in the Blues. Mr. Speaker, I am offended by that remark and would like the minister to withdraw it.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is offended by a scene, yes, I withdraw. No problem.

MR. NICOLSON: Under standing order 44, I would draw to your attention that this is the first time this evening that there has been a recognized motion that this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker…. Well, Mr. Speaker can't listen to two people at once.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion on which there has been a motion that the House do now adjourn. I would ask Mr. Speaker what his opinion would have been had the House Leader — whoever the House Leader may be on the government side — risen to move that the House do now adjourn. This House has no fixed time for adjournment right now. It's not 11 o'clock, it's not 10 o'clock necessarily, or 3 a.m., so how could the very first instance of moving that the House do now adjourn be an abuse? I would ask the Speaker to consider what his position would have been had the government House Leader proposed the motion. Would it then have been considered an abuse?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair does not respond to hypothetical positions. The Chair reminds the member for Prince Rupert that he will either speak or take his place, and the Chair will then look for someone else to continue the debate.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has heard enough debate.

MR. NICOLSON: …on the point of order, I have never seen such cavalier attitudes towards rules in this House, which I have taken some pains to study. I have never seen such precedents set in this House by such green members sitting in the chair when the Speaker, who is being paid a good price to be in the chair, chooses to vacate it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member for Nelson-Creston please take his place.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my part in this debate at this time. I'm here to support the amendment of the official opposition, which is that it is the opinion of this House that cooperation between municipalities and regional districts is necessary for orderly regional development. That is the motion which I wish to address tonight. I find, however, that it is going to be an almost fruitless discussion. I have been watching very carefully and listening to the philosophy of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is in charge of this bill. Why I say it is rather a hopeless debate is because I'm afraid that minister has a pretty closed mind on the points that we are trying to bring forward to him. We've been through this debate in second reading, when we all spoke on it, and we apparently didn't make any impression at all on the minister. We are now attempting again to do so.

[ Page 1835 ]

My concern is that the Minister of Municipal Affairs approaches every area of political discussion from a very primitive, base philosophy. As I pointed out last night, he symbolizes a right-wing radicalism that is being brought forward by the Social Credit government today. I don't know why, because I know from conversations with him that his background certainly would not tend to lead to that, and he and I have discussed that on many other occasions in other places. I do not wish to dwell on any personal discussions held between one member and ministers at other meetings, but I do want to point out that that minister seems to believe, as most of the new right seem to believe, that if you turn the clock back about 50 or 60 years everything is going to be marvellous again; life in the good old days will return. But what we are trying to tell that minister is that we're living in 1983. We are in a province that is growing despite the policies of the Social Credit government and we need greatly increased sophisticated planning, not decreased sophisticated planning.

I can't understand why we have to stand here and debate a ridiculous bill that even repudiates the philosophy of the Social Credit government led by W.A.C. Bennett, the former Premier. I want to remind the House again that it was the former Social Credit government which brought in regional districts. Why? They realized the province of British Columbia was growing, it was no longer a little village and it needed some coordinated planning. Here, with this ridiculous bill presented to us by this minister, we are being asked to wipe out all regional planning in this province, I don't think even the United States, which has unfortunately moved back, under President Reagan, has any such regressive legislation on planning.

That minister has lived in an area in the Fraser Valley, I believe, where he's seen massive growth in the last ten years or so. How can he possibly think that you can eliminate regional planning and still provide a good living environment for the citizens who live in his area? Just look at the explanatory notes of the bill. It is interesting the two words that are used: "streamlining the development approval process and strengthening the autonomy of municipal government." Isn't that nice. I'm sure that most people who don't read the bill and just hear the explanation given by the Social Credit members would say: "Say, that sounds great. We are going to be…."

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. members please come to order and give the member giving the debate a chance to present her speech.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the simplistic words in the explanatory notes of the bill, and I'd like to repeat them. It talks about "streamlining the development approval process and strengthening the autonomy of municipal government." As I said, I can see the Social Credit members going back to their constituencies and trying to use those basic, simplistic words, "streamlining" and " strengthening autonomy," and people would say: "Say, that sounds pretty good." But the interesting thing is that most of those glib phrases of the Social Credit, when you really analyze them…. The tragedy is that under that basic simplicity are some very dangerous, regressive moves.

[10:00]

I think the minister himself knows that there is hardly any group that has been involved in planning in the province of British Columbia that has said: "Hey, we're going to support your bill." As a matter of fact, the minister knows that outside of some parochial councils who see an opportunity to let large developers come in and assist them in increased taxation powers…. They might be in agreement with him. But if you honestly are concerned about the living environment of the people of our province now and for the future, you would never, never present such a bill to the House.

I think that it's time, once again-although I'm really not too hopeful — to point out to the Minister of Municipal Affairs some of the very serious concerns of the people of this province involved in planning, who are saying to the minister: "Please do not remove regional planning from this province." I pointed out that the minister and the Social Credit members are trying to suggest that it will strengthen local autonomy and that it will streamline development. Let's analyze that. Let's look at what it really will be doing:

First, the minister is going to end up with more local land use issues on his desk. We all know that the planning department of Municipal Affairs is completely unable to take over and perform all those regional planning tasks which the minister wants to wipe out. Two, do you know what is going to happen if this bill passes? Costly public investment mistakes will be made because there will be no shared understanding of the amount and location of new development to be expected.

Here is the Social Credit government again bringing in legislation that is not only regressive, in all features, but is going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia more money, and you ask us to support this legislation.

Another point is that in municipalities which do not have official community plans. private risk will be increased because the rules governing development can be changed. Inefficient urban development patterns will proliferate, leading to additional public costs and taxes: additional taxes for the provision of water. sewer, road and transit services. Can you imagine that? The people of British Columbia are already overburdened by this government and it continues to bring in legislation that is going to increase the costs on the individual taxpayers of this province.

The minister can't answer this. The minister slides over all these questions that have been posed to him, not just by the opposition but by people who work every day in this business.

Then they point out — when I say "they," Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the Lower Mainland Planning Review Panel — that the liveability of communities will be lower because public services are not provided in a coordinated way by the complex array of provincial, regional and municipal agencies and public utilities responsible. It is pretty sad, when you think of the logic and the rationality that has been applied to the assessment of this act, not just from a partisan basis of the official opposition. but from people who have been working at it all their lives and yet are completely ignored by that minister and by the Social Credit cabinet,

Some people have suggested that perhaps one of the basic reasons is that developers across the province who now covet farmland are just waiting quietly for this bill to be proclaimed. Woodward's is planning a large shopping centre in Surrey, and they are expected to be the first beneficiary. Somebody may say: "What's wrong with that?" The way we

[ Page 1836 ]

were operating in the past, the different municipalities in the lower mainland, for example, would get together through the GVRD planning department, listen to the representatives' plans and decide that there should not be a proliferation of shopping centres in one area that might perhaps, and often does, have a very major impact in transit problems, etc., with the community adjacent. Surely that is obvious: you cannot live on an island by yourself anymore in this province; you have to work together.

MR. STRACHAN: No man is an island.

MRS. DAILLY: No man is an island, and I thank very much the member for Prince George, who is listening carefully to my words. I just wish the Minister of Municipal Affairs was giving the same attention. Is he listening? Perhaps he is. I always remember the first speech I ever made here, years ago, Mr. Speaker. The former Premier turned his back on me when I got up to speak, but somebody said: "Don't worry, Eileen, he is really listening to you." I have had to try to accept that, but as an old teacher, Mr. Speaker, I still feel like saying: "Will you all please sit up in your seats and look at me." I have been here long enough to know that I cannot expect that, and I will accept that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in spite of the fact that he is in deep conversation with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), is really listening most carefully to my words.

I really do believe that another scenario could develop — and this has actually been suggested by a municipal politician — if this bill passes. A huge portion of the province's property owners live within regional districts — we well know that — and weakened regional districts will make it easier for the province to load costs onto property owners, without having to fight a strong regional district. That would have been a great help when the province was trying to saddle property owners with a whopping share of transit costs, an intention the GVRD fought with at least some success. So you see, another thing is going to happen, Mr. Speaker.

This GVRD, which is made up of some very strong local politicians who meet — and I'm well aware of where they meet; they have for years used the Burnaby municipal hall in my own area — with a common approach, trying to create a common approach to regional planning, were able, in a concerted voice, to protest to the provincial government when the increase in transit costs was being imposed upon them. At least they were together, and were strong and vocal.

So perhaps one has to ask: is this another reason that the Social Credit government wants to disband and almost completely neuter the full responsibilities and work of the GVRD? Is it perhaps because there will no longer be a strong collective voice to fight their regressive policies? We have to look at those concerns that might be considered rather devious concerns of a government. We have to look in that area, because if you look at it on a rational basis, there is no rhyme or reason for such an act to be presented to us.

Another thing that I think should be considered before passage of this bill — hopefully it will be withdrawn — is the relationship of public capital investment in our province. In the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the combined capital investment programs have been averaging about $100 million per year, even in a recession. So you can imagine that if we ever get out of this recession, there would be a considerable increase in the capital investment programs of municipalities. That works out to about $95 per capita per year. And remember that to this must be added the regional expenditures for water, sewerage, transit, hospitals and housing, and also extensive investments by the province in rapid transit, commuter rail, Annacis crossing when it comes, etc. Also by the federal government, with their harbour improvements, airport expansion, downtown office buildings. The reason I'm mentioning these combined capital investments is because all of these investments will be linked to the regional economy by generating employment and providing development opportunities, encouraging trade and so on.

In contrast, the total annual amount invested directly in regional planning is in the order of only $1.3 million, which means $1.08 per capita. Regional planning, therefore, offers the only comprehensive means of rationalizing the impact and effectiveness of this public investment, and relating it to the even longer private investment taking place in the region. Even at minimal levels of performance, regional planning should be able to produce a reduction in local government investment of less than the 2 percent which would be necessary to pay its annual costs. And they say the rest is gravy.

Mr. Speaker, regional planning should be able to meet the following criterion: it should still be able to respect local autonomy. Yet that Minister of Municipal Affairs says that he's bringing this in to bring about and restore local autonomy. Mr. Speaker, there has been local autonomy. Local autonomy will continue under regional districts. It always has. As for the ones who get concerned about losing it, well, you really have to question what the concern is. It simply means that the collective wisdom of the GVRD has had to supersede some rather parochial, maybe selfish interests of one municipality.

Interjection.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[10:15]

MRS. DAILLY: All right, then, it has to respect local autonomy, and it can. It must provide appropriate provincial input and effectively address the wise conservation and use of the land base, population growth and change, coordination of economic activities, coordination of public capital investment and accessibility. I'm talking about what good regional planning should do, It should reduce the impact of interregional and intermunicipal boundary anomalies. It should perceive and act on interconnections among issues and agencies. As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, in relation to interconnections and intertransit facilities — it seems months ago, when we were on second reading of this bill — as the representative of an area of North Burnaby, which has become a traffic corridor for all of the surrounding municipalities, the removal of overall planning would do a tremendous disservice to my own municipality of Burnaby. If that happens, each municipality surrounding my municipality…. I know my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds would be going through the same problem in South Burnaby. Each of us is quite aware that the people of Burnaby will be one of the first groups to suffer tremendously if this bill passes. It means there will no longer be an opportunity to ensure that one municipality does not suffer, perhaps because of the parochial interest of another. Instead, particularly when it comes to transit, you cannot allow a hodge-podge arrangement of municipalities that are not working together to produce the desired results for all. My own district is going to suffer very badly if this passes, and that is another reason why

[ Page 1837 ]

I'm on my feet again in the debate. It has to be accountable to the affected residents.

I can say, in all fairness to the GVRD, that I attended a number of meetings in my riding when they had decided to come, so that the public in my riding would have an opportunity to meet with the officials of the GVRD and have explained to them in detail some of the new regional plans, particularly those to do with transit. That's why I cannot say this GVRD has failed in its work. I do not understand why they are being punished. I do not understand why the Social Credit government has to take this regressive step. I have not yet found one positive thing about this act which would improve the living conditions, the life and the proper planning in the municipalities, particularly in the lower mainland, Again I have to say, Mr. Speaker, the only ones I can see benefiting from this would be some developers who may now get an opportunity to move in on farmland. If we are being asked to pass a bill, certainly from that point of view I would say shame on the Social Credit government. Until that Minister of Municipal Affairs can tell this Legislature why this bill is being passed…. I don't mean giving us any simplistic terms again about streamlining and restoring local government. We mean in detail. Until he can give us some proper rationale for the passage of this bill, we have to presume that this means that perhaps in the future we are going to find that only the developers will be the beneficiaries of such a bill. That means the Social Credit government is abrogating their responsibility to represent all of the people of this province for the best interests of all the people, and not for just a few.

This act has been of great concern to many people in this province. It's not only the NDP that has raised some very basic concerns about this bill. Editorials in very conservative papers, groups of people who have not shown any particular adherence to any partisan politics, are asking why the Social Credit government is trying to push in this bill at this particular time. I know that the minister must be well aware that at the UBCM, which he attended, a resolution was passed by, I believe, 150 elected officials representing the larger regional districts. I think I should put into the record again this resolution that was passed on Thursday, September 15 — fairly recently. Let us remember that this comes from the people who are working every day in their local municipalities. They are elected locally, and they are the ones who are worried about what is going to happen to their own municipality.

The resolution says:

"Whereas the government of B.C. Introduced Bill 9, Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, in the Legislature on July 7, and whereas this legislation would amend the Municipal Act by removing regional planning as a function of regional districts and making official settlement plans optional, and whereas the present provisions of the Municipal Act have permitted rural and resource communities to establish effective means for planning of electoral areas and for the solution of development problems in urban fringe areas, and whereas the same provisions have enabled communities in the lower mainland and capital regions to coordinate their development in cooperation with their neighbours in a cost-effective way with maximum local autonomy…"

If I can pause for a moment, I think they would have to get "D" for their grammar, Mr. Speaker. I've never read such a long sentence with no punctuation.

"…therefore be it resolved that Bill 9, Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, is unacceptable and inappropriate to the needs of British Columbia's communities and that sections 2 to 6 of Bill 9 should be withdrawn forthwith, and be it further resolved that the Minister of Municipal Affairs be requested to meet with a special committee composed of regional district directors on the UBCM executive and the table officers of the UBCM to determine acceptable and appropriate ways of improving planning legislation."

This resolution was passed virtually unanimously.

"This resolution and a request for the above-mentioned meetings was formally presented to the minister by the UBCM, Thursday, September 22 this morning."

Mr. Speaker, I ask you: how can a Minister of Municipal Affairs ignore a resolution like this? They are trying to point out to the minister again and again the serious problems that are going to come if this bill is passed. Notice the terms in which it is couched: it states their concerns very logically and simply. But it also says that they would like to meet with the minister and talk with him. That minister really has a responsibility to pay attention to all these elected members from municipal councils. who are so vitally concerned about this bill.

I cannot understand how any government can persist in passing bills based on what appears to be a radical right philosophy which is not going to benefit the people of British Columbia. From all we can see, it is going to benefit some developers in this province who will be able to move in on farmland — which is so precious to us — to build houses. I challenge the minister to tell us any other valid reason for the passing of this bill. We have not heard it. We intend to keep discussing it. If the minister will not pay any attention to the official opposition, we are hoping that he will at least pay attention to the people out there who have been saying to him: "Stop it. Don't pass it. Do you realize what you're really going to do to the living conditions of people in this province?"

The Times-Colonist of Saturday, July 9, says:

"A bill introduced this week by rookie Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Ritchie effectively abolishes regional planning in British Columbia."

It goes on. I won't bore the House by explaining again what the bill does.

"Ritchie claims the move will 'streamline the development process and strengthen the autonomy....'"

Here we go again with those simplistic phrases.

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

"It was the need for a better system that led to the creation of regional districts in the 1960s, and to make one of their prime functions the adoption and enforcement of regional plans. These plans established the direction of growth and defined the services needed to accommodate that growth. While the drafting and implementation was often a painful, contentious and

[ Page 1838 ]

cumbersome process, especially in the greater Victoria area, the concept itself was — and remains — sensible."

As I say, if the minister and the government do not want to listen to the opposition, perhaps they will pay a bit of attention to some of the comments made by some fairly conservative newspapers. One could go on and on. I've got volumes of material here. Everyone has. And I intend to go on with my volumes of material. I just wanted to see if the minister was aware that I was still here and intending to read some more.

"The official regional plan and the liveable regional strategy could be merged into a metropolitan strategy. It would be directed towards growth coordination and would be developed with the input of both the municipalities and the provincial government."

What I'm reading now, Mr. Speaker, are some of the hopes and plans for the future of the GVR District.

"It would not contain land use designations or regulations. Urbanizing municipalities in the lower Fraser Valley would become members of the GVRD for planning purposes. The removal of provisions for regional land use regulation by the board may make this more acceptable. This is one of the options which the technical planning committee considers most workable. The metropolitan strategy would require cabinet approval. Following this, it would be implemented through a wide range of actions by GVRD and other organizations and through intergovernmental cooperation. One of the GVRD's most important implementation roles would be to advise the Minister of Municipal Affairs as to the conformity of municipal official plans and their amendments with the metropolitan strategy."

What they're trying to say here is that they are willing to talk with the minister. There are a lot of future plans, but the base of those plans must be the maintenance of an overall planning policy. The problem is that if this bill passes, and if we go back 50 years to no planning, you're not going to notice the effect tomorrow, as with so many of the Social Credit policies. You're not going to notice it for maybe even a year, Mr. Speaker. The problem is that those effects are going to be felt. And when they do come, they are going to have lasting effects on the liveability and the lives of the people of the lower mainland, the greater Victoria area and the whole province. Because you cannot survive in a world today where you allow everyone to do just exactly what they feel like in their own municipalities with no concern for anyone else. You know what we end up with, Mr. Speaker? We end up with complete chaos.

[10:30]

I think the GVRD has been quite outspoken at times when they've felt that the government's moves were wrong; they've taken them on, as nicely as they can, but they've had to do it. Spetifore is a perfect example of where we wonder if perhaps the GVRD is being punished because they had the actual nerve to tell the provincial government, in so many words, that what they were going to allow there was wrong. They stood up to the provincial government, and what's happened? We have Bill 9 in front of us, which completely tries to stomp on the GVRD. As some people have described this bill, it's really stone-age thinking. It appears like revenge: revenge against the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

This editorial in the Times-Colonist goes on to say: " Vengeance is indefensible. So is the new bill, unless it can be shown that zoning and planning prevent sensible land use." Now there's a good challenge to the minister.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I think you should explain to this House how zoning and overall planning does prevent sensible land use. Because if you want us to accept that bill, we have to accept that premise.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, can you confirm that in debate on a reasoned amendment the minister is free to participate?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would suggest that if the hon. minister wishes to participate in the debate on the reasoned amendment, he would have every right to do so.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that for the minister. You can get up and speak any time you want.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about how this government seems determined to wipe out the GVRD and all regional planning in British Columbia. I'm asked the minister, and I hope in his reply he will explain to us how what he's asking us to do in this bill will actually help the development of proper land use.

"Regional planning can be time-consuming and it does prevent development in some places. However, the way the land is used in one municipality affects its neighbours in the rest of the region."

I said the same thing a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, and now I'm trying to reinforce my own words with an editorial from the Times-Colonist of Saturday, July 9.

"The way the land is used in one municipality affects its neighbours in the rest of the region, especially in urbanized areas. Short of metro super-government, there has to be some mechanism for reconciling these differences. If these amendments are passed, the only regional planning in B.C. will be done in secrecy by the cabinet."

Mr. Speaker, I've attempted to bring out some of these points here hoping that we can move the minister from his stone-age frame of mind and get us back where we belong in planning for the future.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, that's all I have to say at this time, except my final closing words. I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to the motion, may I make the following observation. On an earlier occasion, at the request of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Chair undertook to make a statement in relation to standing order 44, which empowers the Chair in certain circumstances either to put a motion forthwith or to decline same. As it appears some hon. members were not present during application of standing order 44 by the Chair, I will say, for the assistance of members, pending a more formal statement, that the action of the Chair in declining to put a motion is in

[ Page 1839 ]

fact the exercise of a power granted by the House to the Chair. This clearly does not constitute a ruling from the Chair but is an application of the rule. This is analogous, hon. members, to standing order 45(a), which requires the Speaker to interrupt the proceedings and put the question upon expiry of the time allocated for debate. The mere fact that the rule is being applied by the Chair does not, of itself, constitute a ruling which might be the subject matter of an appeal.

However, it is the view of the Chair that the power of standing order 44 should not be invoked unless the will of the House has been already clearly expressed with respect to the motion sought to be moved by an hon. member. In other words, the Chair, in relation to standing order 44, is in the position of having to make an assessment and exercise a judgment according to the particular time and circumstances.

Now, hon. members, in relation to the motion moved by the hon. member, it is the opinion of the Chair that the motion at this time, in view of the time lapse, etc. may in fact be put.

The question, hon. members, is adjournment of the House until the next sitting.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS 9

NAYS 28

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

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. STUPICH: Usually when I get up to speak on things like this there is a rush of people to get out of the House. I know the government members have so many things to do in their offices that they are anxious to get out.

[10:45]

Mr. Speaker, we have been debating Bill 9 for quite some time, if we add up all the time that we have put into it in this session — at least we on this side of the House have. And yet really when you look at the bill itself it doesn't do much to keep the pulp mills going. It is all on one page, and when you read the various sections on that page, all of the discussion has really been about one small section, section 5: "Elimination of regional plans and official regional plans." That adds a section, there is some renumbering, some elimination, reference to the commencement, and there is another item in Section 1 about which there has been little discussion. The concern of the opposition certainly has been with respect to section 5, which takes up only three lines of print in Bill 9. But it is because of the content of that particular section that the reasoned amendment has been moved.

Cooperation between municipalities in regional districts, we believe, is necessary for orderly regional development. Certainly there are many examples all over the province of what has gone wrong when there has not been orderly regional development, what has gone wrong when there has not been cooperation between municipalities and regional districts. Certainly the UBCM expressed a great deal of concern about many of the bills that we are discussing in this session, but one of them was Bill 9.

I had the good fortune to be able to attend a small part of that convention. The minister was there as well and heard the concerns being expressed about this bill. It didn't used to be the case that we got very much support for our policies at UBCM conventions, but I would hope that the minister makes a point of attending them regularly, because certainly on the basis of the experience of the 1983 convention, the more such conventions he attends the more support the NDP will get for the policies it advances. So I look forward to his attending at least two or three more conventions as minister, and that should be just about the end of that.

There were several reports presented at the annual convention this year, on September 14 in Penticton. One of them was the annual report of the president to the eightieth annual convention. It is quite an old organization, Mr. Speaker; quite a reputable organization. Democratically elected representatives were there from every part of the province, many of them with a great deal of experience in municipal government and in regional district government. Many of them have been coming for years to these conventions, and together the experience of these people, the experience that they brought to that convention, adds up to quite a history of the development of the province of British Columbia.

These are people who don't get much glory out of being elected to municipal office or regional district office. A very good friend of mine was a regional district director in the Nanaimo area for quite some time and is now an alderman, and I know from the visits that I have had in his home the times that he is telephoned, contacted by people calling him at home to present their arguments as to why certain changes should be made with respect to strictly municipal matters or strictly regional district matters. I must say that while as MLAs we do get bothered quite often — some of our constituents seem to have little regard to the time of day or the day of the week or the time of the year or anything else — people who work in the regional district field or in the municipal field are given even less consideration than members of the Legislature and Members of Parliament. I think it is just because they are easier to get at, and because they are involved strictly in local government and local government so often affects the interests of individuals in ways that provincial and federal government doesn't.

They really are under the gun; they are under a lot of pressure. Because they are under such pressure we were encouraged to bring in the Land Commission Act when we were government, as a way of relieving some of those local government officials from having to deal with what we thought was a provincial problem rather than a strictly local program. One of the reports presented at that annual convention was the annual report of the president. It is not a long report, six pages, but one of the points he made reference to in his report was with respect to Bill 9. I would like to quote.

[ Page 1840 ]

He did refer to the Land Use Act that was introduced by a previous minister in the previous administration — before the election, that is. He also referred to Bill 9, which is before us now and about which we have moved the reasoned amendment.

"However, Bill 9, introduced in July, makes a considerable legislative change to the planning activities of regional districts, and therefore relates to our Land Use Act discussions. The elimination of regional planning capabilities of regional districts has been strongly opposed by UBCM spokesmen in three meetings with the minister, and by individual regional districts as well, particularly by those in metropolitan areas. In spite of the strong opposition at three separate meetings, in spite of the representations by the individual regional districts, especially from those in the metropolitan areas, the minister seems to be ignoring all of that and is determined to proceed with this move to remove from regional districts the authority that they have had, up to this point in time, to plan."

That was the president's comment, included in his annual report.

The executive director reported to the same convention. His is a much longer report and covers the ground much more thoroughly — 23 pages, dated September 14. Again a reference to Bill 9, and again I'd like to read it into the record:

"This bill, which has had widespread discussion among local governments, particularly regional districts, would eliminate all regional plans and official regional plans, and leave regional districts responsible only for the planning of settlement areas."

Almost the same, word for word.

"Numerous meetings have been held with the Minister of Municipal Affairs by individuals and groups of regional districts, objecting to this particular facet of Bill 9 and proposing alternate suggestions."

It would seem they've been making these proposals to deaf ears. The minister has been determined from the beginning not to listen to any of the representations made to him, and to proceed along the course of action upon which he has embarked, a course of action which seems to be directed towards one particular problem that the government has had. The very few members on the government side of the House who have taken part in this discussion that started some three months ago have joined with us in calling it the Spetifore amendment. It seems to be to deal with one problem. Yet in spite of all the attempts by people to propose alternate suggestions that might have found a way out of the government's dilemma without taking away from regional districts the right to plan, nevertheless, there has been no positive response from the minister.

Bill 9 also limits the necessity for widespread notification of zoning bylaw amendments, a proposal that has been advocated by the UBCM on several occasions. So there is something about the bill that they support. They're not entirely negative. They are negative about the fact that as an organization they have on three separate occasions approached the minister, and he has listened not at all.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister says he listens to everybody. Unfortunately, sometimes he listens with his mouth open and his ears closed, because while he has responded to long-standing requests from the UBCM, as I just pointed out in the report from the executive director, he has ignored completely the alternate proposals that the UBCM people have put to him with respect to the Spetifore problem and concerns about planning. Ignored them completely; no positive response to any of those alternate suggestions or to the concerns expressed by regional district people about the heavy hand that the minister is….

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: There we have it. The minister says he listened but their alternatives were not satisfactory. They weren't satisfactory because — and I suggest this as the reason — they did not deal with the Spetifore problem, and the legislation before us does.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister says it doesn't deal with the Tilbury problem. Is this legislation to deal with the Tilbury problem, Mr. Speaker? Will this have any bearing or effect on the Tilbury problem? He mentioned another problem and said: "What's the difference?" As I've said on previous occasions, if a mistake was made in the past, that is certainly no excuse for bringing in legislation now that will make it so much easier for municipalities to perpetuate and expand upon any possible mistakes in the past. Surely that's the wrong direction to go. Surely taking the planning authority away from these municipalities is the wrong direction to go.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to respond to the minister, but I can't quite catch all of his remarks. Up to this point he insists on speaking from his seat rather than from his feet.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I think I won't comment on his accent, which is one of those lowland Scottish accents. On one side of my family I come from highland Scottish, and they look down on the lowlanders in every sense of the word — Macmillan, from the highlands of Scotland. They do look down on those lowlanders, and certainly in an instance like this I think people much beyond the highland Scottish would look down on this particular minister for bringing in….

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm tempted to respond but I won't, because right now I'm discussing a reasoned amendment to Bill 9.

Another communication from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, this one addressed to myself from the executive director; but I would expect that every MLA and possibly many other people got one as well. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) read into the record a resolution passed at the UBCM convention. Another resolution was passed, one that dealt with the same topic, and with other topics as well. This was an extraordinary resolution presented by the UBCM

[ Page 1841 ]

executive, headed "Local Government's Place in the Recovery Strategy."

"Whereas seven bills were introduced on July 7 that have a significant impact on the role and responsibility of municipal and regional — i.e., local — government, namely: Bill 3, Public Sector Restraint Act; Bill 7, Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983; Bill 9, Municipal Amendment Act, 1983…."

That's the one before us this evening. Then it lists four others, but I'll stop with Bill 9.

"And whereas the UBCM has stated its objection to a certain aspects of these bills, and its total opposition to any bills being introduced that provide for government by regulation…."

I'm going to skip some of the "whereases" since they don't have any bearing on Bill 9, and go down to a further "whereas":

"And whereas the current consultative process between local and provincial government no longer follows the established practice of meaningful discussion…."

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that he listens. Apparently the people talking to him don't believe he really is listening, because this is an emergency resolution presented by the UBCM executive and passed at the convention. I think I should read it again, because I'm not sure I had the minister's ear.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister says he hears. I say he may hear, but he doesn't listen. I think he should listen to this emergency resolution:

"Whereas the current consultative process between local and provincial government no longer follows the established practice of meaningful discussion…"

The emphasis on meaningful is mine, but I'm sure that in passing this resolution they had the same idea in mind. Sure, there is discussion. Sure, the minister listens, but apparently, in the minds of the people who are discussing with him, the minister is not hearing. He may be listening, but he's not hearing.

[11:00]

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

To go on with the whereas:

"…and has failed to provide a satisfactory resolution of local government concerns:

"Therefore, be it resolved that the UBCM state its position that our provincial government, in implementing restraint and other actions needed for economic recovery, respect the following:"

This is a plea, Mr. Speaker; a plea to the minister that he listen, but a plea that apparently he hasn't heard.

" 1. That there be no further erosion of the autonomy and powers of local government."

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister is asking me whether or not this was supported by Harry Rankin. I don't know. I wasn't there when the vote was taken. I don't know how Harry Rankin voted. I don't know whether he took any part in this. I don't even know whether he's a member of the UBCM executive. But I do know that if he is, he has no more than one vote on that executive, and this resolution was proposed by the UBCM executive and endorsed by the UBCM convention. I doubt that Harry Rankin has the authority or the persuasive ability to convince the UBCM convention to go in the direction he wants it to go, unless a majority of the delegates at that convention really believe in what is said in this resolution.

I'm not including all of the points. because some of them don't relate specifically to Bill 9. but there is another:

"4. That the full extent of the current legislation be revealed by making all relevant regulations public.

"5. That the knowledge and experience of local government not be ignored by our provincial government, but be used through open and meaningful consultation…."

Mr. Speaker, there again we have that word "meaningful," which to me emphasizes my concern that while the minister has been prepared to meet with people, has been prepared to listen to them, he has not heard them in any of these consultations. They do keep using that word meaningful. Consultation is of little use unless it is meaningful. The UBCM resolution expresses the concern that in having consultation with the minister, there is no meaning to that consultation. Going on with the resolution:

"…meaningful consultation in developing and providing workable legislation that will enable local government to continue to play an effective role in economic recovery."

They're simply asking for an opportunity to engage in meaningful consultation. and the minister, while he is prepared to meet with them, apparently is not prepared to engage in what all of the people on the other side of the table consider to be meaningful consultation.

There is another article that the minister may or may not have seen. It is an article in Country Life by Malcolm Turnbull.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister assures me that he gets Country Life. I'm not at all surprised that he gets it. Did he read it?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, I didn't.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker. the minister hasn't had an opportunity to read it yet. I don’t intend to read the whole column, but I do intend to read from it.

September 1983, "Bull's Eye," by Malcolm Tumbull. He has certainly not always been a friend of the NDP in the past, and I don't know that he is now, but he certainly expresses concern about and opposition to what this present administration is doing. Since I am invited to read it by the minister himself, who, while he reads this magazine, has not read this issue, and by the House Leader. I trust you'll bear with me if all of it is not directly related to the resolution that we are discussing at this time:

"People in western nations — and yes, even in B.C. — applaud the protests of the Polish dissenters, hoping that such actions by Polish workers may bring a change in the government and political system. But when it comes to protest rallies and one-shift work

[ Page 1842 ]

stoppages in B.C., these are condemned by the rightwing Social Credit government and many of the government's supporters. It is indeed odd that what people in B.C. think is good in Poland is bad here. But what this attitude reflects is the deep lack of understanding of our political process and what has been taking place in Canada.

"The present resentment over the Socreds' 28 bills has nothing to do with restraint."

Mr. Speaker, we can all agree with that. We can all agree that restraint is a popular issue, but the present resentment over the Socreds' 28 bills has nothing to do with restraint.

"The protests are over more centralized power in the hands of a few, mainly the cabinet." And most of the 18 bills have to do with that. "What are the protests about in Poland? Basically the same centralization of power. This trend in Canada started before the Second World War and has escalated in the last 20 years."

If I may comment, Mr. Speaker, in no ten years has it gone as far as it is going this year if the 26 bills pass as they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: They will.

MR. STUPICH: I hear from one of the back-benchers that they will, and I suppose they will. I made that comment recently when I was asked by someone from the press. The government has 35 members and we have 22, so the bills will pass if the government is determined. We keep hoping that they will see the light; we keep hoping that they will change; we keep hoping that some members on the government side of the House will realize the error of their ways and will change the legislation. It is because we have some hope that the protests coming from our own community, from all over the province and from all over the country will one day get through to the government members and that some of them on the other side of the House will have some conscience about this, because certainly I can imagine the kind of speeches that they would be making if any other party were bringing in the kinds of bills they brought in on July 7; the kind of speeches they would be making in favour of decentralization; the kind of concerns they would be expressing about what the government that brought in such bills was doing to human rights in the province; the kind of concerns they would be expressing about what the legislative package was doing to any hope for any possible economic recovery.

However, I was invited to read this column, and I haven't quite finished it yet:

"Since the war, the powers accumulated by cabinet ministers in all provinces and the federal government are nothing short of horrendous, no matter what the political faiths of these governments. These powers are in the form of ministerial discretionary powers either written into legislation or in regulations that administer different acts."

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) comments that in this article Gordon Gibson is being quoted. If that's the case, there is a bit of plagiarism here, because certainly there is no recognition of that in this article.

"The trend toward more centralized power is done in the name of efficiency because, as we are continually told, the democratic system is not efficient."

I made some reference to that when I was speaking on another bill — I think that was the one that I started at 5:05 in the morning. I did raise that question. There are people who think that democracy isn't efficient and that centralizing power in the hands of cabinet is so much more efficient that we should all go in that direction.

As one who believes in the democratic system, I would rather suffer a bit of inefficiency and have more democracy than go the other direction. Apparently this administration in office right now believes that everything must go so that things will be more efficient, regardless of the loss of democracy. "What has happened is that many good systems…."

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The fellow in the corner from North Peace, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, and Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), suggests that I am saying that the government should ignore what the people want.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister is again asking me whether I think they talk to their constituency. Yes, I think they do, and I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs talks to the UBCM. My concern is that they don't listen, and that is the concern expressed by the UBCM. There is no meaningful consultation if it is all talking to; consultation means listening as well as talking. That's my concern, and may I say to that minister that talking to his constituents is not quite the same as listening to them. I suspect that that minister is doing precious little listening these days to the 2,000 or 3,000 people in his constituency. That, I believe, is the second smallest constituency in terms of population in the province, so he doesn't have too many people to listen to. Certainly he should make some opportunity to listen to some of those people.

The fact that a very high percentage of them voted for him in the last election doesn't necessarily mean that they always will and maybe in this answer to his question to me I should put it back to him and say: don't you listen to your constituents sometimes, rather than talking to them? Try it.

To go back to the article. "So what has this got to do with the agriculture industry in B.C.? Let's consider, for example, Bill 9, the proposed amendment to the Municipal Act that removes the planning power of regional districts. When former Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Campbell brought in regional districts in the mid- 1960s…." Mr. Speaker, if I may digress for a moment, when he brought that in I was a member, as was the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. There aren't too many in the House right now; I think perhaps he is the only one….

HON. MR. GARDOM: There are just a few of us young-timers left.

MR. STUPICH: Stubborn. We sort of stick around, Mr. Minister. There are a few of us old-timers in the House right now. There are a few more members of the Legislature, but there weren't many of the present members who were here when the hon. Dan Campbell did bring in that legislation in

[ Page 1843 ]

the mid-sixties. But I was here, and at the time I wasn't altogether in support of it; I didn't understand it. But I recall him telling us at the time that the main purpose in establishing regional districts was to have planning. All of them would have that one function. The government would help finance the planning function for every regional district, and as time went on, more functions would be accepted by regional districts. There's some concern that they've taken too many in some circles, I know. But all of them were to have planning; that was the one thing they were to have in common.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: It's been suggested that it went beyond his concept, and that's quite possible, but not with respect to planning. I don't think that it went beyond his concept with respect to planning.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Oh, yes, it did.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm having trouble reading this article. The Minister of Municipal Affairs said: "Oh, yes, it did." I don't know whether that minister even knows Dan Campbell. I know that he wasn't here listening when this legislation to establish regional districts was being presented in the House. I know he wasn't here when that minister was discussing the need for some local level of government to get involved in planning, a local level of government that would have an opportunity to speak to and also to listen to people at the local level who were deeply concerned about local planning. That minister believed that that process should take place at the local level, and did establish, with the support of the Social Credit administration of the day, regional districts that would have a real role to play with respect to planning. Getting back to the article:

"This new form of local, almost county-type government had little power" — when it was established. "Campbell was asked at the time what the districts would do. His answer was to the effect that their functions and power would evolve naturally, a refreshing attitude in those days when the Socreds of W.A.C. Bennett were already being accused of gathering too much control."

So this is not a departure for the Social Credit Party — to want to concentrate control in their own hands — but the package of 26 bills is certainly a much more rapid move in that direction than anything envisaged by any other Social Credit administration.

[11:15]

"When looking at regional districts, one must realize that 99 1/2 percent of B.C. Is unorganized territory" — something like Ivory Soap, 99 and 44/100 — "that almost two-thirds of B.C.'s population live in incorporated municipalities that make up only one-half of 1 percent of the land area, Until regional districts, B.C. was the only province that had vast areas with no county-type government — places such as Boston Bar or Lac la Hache. In short, their only representative, aside from the federal MP, was the MLA, and of course this made him king."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I never experienced that. I'm not exactly sure what he means in that particular phrase, but it's part of the article, so I read it.

"With regional districts suddenly on the scene, unorganized areas were given a second representative, in the form of elected area representatives, and from then on the wishes of these people often conflicted with the MLA's and the desires of the provincial government and its local supporters. As the regional district system evolved, they took on and were given planning powers which by and large have worked well, albeit somewhat slowly and painfully."

Mr. Speaker, we've all had experiences with that. The process has worked. Sometimes it has been slow and painful, but by and large I would agree with the author of this article. By and large it has worked well.

"The system forced municipalities and industries such as agriculture to compromise, rationalize and work towards the common good for large areas."

It forced people to work together; the system obliged them to cooperate — not just to be talked to. as the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) suggested; not just to consult with, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs says he has done; but to enter into meaningful consultation and cooperation.

"The system brought some logic into regional development and reduced conflicts between municipalities that were headed for land use conflicts. The positive side of district planning was overshadowed by the big conflicts, such as over the Spetifore farmland in Delta and Gloucester Properties in Langley. Both of these involved decisions that were contrary to the political wishes of the provincial government. But by throwing out the one significant function of regional districts, the Socreds have halted one of the few new forms of government that has evolved naturally to meet a need."

That's significant, Mr. Speaker. Dan Campbell said when he brought in the legislation establishing regional districts that they would evolve. and they have evolved to meet the needs of the people in those districts. It may well be that there should be some changes. The UBCM people have suggested that they were prepared to sit down and enter into meaningful consultation with the minister about changes. But I think it is important to recognize that this form of government has evolved naturally to meet a need.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister would like me to finish reading this, and there isn't much left, Mr. Speaker: "The 170-member Union of B.C. Municipalities has told Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Ritchie" — this is the part he wants to hear — "that throwing out the planning powers is unacceptable, because the provincial government would then take over this function."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's wrong.

MR. STUPICH: That isn't in this bill, Mr. Speaker, I admit that. The minister says: "That's wrong." That isn't in this bill, but in most of the other 26 bills we are heading in that direction. I suggest to you that if Bill 9 is passed in its present form there will be such chaos in planning between and among municipalities within certain regional districts that the minister is going to find that he will have to step in and take over the planning process, insofar as it affects development among

[ Page 1844 ]

municipalities within two regional districts in particular: the Capital Regional District and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The minister shakes his head. If time allows me to go on with some of the other references that I want to present this evening, I think he will be forced to agree that while he may think I am wrong, there are many people in our community who fear I am right. "In short, they fear purely political decisions made by the Socreds." There is no other explanation for the Gloucester decision; there is no other explanation for the Spetifore decision, other than it being a purely political decisions.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Tilbury decision.

MR. STUPICH: They keep talking about the Tilbury decision, and I'm not sure…. Are they saying that was the wrong decision? I do hope that the minister would indicate by shaking or nodding his head whether he thinks that was the wrong decision. Perhaps when he gets an opportunity to speak — and he will have an opportunity to speak at any time at all in this debate on the reasoned amendment, or he may speak in closing second reading — I would like him at that time to say whether or not he felt the Spetifore decision was a wrong decision. I would really like to have him on the record with respect to that. Then we'll have an opportunity to ask him about it again in committee in the event that he forgets to mention it in closing. With nothing to fill the void, these sorts of things could happen. I would like the minister to listen to this part, and then he may…whatever.

"Langley, for example, could allow a giant feedlot next to a large residential subdivision in next-door Matsqui." What would there be to stop that, Mr. Speaker, if Bill 9 was passed?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) says that there is nothing to stop it now.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry. If I'm going to read it, I'd better read it.

"Summer recreation lots could spring up in the middle of rangeland with people, pets, etc., impacting on cattle operations. The government, in its desire to assume more power, has potentially opened the door to a return to the type of land use conflicts we saw in the 1950s and 1960s. Bill 9 has nothing to do with restraint. In its present form it is purely and simply bad legislation."

The Minister of Labour said that there is nothing to prevent this from happening now. The Greater Vancouver Regional District does have some authority over planning. I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour has interfered in that process on behalf of his own friends. Of course, as long as we have a Social Credit government, those kinds of requests can come to cabinet and cabinet can overrule. Cabinet has the authority right now to do everything you want to do with respect to the Spetifore land.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I can't allow him to take over too much time because I don't have much left. So I'll listen to him after, if he wants to get up on his feet and talk about it. I'd love to hear from him.

May I just say that cabinet can overrule. Cabinet can make the decisions right now, and as long as there is a Social Credit government in office, they will make decisions based on purely political reasons. They've given us all kinds of evidence that they are prepared to. The minister who interjected — the Minister of Labour — has made it very plain that he will interfere at any time at all for purely political reasons in all aspects of land use planning. He has no concern about the preservation of agricultural land. He has concern only about the politics of his own electoral success and that of his party.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: And my constituents.

MR. STUPICH: And, he says, of his constituents. Mr. Speaker, if he had the interests of all of his constituents at heart, then he too would be standing up and speaking against this legislation. To give him time to think about it and to give the others time to think about it, to give all of you who are here listening, and the ones who are in their offices awake, time to think about it, I would like to move adjournment of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Under the provisions of standing order 44, which are the rules laid down by all hon. members of this House, I decline to put that motion to the House at this particular time.

Next speaker, please.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the last time that motion was moved in this House was at five after eight this evening. This is now….

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: At five at eight this evening it was moved and rejected. I would suggest that there's no abuse of the rules, or even a suggested abuse of the rules, when we are past a normal adjournment time again, which is 11 p.m. In any event. So I suggest that that should be reviewed by you, Mr. Speaker, and thought about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, thank you for your counsel, and it's appreciated, but I will decline to put that question to the House at this particular time, under the provisions of standing order 44.

MS. BROWN: How can the debate…?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order?

MS. BROWN: No, I would like to participate in the debate, but the minister is not here, and I find it very difficult to….

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll keep notes until he gets back.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I don't trust that minister's handwriting, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1845 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member seeking the floor to participate in the debate?

MS. BROWN: Yes, I'd like to participate in the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: I appreciate your recognizing me, but I would like to know where the minister responsible for this piece of legislation is.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's seeing a man about a dog.

MS. BROWN: Oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will all hon. members please come to order, and will the member for Burnaby-Edmonds please continue.

MS. BROWN: I'll take my place in this debate in support of the amendment, but I do it with a great feeling of sorrow that the minister responsible for this heinous piece of legislation is not here to hear the words I have to say. I think it actually shows a little bit of disrespect, surely, for the statements which Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have to make. The minister has probably gone to bed, has he? Has he gone to sleep?

AN HON. MEMBER: He said he'd be right back.

MS. BROWN: Anyway, I'm greatly distressed.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I'll save my best lines until he returns.

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting motion which we are debating. It's a motion that talks about cooperation. One is always in a dilemma when one talks to the government about cooperation, because the government's definition of cooperation is so limited. Really, it sees cooperation as something which only happens between it and its friends. As far as the rest of the community and the rest of the province is concerned, cooperation is not something the government believes in. I don't think you have to have even more than a nodding acquaintance with the government to know that cooperation is not one of its strong points, unless it is relating to its friends.

To a large extent Bill 9 is a very cooperative piece of legislation, because it cooperates with Mr. Spetifore, who is a friend of the government, It's a piece of legislation….

Ah!

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You missed me.

MS. BROWN: I certainly did, Mr. Minister. Mr. Speaker, could we start the timer all over again?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

MS. BROWN: That's fine, as long as the minister knows that his colleagues are deliberately conspiring to keep him from hearing the words I said while he was out of the House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The biggest favour we've ever done for him.

MS. BROWN: That's your opinion, Mr. Minister.

I was talking about the key word in this amendment, which is "cooperation," and pointing out that cooperation is something which your government does very well with your friends but is not inclined to extend to the rest of the community at large.

What we're trying to deal with, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the government has seen fit to introduce a piece of legislation which will make it easier for one of its friends and supporters to remove some very valuable land from the agricultural land reserve. Despite the fact that the politicians at the local and regional level are opposed to this, the government is intervening directly in that transaction in the only legitimate way it could do so, which was to introduce a piece of legislation which would wipe out of the role of regional planning — take it away; eradicate that section of the act.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, the act says section 807 is herewith repealed, etc.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Minister of Municipal Affairs please come to order?

MS. BROWN: Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

The whole attitude to planning is a really interesting thing, because planning is something that affects some people more than it does others. Planning can be done without the intervention of municipal councils or regional districts if there are the economics involved. If one lives in a neighbourhood which is so wealthy that no one can move into that neighbourhood unless they can afford the price of the other houses in that neighbourhood….

[11:30]

MR. KEMPF: I was in your neighbourhood the other day, and it looks like that.

MS. BROWN: That's Burnaby. All of Burnaby looks like that. You can't beat it. I'm willing to except that.

Then planning takes place, simply by virtue of the economics of the situation where it is not possible, for example, for someone to move into West Point Grey and set up a chicken farm. It just wouldn't happen; nobody there would sell them the property to establish the chicken farm.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against chicken farms?

MS. BROWN: No, I'm just saying that in some areas planning happens even without the intervention of the regional district or the municipal councils. But that is the exception, not the rule. The rule is that in most instances there has to be a planning body, a level of government that can take a global look at the entire community and make some decisions based on its assessment of the best interest of that community and the way in which the community can be developed so that it enhances, to the greatest degree, the residents — the people who live and work there and call it home. That is not a job which the minister has demonstrated to us can best be done either by the minister or by bureaucrats here in Victoria.

[ Page 1846 ]

One of the things that the legislation does that's in keeping with most of the other legislation brought down this session by the government is try to centralize control, decision-making and power right here in Victoria, to make the bureaucrats the czars — the decision-makers. What I anticipate they're expecting will happen is that they will chum out these clones. In other words, every municipality is going to look like Surrey, Delta, Omineca or whatever.

One of the really wealthy and wonderful things about British Columbia and Canada in general is our differences — the ways in which we are different at the some time that we are similar. Those kinds of differences cannot be protected by a czar or bureaucrat or even the minister sitting here in Victoria making those kinds of decisions.

[Mr. Campbell in the chair.]

I don't know why that is so difficult for the government to understand. I don't know why it is such an obtuse concept that the members of the opposition, the members of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the 1,400 other municipally elected politicians and other groups have to keep on repeating to the minister and his colleagues on the government benches. The municipal politicians are the first line of contact. They really are. It is not necessary to get on a ferry or plane or take a train. In many instances it's not even necessary to take a bus to go and see your municipal councillor. All the minister has to do is, for example, attend a council meeting — in Burnaby it's on a Monday evening — where he will see that anyone in the community can go in and take a seat and observe what is happening, the decisions that are being made, and listen to the discussion that is going on. If they have an idea that they would like to share with the council, they can put their name on the agenda and then have an opportunity to directly address the council in a way that the ordinary citizen of British Columbia doesn't have in terms of their elected representative, at either the provincial or federal level.

Mr. Speaker, none of the people in the gallery can put their name on an agenda and come and stand at the bar of the House, before you, or anywhere on the floor of the House, and speak to us directly. It's not possible. The only place in which this can happen is at the municipal level. What that means, Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about planning is that the municipal politicians and their hired guns, the planners, have direct input from the people who are affected by those decisions. In other words, if, as I live in Burnaby, I find that the decision is being made to open a Color Your World paint factory down the street from me, I don't have to write to my MLA; I can put on my shoes and socks and coat and walk to my municipal council and get my name on that agenda. I can stand up and say to every one of those elected councillors: "Listen, for these reasons I do not want that factory on my street." Not only can I do that, but I can take my neighbours with me. I can take my neighbour from two, four or a hundred streets away. We can go right into council chambers, sit down, wait our turn and when our name is called we stand up and place our case right there. We sit there and listen to the councillors deal with our presentation. They can ask us questions: "What objections do you have to Colour Your World Paint?" I can say: "I do not like the idea of big trucks coming down the street. I have small children going to school. It's a traffic hazard. It's unsafe for the children and the pets in the neighbourhood," or whatever. I can discuss that with my councillors. I don't have to write a letter. I don't have to phone a constituency office and ask for an appointment with the minister. I deal directly with my municipally elected representative.

Sitting to the left in council, a little bit below the councillors, are the planners. Mr. Tony Parr and his deputies in Burnaby are sitting right there. I say something to the mayor about this, and the mayor turns to Mr. Parr and says: "What is the point of putting this factory on this particular street?" While I am standing there, Mr. Parr has to give a rationalization for the decision giving Color Your World Paint permission to put a factory at the end of my street. I can debate with Mr. Parr, the mayor and council in a way that I could not do with the provincially elected members of this House, or with the minister or his bureaucrats, if I were not an elected representative.

MR. REID: Tell me how the regional district gets involved with your philosophy.

MS. BROWN: The little member for Surrey asks how the regional district gets involved in this. First of all, I would like to thank him for that question.

MR. REID: You don't know the answer.

MS. BROWN: I do know the answer. For example, one of the strengths and also one of the weaknesses of Burnaby municipality is that it is right smack in the middle of the road leading to everywhere in the lower mainland. You can't go to Surrey, New Westminster, Coquitlam, Hope, Chilliwack or Omineca without passing through Burnaby. If Burnaby were selfish — and that is not the case, I hasten to add — they could say: "We will place toll-gates at all of our major throughways, and in order to pass through Burnaby you have to pay a toll." But that doesn't happen. Some of it is provincial but not all of it. In cooperation with the other municipalities in the lower mainland, and with the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which is made up of representatives from all of the regional districts, they sit down together and plan, based on what is in the best interest of all the people — not just those of the lower mainland and the greater Vancouver region, but all of British Columbia. That is their function.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The minister would like us to believe that a bureaucrat sitting here in Vancouver, or the minister himself, would be wiser in terms of deciding and planning for the people of the Greater Vancouver Regional District area. The minister would like us to think that one head is better than many, and that has not been proven through time; historically, that is not the way it works. That is the reason we in the opposition are opposed to Bill 9.

But it's not enough just to oppose a piece of legislation. We tried that. During second reading we said: "It's not good legislation, it should be amended, it should be withdrawn, it should be allowed to die on the order paper." The government has refused to listen to any of those recommendations, so we have come up with an amendment. I want to read the amendment into the record to see whether you or any of the members on the government side find it unreasonable in its content. The amendment calls for cooperation between municipalities and regional districts, in the belief that this is

[ Page 1847 ]

necessary for orderly regional development. My colleagues from Burnaby-Edmonds, Nanaimo, Prince Rupert, and as far away as Port Moody, quoted the resolution passed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities at their convention in Penticton last week, where these locally elected politicians…. Incidentally, there are many more of them than there are of us; 1,400 I think, throughout the province, as opposed to 57 representatives in this House. The resolution which they moved when they got together, and which was carried almost unanimously at their convention, stated very clearly that Bill 9 would create havoc if it were implemented.

[11:45]

I think it is very short-sighted on the part of the government to make a decision to help one of its friends, or a handful of its friends, at the price of sacrificing the rest of the communities involved and the people living in the communities that this piece of legislation is going to impact on. I think that's very short-sighted. We are suggesting to them that rather than talk about cooperation just in terms of Mr. Spetifore, cooperating with him so he can get his land out of the agricultural land reserve — contrary to the wishes of the regional district and the locally elected politicians — the government, in its infinite wisdom, should be making decisions based on what is in the best interests of the community at large.

It was the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet), I think, who said the opposition represents a minority voice. We are speaking for a small group of people, but in this particular instance that is certainly not the case. The reverse is the case, because Bill 9 is a bill which the government has introduced on behalf of a very small minority. The government has very few friends, but the bill is being introduced in terms of meeting the needs of their friends, not the majority. The 1,400 elected representatives at the municipal level, as well as all of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and planning groups and other groups in the community, have spoken out very strongly in opposition to this piece of legislation.

Really, what the legislation does is to give the minister and his bureaucrats here in Victoria power above and beyond that of the locally elected representatives. There is something inherently anti-democratic about that. Yet every piece of legislation introduced by that particular minister in this session of the House has done precisely that — it has taken away power, responsibility and control from locally elected representatives and placed it in the hands of the cabinet — or, as the Premier has said, of the deputy ministers who have to report directly to him, and not even go through the minister himself. I don't know whether or not the minister was misquoted — maybe if he participates in this debate at some time he will be able to tell us whether he was — but it has been rumoured abroad that the minister has said all that is necessary is for a contract planner to come along once every two or three years and look over a municipality, and suggest that here you can have roads, there you can have a park, over here you can have family housing, and so forth and so on. I hope the minister was misquoted, because if in fact the minister responsible for the municipalities in this province is so naive and so misinformed and misdirected as to think that the planning responsibilities of a community can be handled by an outside planner whipping into town every two or three years and saying, "Here you can place a road and there you can place a building or a park," then I think we are in serious trouble indeed. So I am hoping that when he takes his place in our debate, the minister will assure us that he was indeed misquoted.

In speaking on the main motion on July 27, I went into a great deal of detail about the way in which the municipality of Burnaby uses its planning staff and its planning component. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has asked me not to repeat it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can refer to it.

MS. BROWN: That's all I'm going to do. I know that my statements at that time were so profound that they linger in his memory to this day, so it's not necessary for me to repeat them. In fact, the planning staff in Burnaby have had to do a good job. They have been forced to do a Herculean task because of, as I mentioned earlier, the geographical location of that particular municipality. In order to ensure that Burnaby has remained a community in which people have been able to live and work and experience an enriched environment, to a large extent the planning staff have had to perform a lot of innovative acts and make some very interesting and unusual decisions. At the same time, it has had to cooperate and work with the planning boards and planning staffs of the surrounding municipalities. We've had a representative on the Greater Vancouver Regional District for some time, and we have been very….

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, although I appreciate the applause and the show of great affection for my colleague from Atlin (Mr. Passarell), I hope the time was not taken out of my 40 minutes, because I have a number of things to say.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The important thing is that the job I was elected to do for Burnaby is done properly. I recognize the minister's discomfort with what I'm saying and his unwillingness to listen. This is what happens whenever my colleague from Burnaby North and I stand on the floor and try to fight for Burnaby. Which is fine; we mail all the material out and the Burnaby residents and constituents know the job we're doing for them.

AN HON. MEMBER: All too well.

MS. BROWN: That's right, as witnessed by the fact that I've been a member of this House a lot longer than that member, who is not in his seat and who continues to interrupt.

However, back to the reasoned amendment, and my hope that the minister is going to participate in this debate. I want to ask the minister some questions, so perhaps he would take some notes so that he can respond.

First, the request of the Union of B.C. Municipalities for a meeting with the minister to discuss the resolution which was passed at their convention. I wonder if the minister, in participating in this debate, would let us know whether he has agreed to that request, at what time the meeting is going to occur, and whether any decision has been made in terms of implementing the recommendations embodied in that particular resolution.

My second question to the minister has to do with a letter he wrote to the chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, dated August 10, 1983, in which he stated that he

[ Page 1848 ]

wished to cooperate in an ongoing manner with the major urban regions. He was talking about planning matters.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay. I need to know what he is going to do in terms of that cooperation.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is in a letter which was signed by John Cooper of the Capital Regional District, Don Ross, chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, A.C. Goold of Dewdney-Alouette, Fred Bryant of the Lower Mainland Planning Review Panel, E. Pretty of Fraser-Cheam Regional District and H. de Jong of Central Fraser Valley. They suggested that the optimum solution described to the minister would be to improve on the present arrangement in terms of the three-way partnership between the minister, the municipalities and the regional district. I'm wondering whether the minister has taken that recommendation into account and what he is going to do about implementing that. If the minister is agreeable to that recommendation and is interested in implementing it, then the minister is going to be voting in support of this reasoned amendment. What that recommendation talks about is cooperation, and that is precisely what this reasoned amendment is about. The reasoned amendment talks about cooperation at all of these levels and not unilateral action on the part of….

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you remember that quote from the Bible about the braying of an ass. You don't remember it? It's too bad the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) isn't here to give us the exact quotation about the braying of an ass because it certainly applies to the member from Cranbrook (Mr. Segarty), who at this time is not sitting in his seat but behaving in a most obnoxious manner.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that's not very nice.

MS. BROWN: No, it isn't. I agree with you. It isn't very nice at all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As a matter of fact it's very unparliamentary.

MS. BROWN: Oho! I have my list of words here, Mr. Speaker, and braying is not an unparliamentary word; nor is "ass" on the list.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The list is getting bigger by the day.

MS. BROWN: It should be updated, then, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Watch it, Mr. Speaker — you'll set a precedent.

MS. BROWN: That's right. In any event, Mr. Speaker…. I'm sorry, I've broken my own train of thought here.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were talking about braying.

MS. BROWN: There was one thing I wanted to add to this and that was to make two points clear. One is that I don't always agree with the planning councils' decisions. I wouldn't want the minister to go away with the impression that I think that the planners are always correct. The difference is that when I disagree with the planners, as when anyone in Burnaby disagrees with them, as I said before, we have an opportunity to speak directly to the planners as well as to the elected representatives at the local level, in a way which we don't have with the minister. The other point I wanted to say to the minister was that a simple visit to any part of the world where planning is not in effect would certainly give him all the proof that he needs of the importance of planning and certainly would throw into disrepute the comment he is alleged to have made about the fact that planning can quite easily be done by an outside person whipping into a municipality every two or three years and just giving some advice.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay, the minister was misquoted. It is with great relief, Mr. Minister, that I understand that. I must say that I did view those statements of yours with some alarm because it indicated to me that you were failing to recognize the real importance of planning.

[12:00]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I have been misquoting you all along?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, no, no….

MS. BROWN: Oh, the media have been misquoting you all along.

I'm happy to hear that because I will be making the copy of Hansard which includes the statements of my colleague from Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) and your response available to the Burnaby council. I think they will be relieved, too, to know that you were misquoted and that you certainly do not believe that a contract planner can whip into the municipality every two or three years and….

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You will respond to that? Okay.

At the same time I'm hoping that the minister will also respond to the body of this amendment which has to do with the question of cooperation between municipalities and the regional districts and the minister and his ministry staff, because I think it's really important that the voice of the majority be heard too. Certainly, the voice of the majority speaks through the municipal councils. As I mentioned earlier, there are 1,400 elected members at the municipal level. There are only 57 elected members at the provincial level. So they are definitely the first line of contact. They're also more accountable, because they have to go before the electorate every two years, unlike the members of this House, who have a mandate that can go up to five years. So they have to be more accountable. The other thing is that they live and work and are always in those municipalities which they represent.

Mr. Speaker, I see that the green light is on, and that means that I've got three minutes. What I would like to do is

[ Page 1849 ]

move a motion, during this period of time left to me, just by saying very quickly, also, that I hope that they….

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Help!

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been making notes at the request of the member; they are very important notes, and I can't hear any more because the leader of her party is making so much noise. Would you ask him to be quiet?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. It was getting a little bit noisy in here, I would agree. Also, the hon. member was about to make a motion.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I was, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to move, under standing order 45(1)(j), for the suspension…. That's a motion that says: "The following motions are debatable…." I am asking for the suspension of standing order 44.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair, as you will probably appreciate by the time that has been taken, is having some difficulty in trying to find that your motion is relevant to the debate in hand. It just doesn't seem to be at all, and so, hon. member, with all due respect, I think the Chair is bound in this instance to rule that that motion is out of order.

MS. BROWN: I challenge your ruling.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not ruling.

MS. BROWN: Yes, he just said he ruled.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 12

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

[12:15]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I'm wondering if perhaps we could have the attendants or the electricians check the bells in the Premier's office. I think there's a distinct possibility that they're not working normally. I know from listening to the Premier on the news that he claims to be a hard-working fellow and would not want to miss any of this debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That's not a point of order. Hon. members, we will return to the debate on the reasoned amendment to Bill 9.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, it is 12:15 a.m. pacific daylight time. I don't think this joint has had so much excitement since they put in flush toilets 70 years ago. What we're discussing tonight is an amendment to a motion to Bill 9, and I would like to read the amendment: "That the motion be amended by leaving out all the words following 'that' and substituting therefore the following: 'it is of the opinion of this House that cooperation between municipalities and regional districts is necessary for orderly regional development.'"

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How can you say "cooperation" with a straight face?

MR. PASSARELL: Cooperation? I can say it with a straight face. Why would you ever say something like that, Mr. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and Environment?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, but you can go out for a little while and go to the bathroom and then come back in.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Sure. Who's taking notes?

Interjections.

[Mr. Reynolds in the chair.]

MR. PASSARELL: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's 12:17 Pacific daylight time. What I'd like to discuss is a bit of what this amendment to Bill 9 is in relation to the far north — the great white north, as we refer to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a racist remark.

MR. PASSARELL: No, it's not a racist remark, hoser. Take off, eh?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's leadership.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, we will be having a winter garden party to match the Premier's winter garden party in Kelowna, where he's been arranging it for the last two days. The northern garden party will be in conjunction with it, because we always believe in the cooperation between the regional districts and the municipalities in the far north, and we have two specialists who will be coming up and doing

[ Page 1850 ]

some cooperation for the winter garden party at my cabin. They are Bob and Doug McKenzie from Edmonton.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Norm Spector from Montreal.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, the three wise men.

I want to give just a little bit of background on the great white north and its relationship to Bill 9 and this amendment. As you know, Mr. Speaker…. Well, you wouldn't know, Mr. Speaker. We had a shift change here. I'm going to tell you a little bit of background here, and I know you're going to find this fascinating. As a matter of fact, this is going to keep you asleep.

We have two regional districts in the great white north. The Kitimat-Stikine is to the south. It works its way up to approximately Dease Lake; it doesn't cover Cassiar. Then from the east comes Peace River–Liard, which goes up the Liard River, up the Alaska Highway and stops in the vicinity of Lower Post. Then there's the very northwest corner — God only knows who covers that. I've looked on maps. I've written letters to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. What regional district covers the very comer of the northwest of this province? Nobody seems to know.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, first this government has to understand that there's a part of the province that this bill doesn't apply to: the very northwest corner there. Mr. Speaker, I think they somehow forgot that part of the province since nobody lives there.

MR. BARRETT: Can Spetifore settle there?

MR. PASSARELL: That's what scares me. Nobody lives there, and when you start seeing the things this government can do in the south, particularly in the Spetifore land, it worries me. This is an uncharted area in the very northwest corner over by Alaska with the Yukon to its north. I'm kind of worried with this government that likes to get into speculation and chop away the Agricultural Land Commission; I'm positive that that very northwest comer that the government doesn't know exists is the future for this province in agriculture.

Let me tell you why. Nobody lives there. The closest anybody lives to this area that's not covered by any regional district is a place called Mile 48 Haines.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm going to get to these planners.

Mile 48 Haines was interesting in the last provincial election.

Out of nine votes, I got eight. So I wanted to go over there — it was 400 miles from Atlin — to find out who this individual was who didn't vote for me.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, hey! That's 99 percent, Mr. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom). I doubt if you could even come that close in Point Grey.

So I wanted to know why this individual didn't vote for me. So I drove 400 miles over there. It's a customs station between Alaska and B.C., and five people live there.

MR. BARRETT: And nine votes?

MR. PASSARELL: Don't give him ideas. It could be electoral reform. Don't say that, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. You know how these guys can be. They might even just carve off that northwest comer there and set up their own electoral district for Norman Spector.

I wanted to go over there, because I know a major issue in the campaign was farmland up in this area with the nine people. So I saw the five, and they were happy seeing me. They weren't happy about what happened on May 5 though. They told me where the other four people live. Three of them are trappers, so I went around back up towards the Yukon border and found the three trappers. It wasn't that one. And the last one I've never been able to locate — the last person that was on the voters' list. I don't know where they've gone to. I think this person has gone to Alaska, because Alaska still has agricultural land that you can get from the government — homesteading. If you feel like starting up a farm, you can go to something very similar to a regional district and apply for the farmland, and be able to be granted up to 160 acres. If you ask me what that is in metric, I can't give you an idea of how many hectares it is.

As a matter of fact, Jack Clarke doesn't even know how many hectares there are. They gave me this article, "Farmland Loss Threatens Our Future," and if you just read this, it says that a federal task force came out with a report last week that should "scare the dickens" out of Canadians. Canada lost 1.3 hectares of farmland between 1961 and 1976. That does scare the dickens out of me — 1.37 hectares. I'm sure the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) must know Jack Clarke; he has the same kind of arithmetic. Jack Clarke says that's nearly 3.5 million acres in the old language." Now, Mr. Speaker, from 1.37 hectares to 3.5 million acres of land! What's this world coming to?

And we're debating this at 12:25 a.m. Pacific daylight time, and I've got 30 minutes left. What day is it? Where are we? What is this? What's going on?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Hyder is where we'd better get close to.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Hey, listen, Mr. Minister of Health. As you know, we both subscribe to the same lifestyles, eh? You can't find two individuals who are better looking and in better health. As a matter of fact, if we were walking down the street together — we might be referred to as twins. It depends on who would be walking with his back to the other.

But on to the bill and the amendment, Mr. Speaker. Did I tell you the story about going up to Mile 48? I think I did. I still haven't found that one last person who is really concerned about farmland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Spetifore.

[ Page 1851 ]

MR. PASSARELL: You think that's the individual? Could be. I'd better check my records, As a matter of fact, what I'll do tomorrow…. Do you really think we're going to sit here all weekend? There's a good football game on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where else can you get entertainment like this?

MR. PASSARELL: Las Vegas.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: It's costing you more for keeping us here. Those poor people who have to work in the library! This is just a rumour, but I heard that under law one has to keep the library staff on when this place is in operation. You also have to keep the ladies and the cooks downstairs in the Legislative dining room. This is only a rumour that I heard. I've heard of double time and I've heard of triple time, but they are getting ten times the amount of money for working through the night than they would if they worked eight-hour shifts. That's only a rumour that I heard. We are talking about saving money. If we have to pay these people ten times more than what we usually pay just to keep them here, that's costing the taxpayers money — just as Mr. Clarke comes out here with the 1.37 hectares and the $3.5 million: that's the way the arithmetic works.

Would you like to hear more of this interesting article from this agriculturalist? It's called the "The Bottom Line." It's another quote in relation to the bill and the amendment before us. I'm quoting Jack Clarke, "The Bottom Line": "Farmland Loss Threatens our Future." "B.C. Is the biggest sinner of all provinces." Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I can say those kinds of words. Everybody in this place is honourable.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I don't want to say…. You know, when you look across….

I'll continue with Jack Clarke: the biggest sinner of all the provinces, not because it is alienating more farmland than anywhere else but because it was the first to recognize the need for legislation to preserve it and has been backsliding like a former convert."

What happened? I'm a young guy. I'm the youngest guy in the Legislature here. What is this man talking about? He says that B.C. was the first to recognize the need for legislation. Who did that? Who set that legislation up?

[12:30]

MR. BARRETT: We did it, Alan.

MR. PASSARELL: Okay. And it's been backsliding ever since.

Now you're going through with this bill. If this Bill 9 passes, what are you going to have? We'll go on to read the explanatory note here of Bill 9: "Official plans are being eliminated" — in relation to the amendment — "as a deregulation measure to streamline the development approval process and to strengthen the autonomy of municipal government." Now in the constituency of Atlin, Mr. Speaker, we have one municipality of 17 communities, which is the city of Stewart. My concern here is "deregulation measure to streamline the development approval process." You've got 16 communities up in the Atlin constituency. By allowing this bill to be passed, you are going to be having the bureaucracy in Victoria making the decisions for the other 16 communities.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: There we go, I'm glad the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) woke from his deep sleep and gave me another line to use — Glenora. Do you know where Glenora is?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes,

MR. PASSARELL: Really? Oh, you know what that place is known for? I've heard about some of that stuff out of Glenora. I'd go see a doctor if I were you, Mr. Provincial Secretary. But what I want to talk about in relation to Glenora is the community that is just to the east of Glenora and that's Telegraph Creek on the mighty Stikine. The regional district came in five years ago and put in a runway. Telegraph Creek had a runway at one time, but they decided it was no good, so they built a new runway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did anybody land there?

MR. PASSARELL: Nobody landed there. As a matter of fact, in winter you can't land there because the snow is there, and the community has asked the regional district to put up some money so they can move the snow. The regional district says: "It's not our responsibility; we just build them; we don't have to work on them."

AN HON. MEMBER: It's too hard to move the snow.

MR. PASSARELL: Well. It would be, but it doesn't have any reference to what we're talking about here.

Back onto Telegraph Creek, the Kitimat-Stikine Regional District came in and built this runway, and when it snows, there's no money for snow removal. So they've asked the government, and the government says that it's not their responsibility, it's the regional district's. So this year the continuing problem will still happen.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: On Sunday night, sure. With Bob and Doug.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Who are they?

MR. PASSARELL: That's something off the television. I guess you’re still watching the reruns. Is that where you get your material from — the Goldie Hawn of Surrey?

AN HON. MEMBER: Take off, eh.

MR. PASSARELL: Right, hoser.

Just last week was the UBCM convention, which we even had some delegates come down from Stewart to attend. There was a resolution passed at the convention on Thursday, September 15, 1983, and I'd just like to read that into the record.

[ Page 1852 ]

" Whereas the government of British Columbia introduced Bill 9, Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, in the Legislature on July 7, and whereas this legislation would amend the Municipal Act by removing regional planning as a function of regional districts and making official settlement plans optional, and whereas the present provisions of the Municipal Act have permitted rural and resource communities to establish effective means for planning of electoral areas and for the solution of development problems in urban fringe areas, and whereas the same provisions have enabled communities in the lower mainland and capital regions to coordinate their development in cooperation with their neighbours in a cost-effective way with maximum local autonomy, therefore be it resolved that Bill 9, Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, is unacceptable and inappropriate to the needs of British Columbia's communities and that sections 2 to 6 of Bill 9 should be withdrawn forthwith, and be it further resolved that the Minister of Municipal Affairs be requested to meet with a special committee composed of regional district directors on the UBCM executive and the table officers of the UBCM to determine acceptable and appropriate ways of improving planning legislation."

It was passed virtually unanimously, Mr. Speaker.

My concern on this resolution would be this: "…whereas the present provisions of the Municipal Act have permitted rural and resource communities to establish effective means for planning of electoral areas…." I have a concern with this, because I've seen some of the planning that has been done in the far north, and often that planning has not gone well with the communities which the Kitimat-Stikine Regional Districts have planned. I would be remiss not to point out some of these facts. I'll give you an example, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Murphy.

MR. PASSARELL: Joe Murphy. He defeated a candidate named Bobby Ball. Does that name ring a bell with you?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, you don't want to remember his name, do you? I guess so.

"…whereas the present provisions of the Municipal Act have permitted rural and resource communities to establish effective means for planning of electoral areas…." Now Mr. Speaker, I've seen the Kitimat-Stikine Regional District make some real whoppers when it comes to regional planning of unorganized territory, but often what happens is that their recommendations go to the provincial government, who, in turn, do the actual planning. One of the examples I'll use is the land outside of Good Hope Lake, which the Provincial Secretary remembers.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did you finish your cabin out there?

MR. PASSARELL: No, I had to dump that land. I built it in Atlin, Mr. Provincial Secretary. Any time you'd like to come there, feel free. You'd be welcomed as a guest. It's six miles out of town — no running water, wood heat.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you do your washing? Tell him how you do your washing.

MR. PASSARELL: I do the washing with a washboard after I pack the water up from the stream.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you buy a suit there?

MR. PASSARELL: A suit! You'd be the only Provincial Secretary to travel six miles out of Atlin to try to find a deal on a suit.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'd go longer than six miles.

MR. PASSARELL: I guess so! But listen, I'll be seeing old Bob maybe next week — we're going to get out of here, aren't we, Mr. Speaker, this weekend? I think we will.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: No, no, I'm not holding this up; you're the people that are holding…. You're filibustering this bill. I'm just getting up….

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, you are. Let's see, you're sitting in the chair of…?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Wouldn't that be nice, if we could just make that decision; if I sat down, and the few sensible people who are sitting in this House said: "Yeah, we'll go home."

So they made this land a subdivision up there, and to this day — it's been four years — nobody is living on the subdivision.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is that near the airport?

MR. PASSARELL: There's no airport in Good Hope Lake. Are you going up there this weekend for the opening of the Atlin airport? I got a telegram. It's only about 25 percent completed, and the government's going up on Saturday to open it.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm not going up there to land any plane on that airport. But if the government's going to do it, please don't land at this airport. You're going up to cut the blue ribbon, because there are big holes where the graders and the cats are.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Cats — a D-9. Did you ever drive one of those? No, you don't understand that. Well, Mr. Speaker: "…permitted rural and resource communities to establish effective means for planning of electoral areas…." Now we look at resource communities. One of the problems in the community of Cassiar, for instance, which is a resource community, is the need for residential

[ Page 1853 ]

land outside the community boundaries — what the company owns.

HON. MR. CHABOT: There's lots of water there.

MR. PASSARELL: No, there isn't. There're a lot of mountains, a lot of land, and down in the valleys there's water, sure. But there are other areas you could put land in; people would be willing, if they had the opportunity, to try. It's the northern spirit, to be able to tackle something….

AN HON. MEMBER: The B.C. spirit.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, I don't know if I'm going to go that far; it's not painted the same colours.

Did I read that amendment to you, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: What is this? The government's in confusion here. The Intergovernmental Relations minister (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says yes; the Whip says no. I want you guys to go into consultation here.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Did I read the bill to you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is Mayo in your area?

MR. PASSARELL: Mayo? That's in the Yukon. That's closed right down now. There's good government in the Yukon. Conservative government there.

Well, the UBCM wanted sections 2 through 6 to be withdrawn. Let's read section 2. It simply says: "Section 805 is amended by striking out '807' and substituting '809'." Section 3 says: "Section 806 is amended by striking out '807' and substituting '809'." It's the same as what happened on 805. Then 806 is replaced by 809. What is this 809? What are they amending this thing with? Why aren't they explaining it?

MRS. JOHNSTON: You're supposed to be telling us.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, I'm glad you asked me.

On sections 809 and 806, it's basically taking the power of planning away from the regional districts and putting it into the hands of bureaucrats in Victoria. Probably section 5 in the bill itself — what the UBCM has asked to have withdrawn — is the elimination of regional plans and official regional plans. I'd just like to read it: 808. "All regional plans and official regional plans prepared or designed before sections 807 and 808 were repealed are cancelled and have no effect." The regional district in the Kitimat-Stikine and the other regional district of Peace River–Liard have come up with some official plans for some of the community development. Now if this bill passes, all that work has been done and is cancelled. They've put in a lot of work, but at times planning officials who have come up into the area…. They usually come up in hunting or fishing season, spend a little time up there taking in the beauty of the great white north, and then are gone. But there have been many dedicated individuals in the regional district who have come up and held meetings in the area, and who have done some regional planning.

I've dealt with the regional district a number of times, and I'd be the last one ever to say that they're always correct, particularly the Kitimat-Stikine. I'd be remiss in not pointing that out, because many of my constituents haven't been pleased with some of the developments, as the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), the previous Lands, Parks and Housing minister, knows.

Some of the problems that the communities have been involved with through the regional district…. I always remember the time the gentleman who was talking with somebody out of Telegraph Creek…. He came down and we had that little meeting, when he wanted that land 25 miles from Telegraph Creek. Remember that? He had been given assurances by the regional district that that would be fine. He wrote away and finally…. I don't think the man really had an understanding of what kind of land he wanted; he just wanted to be extremely far away.

[12:45]

One of the problems that comes in is that when you start developing land…. Somebody wants five acres of land 25 miles from a community, and once they build their homes they want services. That's where the problem is. I know the minister can appreciate that. But by the same token there are many residents in the north who don't want land 25 miles from a community. There are people who want land along roads, and the government is moving in the direction of making lots available for people in the north. There are some good commercial lots that have been put in outside of Dease Lake, as well as a new subdivision in the community of Atlin, but not everybody wants to live in a subdivision in a rural town.

I think the government has to start looking at a new policy in regard to people who don't want to fit into the context of a subdivision in a rural community. One of the reasons people move up north is that they don't want to get into that structure of the city. I think that with some cooperation we could develop some type of a policy in which individuals who want to settle and make their livelihoods in the north could receive five acres of land, and not in a subdivision. But you have to have some organized planning. You can't just allow people to go out and start staking land wherever they would like to. As history repeats itself quite often, once the land title is granted then the services have to follow, and sometimes it's just too difficult to run services into such small communities for one individual. We need some type of organized structure. The regional districts have, in a sense, provided that, and if I thought this bill would allow a more organized structure, giving the residents of the north a better deal, then I would be supporting it. But I can't see, through the amendment and the bill itself, that anything of this nature is going to be helping out the residents in the far north. It is going to make it more difficult, because those residents of the north will, when this bill is passed, have to deal directly with the minister in Victoria or the bureaucrats who are involved in it.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 9 has been called the Spetifore amendment. It is the carving up of farmland and the carving up of all good land. If this bill succeeds in passing, which it will…. I don't think we're living in such a never-never land that we don't understand what the situation is here in Victoria. You have 35 seats; we have 22. We're standing up here tonight and going through the morning, not being obstructionists but maybe allowing you a second look at some of the amendments. As reasonable individuals I know that you would take that chance, but by the same token you

[ Page 1854 ]

can't shove legislation down people's throats. You have to allow opposition parties to voice their opinions to the government, and that's one of the exercises that we're doing tonight and have been doing for the last four nights — at 11 minutes to one, Pacific daylight time.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL That's part of the opposition. I doubt that anybody, regardless of whether you're sitting in a political party, would want one government, one party, to make decisions for everybody. But back to the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the essential arguments that should be brought forward on Bill 9 — as I mentioned before, the Spetifore amendment…. Another aspect of this bill is that there is very little support for Bill 9. Why I say that is that an organization like the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, which…. Basically, in many regards, I wouldn't say they could be labelled as one political stripe or another, even though they might be leaning to one political stripe or another — but I wouldn't make that reference. Overall, the municipalities — the elected individuals — lean more to your party than to ours. But here you have one of your strongest supporters, the municipalities, coming out and saying that you've done something wrong.

It's not something like the labour unions, or some of the organizations that you've alienated in the last two and a half months, coming out and saying that you should withdraw this bill. This is one of your own supporters. If I was sitting in your shoes and if the municipalities came out in their convention with a resolution that was virtually unanimously passed by the convention, then I would worry. I would certainly hope that the hoist on this bill would be taken for six months so you can go back and reword the legislation and bring in something that would be more acceptable to people who know more about these bills — for instance the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

MR. MOWAT: They haven't always agreed with you.

MR. PASSARELL I know they haven't always agreed with any government, but I think that what they've come out with at their convention on September 15 is something that any government in power would have to take a second look at. It's not made up of a bunch of radicals, pinkos; there are decent individuals in there and they have a concern, and their concern was voiced to this government by passing this resolution.

MR. MOWAT: But they've disagreed with governments in the past.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, I would certainly hope that people in this province continue to, and have the opportunity to, disagree with governments, regardless of what government is in power, and that they are never stymied or silenced, as some of this legislation is attempting to do to individuals. It's also ironic that from the essential arguments I discussed regarding Bill 9, most of the above would prefer to return to a land use bill which was presented and discussed but never actually hit the floor or had much debate in this House; that is, Mr. Vander Zalm's land use bill, which caused a bit of controversy at its concept. That bill at least would have retained some mechanisms whereby regional planning would continue to be coordinated between intermunicipality planning and therefore could be integrated into the provincial resource management with settlement planning in regional areas, which is a concern to any northern residents because of the land use aspect.

Bill 9, in a sense, proposes false economies. A lack of intermunicipality coordination will cause long-term problems that will be expensive or impossible to rectify, and if there's anything that this government has attempted to have the public believe it is the restraint program, which is going to be saving money, but we never see the figures on how much money it's going to save. Bill 9, if passed in its present form, will be costing the taxpayers more money. For example, the cost of upgrading transportation and servicing systems that have become overloaded can be far greater than the cost of planning and preparation that couldn't anticipate and avoid these problems. Northern residents are concerned about transportation, and if this bill goes through as is, we could see some of the cost of upgrading transportation and servicing systems, particularly on the airport that I mentioned in Telegraph Creek, which has no winter maintenance budget. We could find out that maybe it'll have no summer maintenance budget if this bill passes, and then the Tahltan people of Telegraph Creek will be left without a runway 12 months a year.

Another area of cost-effectiveness which would be sacrificed if this bill is passed in its present form is that between 25 and 50 percent of all capital investment in municipal areas is public sector in origin. The public capital needs of metropolitan regions will continue to grow. Regional planning offers the only comprehensive means of ensuring that this public investment is effective and suitably related to the private sector investment.

Another aspect, Mr. Speaker, is that Bill 9, in its present form — seven sections; a very short bill…. One explanatory note states that Bill 9 again could distinguish British Columbia as unique in North America. Nowhere else on this continent, in metropolitan areas, is there no mechanism whatsoever to coordinate land use and development data between the municipalities. The present minister has originally promised to consult with the chairmen of the metropolitan regional districts prior to the introduction of Bill 9, and August 23 had been agreed to as a meeting date. Following that….

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's been a slice. Have a good night. In about another three hours the shift changes; I'm going to go to sleep. I hope that you'll enjoy your stay in the chair.

MR. D'ARCY: That was a delightful dissertation from the Charlie Farquharson of northern British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, considering the joy, levity and enthusiasm with which that member delivered his remarks, I hope we'll not cloud or confuse the government members, who I know are working extremely hard and are ready to contribute to this debate — especially the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who looks wide awake. I realize that dress codes are slipping. The member for Victoria was speaking without his shoes on the other day, and the member for Vancouver–Point Grey does look a little rumpled, but I know his mind is clear.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member would kindly relate to the bill.

[ Page 1855 ]

MR. D'ARCY: Really, Mr. Speaker, we're on an amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I said the amendment.

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, an amendment to Bill 9. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has it here. Just to bring everybody up to date, since both the Chair and the member for Vancouver–Point Grey were somewhat confused on this, the amendment that we're dealing with is: "That the motion be amended by leaving out all the words following '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.'"

Earlier today I spoke in…. From a calendar point of view it was yesterday, but I realize from the way in which we are making daily decisions here that it is still yesterday. Happy Friday, everyone. Earlier I was talking about what planning really was. It has been given rather a tarnished image by people who are critical of planning and a number of apologists for the government. Just remember one of the reasons the opposition is seeking the government's assistance in amending this legislation is that the opposition believes that local government — people who are elected locally and who have a mandate — should be heard when they say that regional plans should stay in place and should be improved upon. As we will discuss later, it is not just locally elected people — who have a mandate and who do represent the property tax payer at the local level — who feel this way, but such non-partisan, non-political organizations as the Planning Institute feel the same way.

[1:00]

The Planning Institute is not just planners. In fact they represent only about one-third of it. The other two-thirds represent locally elected people as well as developers and people who own land for development purposes. I think we have to stress that point: developers and people with land for development purposes by and large support the concept and philosophy of regional planning and the regional plans that are in effect in the province today. In fact, many people with development land were extremely upset that the process took so long to get these regional plans in place. Now that they're there, at least everybody knows where they're going and the mechanism is in place to amend these plans where developers and municipal councils don't feel they are appropriate or aspects of them are not appropriate. Needs and policies do change, and thank goodness they're flexible.

What I was saying about the philosophy of planning is that no planner goes out to cast in stone what must or must not be done with any given neighbourhood or block of property. No planner should do anything like that. What planning does, Mr. Speaker, is identify the possible bad uses that could evolve in any given area or neighbourhood and also identify the good uses — all of the possibilities that free enterprise, the natural order of the marketplace, the desire of people who live in a community, who have industries in a community — in what directions of development they might want to go. That's the reason for planning. After all of those scenarios have been identified, the planners, in their recommendations to their duly elected leaders at the municipal level, would seek to put mechanisms in place that would prevent those bad things happening but leave all of the options open for the good scenarios; leave all those options open so that over a period of time property owners and people who live in a community and have industrial and commercial interests in a community can choose those combinations of positive options which are best suited to their individual tastes and desires. That's what planning does, ideally.

I'd be the first to agree that the municipally elected people, being human — just like the provincial government — occasionally make mistakes. They occasionally adopt various aspects of plans which are heavy-handed or in error or don't go far enough. Occasionally they make changes to recommendations that they shouldn't. More often, I think, Mr. Speaker, they make changes that they should in fact make. But as we know, over a period of time these imbalances are corrected.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to dwell at great length on the situation with the GVRD. Other members on this side of this House have discussed, I think in fair detail, what have come to be known as the Spetifore lands down on Boundary Bay. I'm not a lower mainland MLA, but I do want to impress upon the government members, especially those who are vitally interested in these sorts of things — and particularly the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is listening as intently as he did during the marathon debates on his legislation, and as he will again when we get further into the committee stage and go into more marathon debates on his legislation….

Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the duly elected members who are looking after the property taxation interests of the 1.2 million people that they represent in the GRVD — that is, the vote not to use this so-called Spetifore land on Boundary Bay for housing or commercial purposes — was a much stronger mandate than the one the provincial government has. The provincial government's mandate is 49 percent, meaning 51 percent voted against the government. In the case of the GVRD decision representing 1.2 million people, over 40 percent of the population of British Columbia, the decision was, I believe, 40 to 28. Now that sounds to me more in the neighbourhood of 60 percent. The statements made by those duly elected mandated people on behalf of their decision were not simply that they had a concern about the agricultural potential, or lack of it, of this land down on Boundary Bay; their primary concern was cost of infrastructure and services to municipal taxpayers in their component municipalities. Many of them said that the GVRD already has more than sufficient land for housing. Plenty of small, medium-sized and even large-sized housing lots are already available much closer to the main commercial and industrial areas of the lower mainland. And not only did they not want to burden the commuting public with greater distances and greater problems getting to and from work, but they did not want to burden themselves — that is, their resident, commercial and industrial taxpayers, as well as the provincial government — with added costs of infrastructure — bridges, roads, tunnels, sewerage and water installations, parks, new schools, and even hospitals — when in many cases these facilities were already available and paid for by the taxpayers, and in many cases were underutilized.

So they made a decision based in large part on restraint and the need for logical austerity in encouraging the lower mainland area to expand and provide the jobs and economic opportunity which all of us in all parts of the province want to see. They realize that if the greater Vancouver area, just like my area of West Kootenay, is to have jobs and economic opportunities, we must keep the costs of doing business, and the cost of living, down. We must remain competitive not

[ Page 1856 ]

only with other provinces, but also with other nations. They were concerned about keeping costs down for the people who elected them. While the provincial government has a broad concern about costs in the economy, locally elected government has a specific concern about property taxes, because that is really the only way they have of raising funds in order to provide the services that the provincial government requires them to provide under the several municipal acts in this province.

So they have a specific concern with property taxation because it's the only game in town, as far as the law allows. Oh, we know that some municipalities do have some utility revenue from franchise fees from private utility companies and that sort of thing, but by and large property taxation is the only source of discretionary revenue for local government. They of course have a lot of revenue from the provincial government, but that revenue has been declining in recent years, both as a percentage and a share. Municipal government, unfortunately, can't do anything about that.

One of the things I want to talk about, and why municipal councillors and the planning institute have a concern about this — they have recognized this in briefs to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, as they did in briefs to the Minister of Education — is that property taxation is particularly onerous on the private sector because there is no way local property owners or owners of commercial property can reduce their costs of property taxation when times are tough. They can pull in their belts in every other way: they can run a leaner, meaner operation, they can reduce staff, they can reduce inventories. Of course, the amount of sales tax and income tax will naturally decrease when sales go down and times get tough. Those areas of taxation and controlling costs have their natural corrections built in; the one that doesn't is the area of property taxation.

Even though in this Social Credit depression that we have in British Columbia…. I call it a Social Credit depression because the economic situation is far worse in British Columbia than in North America or Canada as a whole, where we see things picking up. In B.C., not only did we suffer far more last year, with a fall of 8 percent in real GPP, but the recovery this year is only about 2 percent; so we're only getting back about a quarter of what we lost last year. Everyone else, according to independent analyses, seems to be doing much better. So whereas in the past B.C. has always done better in good times than the rest of Canada, and not quite as badly in bad times, we find that not only did we fall further behind last year, but we are not catching up as fast. The Social Credit government has to take responsibility for that. The effect of that on taxation and costs to owners of private property, residential property and commercial and industrial property, is that it has depressed property values. The free market has seen, as a result of mismanagement by this government, a drastic lowering of property values in British Columbia. That would be fine if it meant a lowering of real or actual dollars that commercial and industrial property taxpayers would have to pay, but unfortunately the provincial government has seen to it that because those services must be delivered by local government and by school boards, local government really has had no option but to raise mill rates.

The result is that local commercial and industrial taxpayers saw the taxes that they had to pay actually go up or stay level in the last year or so. That's why we saw these taxpayers' revolts, particularly in the city of Vancouver and other parts of the GVRD, in 1982 and again in 1983. This was coupled with arbitrary reductions in the revenue-sharing formula. Everybody knows that the amount of revenue-sharing will go down when times are tough, but nobody really thought the provincial government would actually reduce the formula. That was an unkind cut to local taxpayers. We also saw that while the bitter pill was somewhat sugar-coated as regards the owners of residential property, it certainly wasn't for the owners of industrial or commercial property, as has been stated. The government seems to be concerned that while residential property owners and tenants vote, commercial and industrial property owners don't seem to have the same kind of influence.

I want to talk about specific parts of Bill 9. While the government members are in a great huffy and did not see fit to allow the minister to educate himself in these matters over a six-month period, we have proposed this motion that will encourage the government and the ministers at least to cooperate with people who are duly elected at the local level. I want to remind the House that when it comes to municipal government, over a long period of time the electorate has sent people who believe in planning into city halls and regional district boardrooms. They believe in regional plans, in community plans; they believe in intermunicipal coordination, and believe in electoral area planning and development and coordination with the municipalities. Certainly if those property owners throughout the length and breadth of the province did not want to go that route, over the years region after region, municipality after municipality would have rejected planning. They would have disbanded their technical planning committees and fired their planners; they wouldn't have bothered with regional community plans. But for nearly 20 years — I think this legislation which Bill 9 proposes to cancel has been in place for about 18 years — the electorate has time and time again, every two years throughout the entire province, endorsed people who believe in coordination and planning and cooperation. That is significant, and that's why we want the government to reconsider.

[1:15]

The government has referred to its legislation package and its budget as a restraint package, an austerity package, so we would hope they believe in saving money. It has been pointed out that in many cases Bill 9 proposes false economies. In other words, it is going to cost money rather than save for the taxpayer. A lack of intermunicipal coordination will cause long-term problems that will be expensive or impossible to rectify. For example, the cost of upgrading transportation and servicing systems that have become overloaded can be far greater than the cost of planning and preparation that would anticipate and avoid these problems.

Another area of concern is capital investment because, through a process of evolution, we see that somewhere between 25 percent and 50 percent of all capital investment in municipal areas is public sector in origin — schools, hospitals, highways, sewer lines, parks and so on. If we look at the effect of that on private capital — that means 50 percent to 75 percent is private capital — we see that the only way that that public investment can be coordinated with the needs of private investors is to have regional planning, and that, of course, is why developers, through the Planning Institute and other organizations, have endorsed the concept and principle of regional plans. Of course, Mr. Speaker, no legislation is perfect, and it is recognized by this side of the House, as it is recognized by the Planning Institute, that improvements could and should be made to those sectors of the Municipal

[ Page 1857 ]

Act and the Planning and Enabling Act which relate to regional district plans. We all recognize that nothing is perfect, but nowhere has a public body representative of property interest or elected interest recommended the doing away with of regional planning and coordination. That's why we want the minister to reconsider.

Mr. Speaker, we spoke earlier of the historical background of planning because the regional plan was the only way to make sense of the diverse development of several constituent municipalities. Regional boards, as I certainly know from my experience, can and do leave a great deal to be desired, not because they're not sincere, don't care or are not competent or responsive. The problem, as we know, with regional boards — especially in a semi-urban, semi-rural area such as mine — is that they're very large committees. We know how inefficient a very large committee can be; perhaps they only get to meet in whole once every three or four weeks, and that can be incredibly annoying to someone who is waiting for a decision to be made. But regional boards, which are composed of representatives of each municipality and unorganized district within a regional district, are the coordinating local body that previously gave direction to planning decisions of the region as a whole. Let's remember that regional planners are not concerned with planning within a municipality. They've always accepted, and we accept and would encourage, that that would remain a function off a municipality. The regional district planning functions we're concerned about are where the different interests of municipalities cross the borders.

I suppose if all regional districts or groups of municipalities were one huge megalopolis — one huge metropolitan concern — we wouldn't have the problem. I personally wouldn't want to go that way; I'm not terribly disposed to impose on B.C. a county system or a large metropolitan government such as they have in Winnipeg or Toronto. I've observed how these huge municipal organizations work. I think a great deal is to be said for local autonomy of the component municipalities combined with a body that will look at and coordinate the intermunicipal interests, particularly when it comes to saving money and not duplicating services and not imposing costs on the provincial government due to a municipal decision that ultimately will put pressure on the province to provide more tunnels, bridges or four- or six-lane highways. Municipalities have made those kinds of decisions in the past, not because they wanted to do things which were not in the interests of other people, but simply because they said: "Well, we're responsible for our local taxpayers; we want to do what's best within our municipal boundaries."

Mr. Speaker, it has been argued — not by the government members — that perhaps you should move the planning responsibility from regional boards to another body and set up another level of bureaucracy. We know the government did that with transit planning; they set up another independent body even though there was a framework there already. Time will tell how successful and cost-effective that is going to be. Many people feel that that's not as effective as it could be, but once again…. I think the jury is still out on that one. However, simply to eliminate all responsibility for intermunicipal planning whatsoever is a remarkable abrogation of responsibility and foresight.

I'd like to reiterate to the House that the Urban Development Institute, often called the developers' lobby — I'm not sure that that's a completely accurate statement — recently expressed its support for the GVRD's official regional plan. This is something I talked about earlier today. In my experience — I thought it perhaps was peculiar to those parts of Kootenay-Boundary and Central Kootenay regional districts that are in Rossland-Trail — developers and people who own land which they would hope to develop at some point in the future were very happy with the regional plans. They were glad that they were in effect because they laid down the ground rules and set the goalposts and the developers could plan for the future. Here we find, in the lower mainland, the same thing having taken place. The Urban Development Institute has expressed support for the GVRD's official regional plan. As recently as December of last year they stated that the GVRD plan was well aligned with their industry and they endorsed continuation of the regional districts' planning function.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, we know that there is a full moon out tonight, but some of us must work. Some of us must work and take these matters seriously.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we please have order in the gallery. Any more comments and I'll ask you to….

[Interruption.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you please remove him?

MR. MOWAT: On a point of order. Did my singing drive him out?

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just as an aside, one of the fine parts about democracy in British Columbia is that we don't have restrictions, by and large, on who can witness these debates; and even though we have the occasional unfortunate incident like that, I would hope that that level of tolerance for what some people might consider aberrant behavior remains in place.

Speaking of what the Planning Institute of British Columbia has to say, I want to emphasize that it is only about one third planners. The other two-thirds are people who believe in planning, both elected members and developers of property.

"The greater Vancouver and greater Victoria metropolitan regions must have a mechanism for coordinating land use, servicing and transportation decisions among the individual municipalities that make up the urban areas. B.C.'s other urban centres need the ability to coordinate development inside municipal boundaries with development in unincorporated areas on the fringes of urban areas. The rural areas of the province need a process for integrating the resource management activities of the provincial government with settlement planning."

That's eminently reasonable, eminently logical and has a concern for cost-effectiveness. That's why we want the government to pay attention and reconsider Bill 9.

Further they say: "The institute certainly agrees that the division of land use regulation between municipal and regional government is a complex issue requiring careful consideration, particularly regarding the autonomy of local government." I certainly endorse that.

[ Page 1858 ]

The institute goes on to say that they are "glad that there is a desire to make improvements…." I mentioned earlier that certainly the existing legislation could be improved upon but should not be amended and thrown out. That's why we've asked for consultation and cooperation and consideration of alternatives in this particular amendment. We make the case, and so does the institute, that simple elimination of all coordination at the regional level will probably cause more problems than it will solve.

"How will neighbouring communities in metropolitan areas resolve differences on land use issues that affect areas beyond the boundaries of individual municipalities? Who will be responsible for anticipating and alleviating the impacts that actions in one part of the region will have in other parts of a region? Questions like these should be answered before all existing regional planning programs are eliminated, not after."

Again, eminently reasonable.

"The planning work of regional districts does not duplicate work being done by municipalities."

I think that has to be emphasized.

"Planning at the regional level deals with the land use, servicing and transportation issues that cross municipal boundaries. There are many instances in which development in one municipality creates traffic in another, or a shopping centre built just outside a municipal boundary has impacts on commercial development inside the boundary. There should be a planning process at the regional level to address concerns like these without requiring every problem to be resolved at the provincial level."

We on this side of the House accept the premise that good government is less government. We would like the government to accept that premise; we know that rhetorically they have made a commitment in that direction. If they really believe that, then they will grant a stay of the execution of this element of local autonomy, an aspect of local autonomy which was not put there by any socio-communist conspiracy, as has been suggested by the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson), but a planning function put there back in the mid-sixties by a Social Credit government that cared and had the support of taxpayers at the local level.

[1:30]

Many of the provincial government's own programs, which I certainly support, implicitly recognize the need for, and the value of, regional planning. For example, the downtown revitalization program, which I know was the apple of the eye of the former member for Surrey…. I would hope that now that he's gone the member for Central Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), who has taken his place, still believes in downtown revitalization, because it's a very good program. It's a kind of downtown area RRAP program which requires participation by commercial property owners and local government, and if there is that participation, then the province is prepared to help. It's a self-help program. Government doesn't give handouts; it makes money available conditionally on local property owners and muncipal government doing certain things. It is a very good use of public money. I endorsed the notion when the former member for Surrey brought it forward, and I still do.

"The guide to the downtown revitalization program advises municipalities to '…take care not to repeat measures which have contributed to downtown deterioration, such as allowing too many shopping centres to be built in fringe areas.' This implies that a method exists for municipalities to participate in planning for areas outside municipal boundaries. As another example, the ALRT system and the provincial role in the developments at Lonsdale Quay and downtown New Westminster are major contributions to the development of suburban commercial centres in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Establishing these commercial suburban centres and providing regional rapid transit are key objectives of the GVRD's regional plan.

"The need for land use coordination at the regional level is not diminished by the fact that many municipalities have official community plans."

Even though he may have made a retraction, the minister did say that once these plans are in effect you don't need to worry about them; just a little updating every few years would be good enough. That's something like saying that once you put a pulp mill in place all you have to do is press the start button and never worry about maintenance or operation — just run it. I know the minister is learning rapidly, but had he any background in municipal government or public life at the local level, I know he wouldn't have made such a foolish statement. Perhaps I should not raise that, because I understand he has made a retraction in the press.

Returning to the Planning Institute, who say many things which we fully endorse…. In fact, I would say they are very articulate in how they put these ideas forward.

How time flies when you're having fun, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make a note here that while the municipal plans may address some current issues of regional significance, they cannot effectively provide policy in situations beyond the control of single municipalities.

I would hope that other members on the opposition side will continue this debate and that members on the government will want to participate, because I know that they believe in cooperation and understanding at the local level. To give them a chance to continue their consideration I'm going to move that the House do now adjourn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair declines to put the question, pursuant to standing order 44.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, on what basis do you decline to put the question?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I quote Standing Order 44:

"If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, shall be of opinion that a motion for the adjournment of a debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress, or do leave the chair, is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or he may decline to propose the question to the House."

I am sure the hon. member appreciates the power vested in the Chair.

MR. D'ARCY: Your Honour, I don't question the fact that you have discretion to put or not put the question according to your ruling.

[ Page 1859 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then I would ask the member to take his seat and let the next speaker….

MR. D'ARCY: However, if you are ruling that you are not going to put it, I challenge your ruling. Mr. Speaker, I would note that exactly the situation has occurred….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member cannot challenge a standing order. I would ask the member to take his place.

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, I would like to note that this exact situation occurred several times earlier today within the presence of the Clerks and on those occasions the Clerks advised the Speaker that the ruling was in fact challengeable.

MR. VEITCH: It appears that the member, who ought not to be standing, is abusing the rules of the House. He cannot challenge the standing orders of this House. That is unequivocal, and the member ought to know that. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to deal with that.

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has already had a point of order.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, on another point of order. I have a concern here that there is obviously a double standard and a double interpretation of the rules. I simply ask that Mr. Speaker be consistent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To answer the member's point of order, there have been four motions to adjourn the House or the debate this evening. Two have been by decision and two by the Chair. The Speaker has decided that the question may not be put, pursuant to standing order 44, and the Chair has the power vested in him under standing 44 without making a ruling.

MR. BARRETT: Is it your ruling that you don't have to make a ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Standing order 44.

MR. BARRETT: Is that your ruling? That's what we want to know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. I would like to read standing order 44. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition has heard this many times before.

"If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, shall be of opinion that a motion for the adjournment of debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress, or do leave the Chair, is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or he may decline to propose the question to the House."

MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker, you are making a ruling under standing order 44.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I am not making a ruling; I am declining to propose the question to the House, under the standing orders. I am sure that as Leader of the Opposition you have the upmost respect for the Chair to follow the standing orders of this House.

MR. BARRETT: You are invoking a standing order to make a decision; is that right? You have just referred to standing order 44; is that right? Is that correct? You are not making it up out of thin air.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has sought to move a motion and the Chair has declined to put it under standing order 44. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: I'm on the point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has recognized the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I was merely inquiring: perhaps you had recognized the hon. Leader of the Opposition, but in this part of the room we hadn't heard that. He was attempting, I believe, to make a point; I am not sure what. I just wanted to clarify whether or not he had the floor and whether or not he was standing on a point of order; and if he was, which standing order he was speaking to.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you very much for drawing my attention to standing order 44, which gives the Chair an option….

MR. SKELLY: A choice, so to speak.

MR. BARRETT: The Chair has made a choice, and I challenge that choice.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't challenge a choice.

MR. BARRETT: Well, how do we know what the rules are if you can't challenge what the choice is? We're going to end up in limbo. We can't have that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would suggest to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that if he further read his rule book, he would find, under standing order 45A…. It says: "…Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment and (or) subamendment then before the House." That's a standing order of this House.

MR. BARRETT: What subsection?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Subsection (2), on page 16.

MR. BARRETT: That's not 45.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's 45A.

MR. BARRETT: But 45A is on page 14.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Keep on going to page 16, before you get to standing order 46.

MR. BARRETT: There are (1), (2) and (3), but not A.

[ Page 1860 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Would you please take your seat and obey the rules of this chamber. Only one person can be on their feet at a time. Don't you know the rules? You've been here as a Liberal, you've been here as a Socred, and you haven't read the rule book. The rules don't change with the party you're in.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Take off your hat and sit down when two are up — that's what you should do. Now sit down. The rules don't change because you change political parties.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I need instructions from the Chair. The Chair is saying that under standing order 44 you have the prerogative not to put the question. That is the decision you made, and I challenge your interpretation of standing order 44. I challenge your decision not to put it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I suggest that the Chair has stated its position under standing order 44, and I call the next speaker.

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Speaker. We challenge that statement, because how can we have order in the House.? You've made a ruling; I accept you've made a ruling, but I challenge your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair is here as a servant of the House and under the power vested in the Chair has undertaken standing order 44.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I understand that. Now you've made a decision under standing order 44; is that correct? Have you made a decision?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have explained standing order 44 to the Leader of the Opposition and would ask him to take his seat, and we'll have the next speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, have you made a decision under standing order 44? Are you instructing the House under standing order 44?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't lecture the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking a question. Have you made a decision under standing order 44?

[1:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have explained rule 44 to the Leader of the Opposition and would ask him to take his seat, and we'll have the next speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you have explained standing order 44. Now have you made a decision out of your explanation or are you just lecturing me?

HON. MR. McGEER: You're lecturing the House and abusing the Chair, Disgraceful!

MR. BARRETT: Listen to that man. He came here as a Liberal, crawled across there, joined the Socreds — talk about disgraces!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to suggest to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that earlier in the day Mr. Speaker made a ruling on this same issue, and I would suggest to him that he may want to sit down, study the rules and talk to Mr. Speaker about how this was done. But with the power vested in me as Speaker, I am only doing what any Speaker would do under standing order 44. As I explained to the Leader of the Opposition, under standing order 45A the Speaker has no choice but to apply the rules of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you are saying that the ruling has been made, but you can't make the same ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not say that I made a ruling. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to take his seat.

MR. BARRETT: Under what standing order am I instructed to do…?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am corrected; it was a statement by Mr. Speaker earlier in the day.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. I'm interested in statements of the past. We're dealing with a ruling now. Are you saying that standing order 44 says that you do not need to put the question? Is that correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will not get into an argument with the Leader of the Opposition. I read him standing order 44 twice, and I'll read it to him once more. I will read the last sentence, where it says that the Speaker "may decline to propose the question to the House." I suggested to him that is the same as standing order 45A and I will not debate the matter.

MR. BARRETT: I don't intend to debate the matter. You've made a ruling, and I challenge your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that the Speaker has not made a ruling; he has read the standing order.

MR. BARRETT: How can I sit down if you haven't made a ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Leader of the Opposition please take his seat.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, how can the House be instructed unless there is a ruling from the Chair? If you have not made a ruling, we are in limbo and we can't go anywhere. Now if you have made a ruling, and the ruling is that you cannot put the motion, then I accept that ruling, but I want a ruling. I can't sit down without a ruling,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have read the standing order to the Leader of the Opposition.

[ Page 1861 ]

MR. BARRETT: Okay. Now that you have read the standing order, have you made a decision out of that standing order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair is not required to make a decision under that; he has just read the standing order.

MR. BARRETT: Then what are we going to do if you don't make a decision?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition could take his seat and we could continue with debate.

MR. BARRETT: Is that the decision, that I take my seat? I will do whatever you tell me to do. Just make a decision, that's all I want to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then sit down.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, that's fine. That's what I want to know. Just tell me by what rule I have been ordered to sit down, that's all. I have to live by the rules.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You are offending the rules.

MR. BARRETT: There has to be a decision, Garde, you know that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has taken a decision, has read the standing order….

MR. BARRETT: And I challenged that decision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has had ample chance to explain his point of order and if the Leader of the Opposition declines to take his seat, the Chair will have to take other action.

MR. BARRETT: On what standing order will you take other action? Because we haven't even got action in front of us. What standing order am I offending? Mr. Speaker, I want instructions from the Chair: what standing order am I offending?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is not listening to the Chair. The Chair certainly has to command respect of all members during a debate. The Speaker in the Chair at this time has read the rules that are laid down by all members of this House. All members are expected to follow those rules, and I have asked the hon. Leader of the Opposition to take his seat so this House can continue an orderly debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what standing order am I offending?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are not offending any standing order…

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. Therefore I am standing here until I….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: …but you are offending the Speaker, who has asked you to take your seat, because you have explained your position and I have read the rule to you.

MR. BARRETT: Are you making a ruling, then, that I must take my seat? I need to have a ruling to take my seat. Under what standing order do I have to take my seat?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon. member, I am not making a ruling to make you take your seat…

MR. BARRETT: Therefore I will stand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: …I am ordering you to take your seat under the power vested in me as Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Under what standing order are you ordering me to take my seat?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Under the power, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, as Speaker of this Legislature.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what power in the standing orders do you have to order me to take my seat?

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, standing order 20, Mr. Speaker, says: "Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, shall order members whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of that day's sitting…." Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is obstructing debate, he is refusing to abide by the rules of the House and he is being grossly disorderly. The Leader of the Opposition wants to know under what standing order he should take his place; it is standing order 20.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would suggest that the member makes the point that the Leader of the Opposition is not being disorderly right now, but that if he does disobey the order of the Chair, he would be considered to be disorderly.

MR. BARRETT: What is the order of the Chair that I am disobeying?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has asked you to take your seat so we can continue with debate.

MR. BARRETT: Under what standing order are you ordering me to take…?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Under the power of Speaker of the Legislature, I am asking you to take your seat. You have spoken….

MR. BARRETT: Only under standing orders does the Speaker have power. Now under what standing order are you ordering me to sit down?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition would know that to argue with the Chair is disorderly.

MR. BARRETT: What standing order is that, please, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 1862 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a matter of protocol, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. I will read you standing order 20:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, shall order members whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of that day's sitting; and the Sergeant-at-Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chair in pursuance of any resolution passed under standing order 19. But if, on any occasion, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, deems that his powers under the standing orders are inadequate, he may name such member or members, or he may call upon the House to adjudge upon the conduct of such member or members."

MR. BARRETT: Through a House motion.

MR. REE: Under standing order 43, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is persisting in irrelevant and tedious repetitious argument with respect to what he alleges is some sort of a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that action can be taken under 43 so that debate can continue in an orderly manner within this House.

MR. BARRETT: We've got to stick to orders. If you are going to abandon any commitment to orders, then the whole thing is….

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to the members who have been raising points of order here, I think we have somewhat strayed from the original point of order which I raised. That was that there is, in my view, an inconsistency here. Your Honour, you said yourself a few minutes ago in discussing a point of order with the member for Vancouver East that you were basing your decision not to accept a challenge on your decision either to put or not to put the question on a ruling made earlier today by Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a statement made.

MR. D'ARCY: On a statement made earlier, okay — whatever word we want to use. My point of order was that I was asking that that challenge be accepted also on a statement made earlier by Mr. Speaker, when he accepted several motions of challenge on exactly the same situation. I would like an explanation as to why a motion to challenge the Chair is accepted at some points on exactly the same issue, and not at others, based on a precedent set earlier today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker mentioned in his statement today that many motions of adjournment have been accepted. He made the statement under standing order 44 that because they had been rejected by the House, that he felt that they were irrelevant and declined to propose the question to the House.

MR. BARRETT: I wish instruction from the Chair, Mr. Speaker. I want to know under what standing order you are instructing me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not the position of the Chair to advise members.

MR. BARRETT: I'm on a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm ordering the member to take his seat.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, under what standing order and for what reason are you ordering me to take my seat?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is not the Chair's position to….

MR. BARRETT: I have to know why I must sit down. I have to know under what standing order you are instructing me to sit down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no standing order required by the Speaker to ask a member to sit down.

MR. BARRETT: Then how can you ask me to sit down?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Certainly the protocol of any parliamentary tradition in any parliament would be that the Leader of the Opposition or any other member would take his seat when requested to do so by the Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, protocol is one thing; rules are what we live by. I'm asking the Chair: under what rule are you ordering me to sit down?

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, first of all, if I may make an observation to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, he is almost indicating that standing order 44, which you have relied upon, Mr. Speaker, is something that is brand new — that this is the first time it has ever come into effect. I draw the attention, Mr. Speaker, of both you and the Leader of the Opposition to May's Parliamentary Practice, nineteenth edition, page 377, which says: "…Mr. Speaker has power under S.O. No. 28" — the English standing order — "if he believes that any dilatory motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, to decline to propose the question on it to the House." That is the established rule. It is also interesting to note that this is not a new rule. We find that this came into effect in 1882, which is even a little before your birth date, Mr. Speaker. So I would tend to think that we've had a rule here that's been in place in parliamentary practice for 101 years. That's the first point.

The second point is, Mr. Speaker, that you have adequately stated to the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed to all members of the House, that the rule guiding your statement is standing order 44, wherein it says that you may "decline to propose the question." You have taken that position. Now when the Leader of the Opposition asks on what basis he can be requested to take his seat, I would pose this question to him, perhaps more than to you, Mr. Speaker: is the Leader of the Opposition going to say that he can stand in his place, say, for 30 or 40 consecutive times on precisely the same point of order? It is nonsense, because then you run right into standing order 43, which was articulated by my friend across the way from North Vancouver. Without question, the Leader of the Opposition is being irrelevant under standing order 43; he's being tedious as the devil and completely repetitious.

[2:00]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have never had a conversation with the devil and I don't know how tedious he or

[ Page 1863 ]

she may be, but if the Chair is going to take the very good advice of the former Attorney-General — which I happen to agree with — and invoke standing orders, I'm just asking the Chair, in all humility, what standing order you are invoking, so that I know what action I can take from there. What are you ruling on?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has had ample time, looking at the clock. I would suggest that the matter is now concluded. If the Leader of the Opposition persists, I may have to take further action under standing order 20. Standing order 20 contemplates grossly disorderly conduct and refusal to withdraw offending words or refusal to resume one's seat when Mr. Speaker stands, etc.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter is now concluded.

MR. BARRETT: Is that your ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not have to make a ruling. I've said the matter is now concluded.

MR. BARRETT: How can I sit down without a ruling? I have to have a ruling. I want to obey the Chair and I want a ruling, that's all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to obey the Chair, as he says, he will understand that the Chair does not have to make a ruling, under standing order 44. The Chair has stated that the matter is now concluded.

MR. BARRETT: Is that your ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has also stated under standing order 20 that I may have to take further action against the Leader of the Opposition if he does not accept the Chair's position…

MR. BARRETT: The Chair's position or the Chair's ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: …and statement which says the matter is now concluded. The Chair's position!

MR. BARRETT: Is that your ruling? What are you ruling, Mr. Speaker?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I have to know what the rules are.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At this point I will have to warn the member that I will have to ask him to withdraw for the remainder of this sitting if he does not….

AN HON. MEMBER: There's somebody else on his feet, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, this matter being concluded I'd like to take my part in the debate on the reasoned amendment to Bill 9.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that I wish to obey the Chair. The Chair appears to be on the edge of making a ruling. Now I would like a ruling from the Chair so I can be instructed. Just to ask me to leave without a reason leads to anarchy.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order and the Chair has recognized the hon. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who wants to speak in the debate. The Chair took the position that the matter was concluded, warned the Leader of the Opposition that under standing order 20 it would have to take further action if he did not accept the position of the Chair….

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Are you making a ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair does not have to make a ruling, as the Leader of the Opposition knows so well, and if he does not take his seat and allow the Minister of Forests to continue in the debate, I will have to ask him to withdraw for the remainder of this sitting.

MR. BARRETT: Under what standing order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests continues….

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to know under what standing order I have been threatened by the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Standing order 20.

MR. BARRETT: Is that your ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a ruling. I'm advising the member.

MR. BARRETT: Then there would be a motion from there? Is that how it proceeds?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

MR. BARRETT: So it's a matter of discretion? Is that the interpretation?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter has been well discussed under standing order 20. If the Leader of the Opposition will not take his seat I will have to ask him to withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, before I take my seat I would ask that sometime in the near future I be given specific citations whereby you are invoking this rule that prohibits a member from getting a ruling from the Chair. I'd like to hear your ruling on that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, I asked him a while ago if he would like to go and study his rule book and talk to the Speaker outside of these

[ Page 1864 ]

chambers. I will be quite pleased to make sure that information is given to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you for the undertaking. Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening rather endlessly to comments being made by the members opposite regarding the ability of regional districts to do planning work, in this reasoned amendment brought forth, the purpose of which seems to be to interfere with the passage of the legislation of this bill.

It seems that the members opposite for some reason think that if regional districts don't have the right to impose plans on municipalities, the world shall somehow come swiftly to an end. In my riding of Yale-Lillooet I have a large number of communities. I have nine municipalities which are incorporated, and I have four regional districts. As it happens, these regional districts impose zoning plans upon municipalities. It's rather a silly situation, really, where people in a community such as Blue River, way up in the North Thompson, impose a plan on a community like Merritt, which is perhaps 150 or more miles away from that community. That is the ridiculous situation the minister is trying to avoid in passing this legislation.

It is important that this legislation be passed quickly, because it is very unsettling to those communities to have that situation exist. That is but one example. As I said, I have a number of incorporated towns and four different regional districts. I have a situation wherein the community of Chilliwack can impose plans upon Spuzzum, and I think that is rather ridiculous as well. Or the community of Chilliwack, which is the major population centre….

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this House does not have a quorum. Would you please ring the bell for a quorum? There are only five members, which is not a quorum. Please invoke the rules.

MR. PARKS: On the same point of order….

MR. BARRETT: There is no quorum; who's out of order now, Mr. Speaker? How can the House sit without a quorum? Here is the book. There is no quorum, Mr. Speaker; the House must be adjourned.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. member take his seat and allow the Speaker to begin the count.

MR. BARRETT: Why don't you ring the bells? The Liberals have to stay here while the Socreds sleep. How far have you sunk, Garde? You Liberals have to take the heat. Shame!

DEPUTY SPEAKER; The quorum has been challenged and the Speaker will take a count.

MR. BARRETT: Why did you wait so long?

AN HON. MEMBER: Because you wouldn't sit down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair sees a quorum.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth noting that this quorum challenge came about because the opposition, in a mass herd, raced for the doors. It is certainly an abuse of the rules.

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, earlier today I had on my desk a burnper sticker which said: "Keep Meares Island Green." The Speaker at that time told me I could not display such material in the House and I would ask you to make a ruling on the minister's Teddy bear: whether or not the minister is allowed to have a Teddy bear in the House and to display that Teddy bear on his desk.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let me rule on one point of order at a time. I am looking over at the Minister of Forest's desk and I don't see a Teddy bear on it. I see something under his shirt but I don't think it's a Teddy bear, and I don't believe I have the power to search the rest of him.

MR. PARKS: I take it that the particular standing order under which this point of order has been raised is that one is not supposed to display anything other than what is normally before this House. I wonder if it is a breach of that custom or standing order to be wearing a carnation or a rose of the color usually attributed to the federal Liberal Party.

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My Teddy bear was not on my desk; he was on my seat-mate's desk. He is inside my desk now, Mr. Speaker. I think he is afraid of the dark, so perhaps I could open this just a little?

I have given several examples demonstrating just why hoisting this motion is rather ridiculous — that is, this reasoned amendment which is supposed to delay this legislation is rather ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, and I think I have demonstrated my point.

MR. HANSON: How come W.A.C. Bennett believed in regional planning and young Bill doesn't, and young Bill's government doesn't?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member not to refer to another member by name. The first terminology is correct but the second one is not.

MR. HANSON: The question I put to the government through you, Mr. Speaker, is: why did W.A.C. Bennett believe in regional government, and why does the Social Credit government under his son not believe in it?

Mr. Speaker, I have here a report of the Post-war Rehabilitation Council, of which W.A.C. Bennett was a member. I have the interim report and the full report. That particular council was chaired by Hon. H.G.T. Perry, and the report was commissioned by the Hart government in 1943. I think this report is important, so I want to quote a number of statements from it.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

First, the report quotes Lewis Mumford on regional planning in the Pacific Northwest:

[ Page 1865 ]

"Regional planning does not aim at the economic self-sufficiency of any region. That would be an absurdity in a civilization that is dependent upon such localized resources as rubber, iron, copper and petroleum. What it does aim at is a state of economic balance; a state in which the population of a region will be distributed with respect to its fundamental resources; in which agriculture, the extractive industries, manufacturing and trade will be coordinated; in which the size of cities will be proportioned to open spaces, and recreation areas are placed in sound working relation with the countryside itself."

The report then lists regions requiring plans for their full development economically and socially, and one of them is Vancouver Island.

[2:15]

In 1943, the John Hart government established the Postwar Rehabilitation Council. On that council were the chairman, H.G.T. Perry, W.A.C. Bennett, Nancy Hodges, a couple of signatures which I can't decipher, Tilly Jean Rolston, Dorothy G. Steeves, William Straith and Harold E. Winch. At this point W.A.C. Bennett was just a commissioner, not the Premier. They produced the Perry report on regional planning. British Columbia, particularly the lower mainland, was growing at a rapid rate, and they said a number of interesting things. The lower mainland regional plan was developed under this group, and the plan identified a number of cities. I think the population of the lower mainland at the time…. And this relates to the reasoned amendment which refers to cooperation among various parts of the province.

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Forests entitled to wear a Walkman set in here and listen to the stereo radio?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a good point, hon. member. I believe it is recognized that electrical or recording devices, other than those provided by the Chair, are not permitted in the chamber. From here I do not see anybody, but if anybody is using such, I'm sure they will cease and desist.

MR. HANSON: Thank you — just in the interest of equity, fairness and consistency with the rules.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Go play with your Teddy bear.

W.A.C. Bennett, who sat on that commission, was concerned about getting federal and provincial money into municipalities in a coordinated way that would benefit the lower mainland in terms of transit, industry, residential development and so on. At the time the population of the lower mainland was about 106,000. The cities were Chilliwack, New Westminster, North Vancouver, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and Vancouver, and there were a number of districts, villages and unorganized territories.

Here's a quote from the preliminary report:

"The region has now reached a state of development where, in the interest of all the communities, it would be advisable to consider the major problems, present and future, affecting the whole region rather than a part of it, and to plan for development in the future which will give to this region a 'master plan' which will be a guide, with possible future changes as circumstances warrant, to the ordered, properly regulated future development of one of the most beautiful and prosperous valleys in the Dominion.

"This report and the data contained therein only highlights the main features of the area and is not intended to cover the field of regional planning in minute detail, but is commended to the people of the region for their sympathetic and intense study."

I like their style of writing; it's a pleasure to read.

The thrust of the Perry commission was to examine the future development potential of the lower mainland with a view to having coordinated development that would benefit all areas. The area under consideration was 1,600 square miles with, as I stated, a population of 106,000.

"The region takes its place as the third-largest centre of metropolitan importance in the Dominion of Canada, being exceeded only by greater Montreal and greater Toronto, and climatically and geographically has advantages over the two latter important centres.

"With two great transcontinental railways passing through the area. and also one important American railroad and a local suburban electric railway, all with terminals in Vancouver, and with extensive harbour facilities serving these systems both in Vancouver and in New Westminster, the region is significantly well equipped to take its place in the future major economic development of the Dominion."

This commission, on which W.A.C. Bennett sat, was involved in a regional planning view of the lower mainland. The kinds of statements they make throughout this interim report, dated 1943, are identical to the kinds of things, in slightly different language, that I read in "The Need for Regional Planning in the Capital Region of Southern Vancouver Island" — which I'd like to get at in a moment, Mr. Speaker

Before doing so, I just want to continue with a few more paragraphs of this W.A.C. report. "As the Dominion gateway to the Pacific, the region shares with the neighbouring state of Washington the possibilities of unbounded opportunities in the rejuvenation of trade and industry in the postwar years for the supply of the markets of the Orient and also Alaska and the Yukon." Oftentimes we hear statements from the current Social Credit government with respect to the Pacific Rim countries, but in 1943 the Hart government and this Perry commission were acutely aware of the potential of the Orient, Alaska and the Yukon for markets for British Columbia products. "The region is the clearing-house for the vast timber resources, minerals, agricultural products and manufactured articles of the greater part of the province. The rapid growth of the region has taken place in a comparatively short period of time, and optimism for the future…."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I notice the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) with a placard on his desk. I believe the member was warned last evening about placards, and I'd ask him to remove the placard from his desk.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, a few short minutes ago it was permitted that the Minister of Forests have his Teddy bear on his desk. I wonder how you can make two different rulings: that I must remove the placard, and yet the minister is permitted to have his Teddy bear on his desk.

[ Page 1866 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It's not the position of the Chair to argue with the members of the House. However, the member for Alberni will recall that when he raised the same issue about the Minister of Forests, the Teddy bear was not noticeable. I would trust that the same would apply to the placard on the member's desk. We will continue with the debate on the reasoned amendment to Bill 9.

MR. HANSON: What I'm trying to do in my remarks in the middle of the night is relate the concern for regional planning which existed in the mind of W.A.C. Bennett, but somehow got lost in the mind of his son some 40 years later. It's almost 40 years to the day. His son is stripping away regional planning, which his father worked towards. This is peculiar to me; it's peculiar that a son would embark upon a process of dismantling regional planning that his father was a pioneer in establishing in British Columbia. Why would that be the case? Is it because the younger did not pay attention to the achievements and ideas of the father? W.A.C. Bennett stated in this report:

"To prepare for a successful future, however, it is essential that careful thought must be given to…coordinated consideration of the many diversified problems confronting the units forming the region" — the lower mainland region. "This resolves itself into a broad consideration of the basic requirements applicable to the region, generally described in the following report, but there is much to be done in detail. The status of the region can be vastly improved with the application of foresight, judgment and mature consideration of the economic possibilities and potential resources of the interested communities in the region."

Mr. Speaker, they said it very beautifully in 1943. Here were people, not of my politics, but who shared that common concern that there must be integrated planning and coordination; otherwise, Mr. Speaker, and I'm looking across at the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder)…. His portfolio would not even exist, perhaps, if those people — those pioneers in regional planning — had not taken the time to identify the fertile lands of the Fraser Valley as farmland, to constrain the growth boundaries of Chilliwack and other areas. I commend this report to this government, although it is not very responsive or receptive to any ideas other than out of a Classics comic book….

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Well, we're doing a lot better than Mulroney is doing right now — your hero. He's going to drop, drop, drop.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not my hero. My hero is Bill Bennett.

MR. HANSON: Your hero is not much of a hero.

I would like to direct a few remarks toward the question of regional planning and its importance. The reasoned amendment before us states: "It is the opinion of this House that cooperation between municipalities and regional districts is necessary for orderly regional development." I have in front of me a statement from my own capital region which identifies some of the concerns that everyone must have on regional matters with respect to Bill 9.

Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to provide a bit of background information, the capital region has a population of 244,000. At the time that W.A.C. Bennett wrote that report, the population of this region was 75,000. You can see the growth, from 75,000 to 244,000 today. The growth projected in this region by the planners, eliminating the current recession — because that, of course, has abated the growth of the region — is that by 2001 the population is proposed to be 360,000, which is almost a 50 percent increase in the next 16 or 17 years. If you don't have regional planning, where will that growth occur? Will it occur on heritage areas of farmland or in environmentally sensitive areas in wildlife habitat and so on?

[2:30]

In this area there are many governments; in fact, there are seven municipalities and five electoral areas. These seven councils and five electoral areas provide the services through provincial and local government functions for residential and business growth of this group of communities, not only social services but also such essentials as roads, transit, sewer, water supply networks extending throughout municipalities in electoral areas and so on. You can't build roads and have sewer trunk lines and park development, with municipalities that are not competing with one another for money from higher levels of government, without having some kind of regional plan.

One component of regional services which involves interaction between municipalities is traffic. You'd be surprised, Mr. Speaker, to learn that 65 percent of all traffic in Saanich originates from outside Saanich; 50 percent of all rush-hour trips leaving downtown go out of the city of Victoria altogether. Transit routes that flow through municipalities are under the stewardship of all adjacent municipalities. They're not under the jurisdiction of only one — you can't have one municipality as an independent fiefdom. Services such as sewer lines and the coordination of employment and industrial strategy and so on all depend on regional planning.

It makes sense, from every point of view, to protect the region's environmental resources. If you have unplanned, uncoordinated growth you have the destruction of environmental resources. Again, you may be surprised to learn that all surveys conducted in this region show that local businesses and business operators — small merchants — rank liveability as one of the primary reasons for establishing their enterprise in this region. So if you have uncontrolled growth, without any kind of regional plan, you have a diminution of liveability as a significant reason for locating in this area.

Visitors coming to the Capital Regional District cite the natural amenities and the environment as one of the main reasons for coming to this area. But here we have a government that wants to strip away regional planning. So from Dallas Road in James Bay to the Tsawwassen terminal we'll have A&W and other fast-food outlets and parkades. We'll have shopping malls owned by friends of Social Credit cabinet ministers. We'll have the kind of situation that happened with Tillicum Mail, which totally destroyed the small business market share of downtown Victoria and also stripped away business opportunities from some of the Saanich commercial areas. That mall is now in a state where the cash flow is not maintaining the operation; there was an enormous investment. If the Tillicum Mall had not been built, the downtown core of Victoria would have been much better off than it presently is.

[ Page 1867 ]

The regional planning process is a cooperative process. It's the kind of process that this government doesn't understand, in terms of labour relations and planning. It doesn't understand it in terms of the delivery of social services. This government does not believe in cooperation; it only wants centralized power. It is clear that it wants confrontation with anybody who opposes it.

The beauty of a regional plan, and the reason why we stress cooperation….

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: No, not to keep planners working, but to make life better for all of us, rather than for just the Socreds and those on the receiving line of the gravy train.

Regional plans put all elements together in a comprehensive statement. Although legislation up to now has given them regulatory power, there have been some controversial regional decisions, such as Spetifore and Tillicum — going in different ways, I might add. They have achieved much of their success by merely giving an overall view of the region and its expected future, so that intelligent decisions can be made. The language of this statement is almost identical to the interim report of the post-war rehabilitation council, to which W.A.C. Bennett was a contributor, sitting on that council in 1943. In the document he worked on they used the same language about sensible, intelligent statements on the future and for coordinated planning. So that entire areas would benefit, there would be ways in which federal grants and money and provincial grants and money could be distributed in a rational, sensible way in a region, rather than having individual municipalities or villages competing for scarce cash and perhaps creating some kind of monstrosity within municipal boundaries that degrades the entire region.

So their regional planning is something that has been developing for the past many years. All of a sudden, as in instances of social, industrial, labour and commercial ideas, we seem to be rolling backwards at breakneck speed in British Columbia under this current government, particularly since their misinterpreted mandate of May 5.

In the capital regional plan there are a number of development strategy points which I think are very interesting, and I would like to raise them. The annual net rate of growth in this area has been about 2 percent per year. As I stated earlier, the growth rate in the last two years has stabilized. It is anticipated that with the enormous environmental heritage amenities of this region, this will always be one of the most desirable places to reside in Canada. People will be coming here, wanting to establish themselves here in greater and greater numbers. If the governments of the day at the local level are unable to anticipate that growth and plan for it in a rational way, with the various components of modern-day society, including places where people can work, transportation corridors, disposal of waste water; areas where agriculture is best suited in terms of soil qualities; the tourist-related attributes that we have here, including being on the leeward side of the Cascade Mountains and getting a low rainfall, having an extraordinarily beautiful Mediterranean flora and having vegetation such as Garry oak, arbutus, grasslands, small succulent flora, and so on that exists nowhere on the coast…. People want the proximity to the recreational attributes of the Gulf Islands. They want some distance from the metropolitan area of Vancouver. At the same time they want the close proximity of the lower mainland for other kinds of services and amenities that exist in the lower mainland that don't exist on the Island.

Regional planning is particularly important when you live on an island. It is vital when you live on an island, because you don't have that sense that the Socreds have that somehow resources are infinite, that the land mass is infinite, that the land base has an infinite capacity to absorb wastes and unlimited, uncoordinated growth. We believe in rational planning. We believe in discussing it at a local level, letting the local levels of government act together in a coordinated way to reach consensus on issues and matters which are of mutual interest. That's not a radical concept. The government today wants to have access from the cabinet room to the planning of the province. They don't want to have that invested in any other local level of government. If they decide, for example, that it's time for Mr. Spetifore and Dawn Development to be rewarded and to build a massive housing complex in South Delta without any consideration for the stresses that that puts on the transit corridor into Vancouver through the Deas Island Tunnel or the fact that it's on the very best class 1 and 2 farmland in all British Columbia — or Canada, for that matter — the Delta council and some of the other adjacent municipalities want to have more say in planning in relation to some of the things that would spin off from that enormous development that would impact directly on Vancouver and the other adjacent municipalities such as Richmond and Surrey. They should have a say as well and should be considered.

As I stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, 50 percent of traffic in Victoria is going out of Victoria into Saanich or Oak Bay or Esquimalt and the Western Community, and in Saanich 65 percent of the traffic has come from outside, so to have a situation where each municipality does its own thing and there is no coordination other than what the cabinet wants is a very bad situation indeed. The UBCM knows it and has stated so, and the Social Credit government hasn't heeded it.

The anticipated growth in this region, as I stated, would be about 50 percent over a 20-year period. That growth will have to be carefully administered. The only way growth can be carefully administered is if there is some planning. But this government doesn't want planning. When you don't have planning, the burden of development shifts to adjoining areas. That is the prognosis for this area.

Of the regional district planning function the GVRD says:

"It has become evident that the current official regional plan is well aligned with the municipal positions and therefore provides little opportunity for conflict between the two levels of government or for becoming another hurdle on the development approval process. Indeed, we are now convinced that there would be some major disadvantages associated with the loss of a regional plan in the lower mainland and the GVRD."

In a letter from Norma Sealey, chairman of the Capital Regional District, to the former Minister of Municipal Affairs before he got his position as Minister of Education, so-called, she states that 87 percent of the population affected in the capital region rejected a proposal put forward by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs — that was Bill Vander Zalm — on March 24 of this year to eliminate regional planning as a regional district function. So the chairperson of the Capital Regional District, Norma Sealey, in writing to the then current Minister of Education but former Minister of Municipal Affairs, indicated that the population is committed

[ Page 1868 ]

to regional planning and some kind of rational approach to life. But Socreds, with their Teddy bears and their Walkmans and their patronage and their corruption….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

[2:45]

MR. HANSON: So Bill 9 reflects the growth of municipalities….

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Go back to your Teddy bear.

In a letter to the government by Mayor Thom, president of the UBCM, he indicated that the regional planning function is vital.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, is there a nurse nearby? Is there a psychiatric nurse nearby?

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Is that the way you behaved at the UBCM? That's why they're saying those things about you?

In a modern society, Mr. Speaker, you have to have planning, because if you don't have planning, one municipality takes its toxic waste and dumps it on the border of another. Some people have wanted to dump their garbage on islands and other places, and unless you have a coordinated approach, you can't deal with it.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I know the hour is late, but we have to have proper decorum and allow the first member for Victoria to speak. Possibly the member will direct his remarks to the Chair.

MR. HANSON: Will you keep those chaps over there in an orderly fashion as well, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Will the minister please come to order.

MR. HANSON: So, Mr. Speaker, in 1943 W.A.C. Bennett started the regional plan for the lower mainland for the GVRD. The GVRD notion was started by W.A.C. Bennett. Here we have his son dismantling it. How come?

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: So the GVRD is the horse and buggy to the Socreds?

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: You're not in charge. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we've come to a situation where the Premier and his immediate advisers pull all the strings. The deputies bypass that minister and report directly to the Premier. They've been scotch-hobbled.

Regional planning must be a component of modern life. You can't have a situation where municipalities are operating as independent fiefdoms, separate and apart from their adjacent municipalities. We know the situation, for example, in the western communities — out in the Metchosin-Colwood-Langford area — where strip development and uncoordinated subdivision development is reducing the liveability of that region. There must be some planning. There must be some way of protecting future generations to ensure that farmland is protected, that recreational attributes are protected, that people will have a place to work but the work will be in a nice, clean environment and that it will be employment that fits with the kind of lifestyle and environmental context that we have here in the Capital Regional District.

I want to find a place on the regional plan that indicates the kinds of things I wanted to point out to the House here. If you want to have whole population growth in the peninsula subregion, which is the southern capital regional area, to a moderate level to the year 2001 to minimize agricultural land loss, you must have a regional plan. If you want to provide for a variety of residential opportunities differing in character, location and density of population, then you have to have a regional plan. If you want to conserve farmland from urban and regional development, then you have to have a regional plan. Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion. I want to move an amendment to the reasoned amendment. I wish to add "and democratic" after "orderly." I so move.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Member. Will you just give me a moment to read the proposed motion?

At this time I think the Speaker is going to require a little more time to consider the motion. At first glance it seems like a stereotype motion similar to a hoist. It may be repetitious as there was a hoist motion on this bill.

At this point the Speaker is not making a ruling. Please just have a little further consideration. The Chair would be open to some comment if you wish to make it at this point.

MR. BARRETT: Would you prefer a brief recess, rather than launching into debate on the amendment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, Mr. Member, I think the debate on this amendment could proceed, but that is not a declaration of acceptance of the amending motion.

MR. BARRETT: You can't go on the original unless there is a ruling on this. We have to debate this amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As indicated, the Chair is going to take some time to consider this. I'll come back and give a definitive answer with respect to it, but in the meantime debate can continue on the reasoned amendment to the bill.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is the debate back to the reasoned amendment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It sounds like we have excellent advice for the Speaker here that indicates that the debate could continue on this amendment to the reasoned amendment to the bill for the time being. My original feeling on that is that the Chair has allowed a great deal of latitude in the

[ Page 1869 ]

debate on the reasoned amendment, and it could have included the same subject matter that's in the amendment to the reasoned amendment. Please continue with the debate.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order regarding your advice that the members can speak on the amendment to the reasoned amendment, that would imply to me that someone who has already spoken on the reasoned amendment could now speak on the amendment to the reasoned amendment, which means that when you subsequently find the amendment to the reasoned amendment invalid, then that member has rather falsely obtained time to speak an additional time in this debate, which is not quite fair, to my mind. I wonder if the Speaker could perhaps rule on that observation.

[3:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With the various points of order, the Chair has had an opportunity to have further consideration. I must quote from Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition, page 383:

"No amendment admissible to certain stock forms of questions. To certain forms of motion which may be called stock forms of procedure, such as the motions made on the various stages of a bill, only certain recognized forms of amendment are permissible. On the same principle, an amendment to a motion of thanks for a sermon preached before the House has been ruled out of order.

"In a like manner, an established form of amendment, such as the six-months formula used to obtain the rejection of a bill, is not capable of amendment."

On that basis I would rule that the amendment submitted to the reasoned amendment is a stereotyped amendment and similar to an amendment to the six-months amendment. I therefore rule it out of order.

MR. BARRETT: We have to challenge your ruling.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 7

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

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, just a bit of information, please. If we have to sit Sunday morning, will we ask for a rabbi or a non-denominational minister? I was wondering if you could help us with that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, I don't think that's in proper order. But I think we'll have to wait till that time to decide on whether we're sitting Sunday — on Sunday being Saturday, or whatever day the House decides it is at that time.

MR. SKELLY: That was an interesting question, Mr. Speaker.

The reasoned amendment. as we are all aware, is: "That the motion be amended by leaving out all the words following 'that' and substituting therefore the following words: 'It is the opinion of this House that cooperation between municipalities and regional districts is necessary for orderly regional development.' " We tried to add the word "democratic" in there, but the Speaker ruled "democratic" out of order, which is unfortunate.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I don't think the member's comment on the Speaker's ruling should be on the record. It is very important, I think, that the Speaker at all times have the respect of all members of the House. I know this House has. But it's completely out of order for the member who has just begun his address to the House to refer to your order as having been undemocratic. If there could be, at any time, any reason in this House to reflect on the Speaker's ruling…. I suggest that no member of this House really has that capability. Also, I believe that they have an obligation to this House not to reflect on the Speaker's ruling. But I rather think that those words he has just spoken against your ruling are completely unparliamentary. I would ask him to withdraw those words.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Alberni has heard the member's comments. Does the member wish to reflect on the statements that he made?

MR. SKELLY: If I withdrew the comments that the minister made, I would be withdrawing the words out of her mouth. Those were not the words I said. Hansard will show that I said we attempted to insert the word "democratic" but it was ruled out of order. At no time did I say it was done undemocratically. I know the rules of this House, it appears, better than the minister. At no time did I say that the Speaker made an undemocratic ruling, and I have nothing whatsoever to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have made no reflections on the Speaker?

MR. SKELLY: Absolutely nothing. Perhaps what happened, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister is a little tired and bleary-eyed, couldn't shake the cobwebs loose and was a bit confused as to what was going on in the House at the time.

Let's proceed on this reasoned amendment. We are concerned that this bill presented in the Legislature repeals certain sections of the Municipal Act that provided for regional planning. As the Speaker is aware, it takes out certain sections of the Municipal Act and leaves no provision for coordinating, the land use actions within regional districts and rural areas of regional districts. So it leaves a void in the

[ Page 1870 ]

planning legislation of the province, which will be difficult for municipalities and for regional districts to manage in the future.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The minister yells, "Nonsense, nonsense!" across the floor, but almost a thousand people at the UBCM yelled "Nonsense, nonsense!" to the minister when he was speaking in Penticton a few weeks ago. People had difficulty in making any sense at all of what the minister was proposing in Bill 9 and what he was proposing to substitute for the coordinating function provided for under these sections of the Municipal Act which are being removed by Bill 9.

[3:15]

During my last speech on this bill I discussed the history of the establishment of municipalities in Canada. It was around the very function of land use planning that municipalities were established. Those members opposite who are familiar with Canadian history will know that at one time, through various schemes of land grants and clergy reserves and a few other systems of granting land and assigning land use in this country back in the 1830s, a tremendous amount of confusion resulted. The colonies of the day were interfering in the land use in local areas, and as a result communities suffered. Some communities had no roads. Roads were placed that went past some communities. We had to have somebody sent over from England to sort out the mess because there was an absence of strong municipal government and good land use planning. As a result they sent over Lord Durham. I would just like to quote a few….

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: If you can hear me over the inane comments of the minister, Mr. Speaker, this is what Lord Durham recommended back in 1841:

"The establishment of a good system of municipal institutions throughout these provinces is a matter of vital importance. A general legislature which manages the private business of every parish, in addition to the common business of the country, wields a power which no single body, however popular in its constitution, ought to have; a power which must be destructive of any constitutional balance."

This is one of the reasons we are concerned about this bill. It takes that planning function away from the regional district, gives the planning authority to the minister himself, in the absence of any other coordinating authority, and allows the minister to interfere in an undemocratic way in the business of municipalities and especially in the business of land use planning. That's why we're concerned about this legislation. That concern goes back over 150 years in Canadian history. That's why the function of land use planning was established at the local level.

Let me go on to quote Lord Durham in his report on the affairs of British North America:

"The establishment of municipal institutions for the whole country should be made a part of every colonial constitution, and the prerogative of the Crown should be constantly interposed to check any encroachment on the functions of the local bodies until the people should become alive, as most assuredly they almost immediately would be, to the necessity of protecting their local privileges."

Of course those local privileges are the privileges attaching to municipal and local governments. One of those privileges was seen to be the planning of land use.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Durham commission decided that it should:

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

Lord Durham felt it was so important that local bodies be left the power over strictly local issues that municipalities should not be a creature of the provincial governments but in fact should be established under imperial legislation in order to protect those municipalities from encroachment on their powers by the provincial legislatures. We see that Lord Durham had tremendous foresight because he foresaw what is happening here in the Legislature today — that where a municipality or where a collection of municipalities in a regional district makes planning bylaws which interfere with the ability of the friends of provincial government to make money from land transactions and from rezoning of land, then this provincial government has decided to take action to eliminate the planning functions of those regional districts. Lord Durham saw — and it just shows the foresight of the man — that 150 years down through time there would be a government like the Social Credit government of British Columbia, a government which thrives on the campaign contributions of land developers who see themselves impeded in making money by reasonable planning bylaws and therefore seek to have the — as Durham called it — power of the general Legislature interposed into those strictly local affairs. It's unfortunate that 150 years ago our forefathers in the House of Commons of London did not see fit to adopt the protections recommended to them by Lord Durham to make sure that those municipalities would be free from interference in their planning function by a government that supports the wishes and whims of land use developers over the public good. As a result we're seeing this kind of legislation presented in this Legislature tonight, It's extremely unfortunate that this is happening.

As I said, the new statute, Bill 9, totally wipes out the planning function of the regional district…

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Wrong.

MR. SKELLY: …with the possible exception of the settlement plans, which are allowed as an option only, not a requirement, and this concerns us.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You don't want compulsion, do you?

MR. SKELLY: Planning is not compulsion, of course; it's just a way of giving the people in the local area a say over how their community is going to be developed. That's not

[ Page 1871 ]

compulsion; that's recognizing the democratic rights of our citizens to influence the direction of the development of their communities. It's a democratic right of our citizens, which is being wiped out in this legislation.

The minister, in his confusion — and we've indicated how confused he has been recently about the whole issue of planning…. At one time he suggested that after official community or municipal plans had been adopted, they should fire the planning staff and review these things every ten years.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That's what the press said.

MR. SKELLY: Of course, now he claims to have been misquoted, as they always do. But the minister is confused about the planning functions, the requirements for planning, and exactly what planning represents at the municipal level. It's unfortunate that we have a rookie minister in this very critical position of Minister of Municipal Affairs, because those governments are some of the most important governments in this province. Those elected officials at the local level are some of the most important elected officials in this province. They are the people who are dealing on a day-today basis with the needs and requirements of our citizens, the people that we represent as MLAs on the provincial level. It's unfortunate that a rookie minister with little knowledge….

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Your mayor supports me. I'm going to tell him what you are saying.

MR. SKELLY: Well. let me send him a copy of the Hansard when and if it's prepared. I am sure the mayor of Port Alberni would accept this legislation. He's a rookie mayor with very little knowledge of local government, just like the minister. In fact, after the next election, possibly he will be retired and will be able to send you congratulations from the sidelines. Maybe, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the mayor will send the Minister of Municipal Affairs a fish. The mayor of Port Alberni is known for…. I think he does a relatively good job, in spite of his inexperience, of promoting Port Alberni.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we're debating an amendment to this bill, and the member seems to be spending most of his time talking about the merits of the mayor of Port Alberni. I would suggest that he get back to the motion being debated.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order as expressed by the Minister of Forests is well taken. The member will return to the relevancy of the reasoned amendment to Bill 9.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was led down the path, I suppose, by the comments across the floor by the laid-back Minister of Municipal Affairs. He was discussing the mayor of Port Alberni, who had indicated his support for this statute. I'm sure if the government proposed revisions to the Holy Bible, provided it was done by a Social Credit government, the mayor of Port Alberni would support it. That's not to take away from the ability of the mayor to promote Port Alberni. He does a fine job. He buys fish in Parksville and presents it to various officials to show that Port Alberni is the salmon capital of the world. The last time he gave two salmon to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Axworthy, in Ottawa. He flew all the way to Ottawa with these salmon that he bought in Parksville. The taxpayers of Port Alberni paid $100 for the fish. He bought them in Parksville to promote Port Alberni as the salmon capital of the world.

MR. D'ARCY: Who bought the plane ticket, Bob?

MR. SKELLY: The taxpayers in Port Alberni bought the plane ticket.

AN HON. MEMBER: That sounds like a fishy story to me.

MR. SKELLY: I will even table in the House the city council's minutes, where the mayor submitted the bill from a Parksville fish plant for the….

HON. MR. WATERLAND: What has that got to do with planning or your motion?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps we could return to the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: I'm glad you asked that and drew me back to the issue at hand, Mr. Speaker.

I have a resolution that was passed Thursday, September 15, 1983, at the UBCM convention. It says here that it was passed virtually unanimously. I guess the mayor of Port Alberni was out of the room or something, giving fish to the locals. This resolution will give you an idea about the amount of consultation that has taken place between the minister and the municipal and regional representatives prior to the presentation of this bill. and also during the presentation of this bill. The bill was in the House and had already been debated when this resolution was passed.

I should read part of the resolution into the record so the House will be aware of the concerns of the B.C. municipalities about Bill 9:

"Whereas the government of B.C. Introduced Bill 9, Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, in the Legislature on July 7, and whereas this legislation would amend the Municipal Act by removing regional planning as a function of regional districts and making official settlement plans optional, and whereas the present provisions of the Municipal Act have permitted rural and resource communities to establish effective means for planning of electoral areas and for the solution of development problems in urban fringe areas, and whereas the same provisions have enabled communities in the lower mainland and capital regions to coordinate their development in cooperation with their neighbours in a cost-effective way with maximum local autonomy, therefore be it resolved that Bill 9, Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, is unacceptable and inappropriate to the needs of British Columbia's communities and that sections 2 to 6 of Bill 9 should be withdrawn forthwith, and be it further resolved that the Minister of Municipal Affairs be requested to meet with a special committee composed of regional district directors on the UBCM executive and the table officers of the UBCM to determine

[ Page 1872 ]

acceptable and appropriate ways of improving planning legislation."

[3:30]

It was with this resolution in mind, Mr. Speaker, that we presented the reasoned amendment that expresses the concern of this House that there has been insufficient consultation with the regional districts and municipalities around this planning legislation; to attempt to draw the minister's attention to that fact, although he seems little concerned about it, and encourage him, in a gentle way, to meet with those municipal and regional representatives to discuss their concerns about Bill 9 and possibly to accept some of their suggestions with respect to withdrawing the offensive sections of Bill 9, which, according to the UBCM resolution, are sections 2 to 6.

So we do have a problem. The minister feels that the bill doesn't remove the regional planning function, yet the people most familiar with local government — those people who are represented at the Union of B.C. Municipalities — do feel that it removes the planning function and leaves a void which will be difficult to fill except by ministerial fiat. This is the problem: the minister now has the right to interfere in local planning decisions, and there is a concern that this is now going to be a political process on behalf of his friends who are seeking to earn money by changing land use in various communities and various regions of the province; that they will come to the minister and, behind the closed doors of the minister's office, get the approval.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take offence at these most recent remarks that anyone would be able to come to my office and, behind closed doors, make some financial gain through land transactions. I'd ask that that be withdrawn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a personal unparliamentary reference. The member will withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A simple withdrawal will be sufficient, thank you.

MR. SKELLY: …indicating that that minister would be involved in that type of behaviour, so I withdraw the reference with respect to that minister. What we are talking about here is a change in legislation that would allow that to happen if some future minister held that office rather than the hon. gentleman who presently holds it. I do withdraw it as it relates to the present minister. But we are dealing here with a change in legislation that allows that kind of opening. It is not the minister that I am concerned about; it is the opening in the law that permits that kind of thing to happen. That is my concern, and I apologize to the minister if he felt that I was relating that remark to him personally.

What we are concerned about here is that the legislation sets up another political pipeline into the minister's office that can be used. Again, I am not relating this in a personal way to the minister, but the legislation leaves a vacuum that can be exploited by less scrupulous people. That's what we are concerned about. Drafters of the law should be extremely careful that the law does not provide an avenue for political openings, and we feel that this particular statute is defective in that regard. For the minister's own protection, and for the protection of future ministers, we feel that the law should be cleaned up and amended so that this possibility is eliminated. As I say, I am not suggesting that the current minister would in any way be involved in that type of behaviour, but I am saying that the law poses the danger that some less scrupulous minister dealing with less scrupulous developers might find himself or herself in a very difficult position as a result of the openings that this particular statute allows.

At the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention, the minister seemed to be confused about the various planning functions and requirements in the regional districts. There are two types of regional districts, I suppose, in the province: the example we see in the Capital Regional District and the Greater Vancouver Regional District, where there is very little in the way of unorganized territory…. The major part of those regional districts consist of municipalities which have their own planning functions and are mature municipalities under the Municipal Act. In those areas — the capital region and the greater Vancouver region — the regional district board serves as a coordinating body which represents the interests of the region as a whole. For example, their involvement in planning would be around things such as transportation, regional parks and a regional sewer and water system — in the Greater Vancouver Regional District in particular, although there is a regional water system in the capital region as well.

Those regional interests require some involvement by the regional district in the planning functions of local municipalities. A two-level system of approvals has worked fairly well over the past several years since the principle of regional districts was adopted by the previous W.A.C. Bennett government and the minister of the day, Dan Campbell. Originally there were three regional districts in the riding that I represent, ten municipalities, 15 Indian bands and three school districts. As the regional districts grew and matured, as they adopted various functions that were available to them under letters patent, they became very effective and very acceptable local governments. Of course there were conflicts over land use planning; inevitably there is conflict when land use planning is developed in the first place.

I can recall that in the area where I lived near Qualicum Beach I was on the advisory planning commission that drafted the first zoning bylaw in that area. There was a great deal of heat around it, but ultimately people grew to accept the fact that if they were going to have the kind of community they desired, then they needed some control as a group, as a community, over the direction of land use development. So the idea of official community plans and zoning bylaws, etc., grew in acceptance as the regional governments matured. The regional governments that had the most problems, I think, were the ones that attempted to bring in complex planning bylaws and zoning bylaws developed by consultant planners without consulting with their citizens each step of the way and explaining the rationale behind the development of community plans. However, in most regional districts in the province there has been a gradual and growing acceptance of that planning function. It's unfortunate that just as the citizens are beginning to accept the planning function, the minister turns around and eliminates it completely with virtually no consultation between himself and the citizens of those regional areas and between himself and the representatives of the province's regional districts. I know there have been some discussions between the minister and the regional districts, and I'll get to that in a few minutes.

[ Page 1873 ]

I have another article here about the minister's participation in the UBCM convention. This is in the Vancouver Sun, September 14, 1983. I've discussed the minister's involvement in the convention with a number of regional and municipal government representatives who were at the convention. To tell you the truth, they were amazed at the minister's lack of knowledge of local and regional government, and especially of the planning function.

As the article says: "Earlier in the day about 150 representatives of the province's 28 regional districts soundly passed a motion urging withdrawal of the Municipal Amendment Act, calling it 'unacceptable and inappropriate.' Regional officials also asked the government to recognize the differences between rural and urban regional districts." I understand from radio reports close to the end of the UBCM convention that the difference between the rural and the metropolitan regional districts had by that time finally dawned on the minister. However, he hasn't done anything in recognition of that difference to review or change Bill 9.

I have another article from the Province of September 15, 1983, under the headline "Ritchie's 'Logic' Leaves 'em Baffled." I know I shouldn't mention the minister's name, but it's hard to quote a headline accurately without doing that. I'll avoid using the minister's name when quoting from the article. These are just some descriptions of the minister's performance at the convention: "He's a wonder to behold — the first man to handle this portfolio in the past decade with zip for experience." That means with no experience at all, Mr. Speaker. It's been one of the advantages over the years, that the ministers of municipal affairs in this province, regardless of which side they came from — Social Credit or NDP — had fairly broad experience in municipal and local government. People like Mr. Vander Zalm, the current Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), Mr. Lorimer under the NDP government and others were fairly well accepted by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Even the current Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was at one time a chairman of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and was very well accepted by that group.

It's unfortunately only too clear in this House that the minister has very little knowledge and awareness of the planning function in regional districts, of the difference between rural and metropolitan regional districts and how differently the planning function operates within those regional districts.

The article reads:

"A press conference following Ritchie's lukewarm speech to the convention does nothing to cause the roomful of reporters to find fault with Ritchie's critics. He is questioned on just what will replace regional planning once he strips that power away from regional districts with Bill 9. To refresh his memory, it is necessary to read back to him sections of his address. The statement seems clear enough: 'I believe that the same results can be achieved through coordinated development and approval of individual official settlement plans and official community plan.' The question is this: who will be in charge of all this coordinating?"

And, of course, the official settlement plans are optional under the legislation.

[3:45]

Our concern is that the need for cooperation between municipalities and regional districts, which has been expressed in the past by the development of regional plans, is now going to be wiped out and a vacuum is going to be left as to who is going to be coordinating the various land-use decisions that take place both within and without the municipalities located in a regional district. This legislation will cause a tremendous amount of confusion, and out of that confusion only one group can benefit: that small group of unscrupulous land developers who make their money by ignoring the needs and the requirements of local communities and forcing development that is unacceptable in those communities. Those plans have to go through a public hearing process and have to gain acceptance through three readings at the municipal level. At each one of those readings the public can be present, because unlike cabinet, Mr. Speaker, the decisions of local governments have to be made in public in front of the people who are affected by those decisions. So that's our concern around the elimination of the planning functions of the regional district.

This government seems to have a hatred toward the whole idea of the regulatory process that's come out recently in the Minister of Forests' (Hon. Mr. Waterland) discussion paper on partnership management of the forest industry, where the regulators have now gone into partnership with the people who are being regulated. The principle of arm's-length analysis of what's happening in the forest industry, especially in the forestry sector, has gone out the window. The province's interest in management of the forests will go out the window along with that arm's-length regulatory function.

We should remember what the reasoning is behind the planning functions of regional districts and municipalities. I'll read from a section of the Municipal Act:

"In making regulations under this section" — this is the zoning action, but it also applies to general planning — "the council shall have due regard to: (a) the promotion of health, safety, convenience and welfare of the public; (b) prevention of the overcrowding of land and preservation of the amenities peculiar to any zone; (c) the securing of adequate light, air and access; (d) the value of the land and the nature of its present and prospective use and occupancy; (e) the character of each zone, the character of buildings already erected and the peculiar suitability of the zone for particular uses; and (f) the conservation of property values."

The reason the planning function was developed at the local level in the first place was for all those reasons, which in total represent the public good of the people in those communities.

Mr. Speaker, in wiping out that plan this minister is wiping out the council's requirement to have due regard to those particular issues relating to the public good. When this bill passes — as it ultimately will with the huge majority of this government, and their ignoring of consultation with the people and with people at local government — it will be an unfortunate day for British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this House do now adjourn.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

[ Page 1874 ]

NAYS — 28

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, people may wonder why we're here at this time of the morning doing our best to block a particular bill that's only about three or four lines.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: To block it, that's right. We're discussing and we're trying with all the powers…. I want you to understand we're going to do everything in our power to block the elimination of regional planning in the province of British Columbia. Anything.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, anything we can do within parliamentary democracy to block this bill, we will do. We are, like the….

I see the Premier's going to duck out; it's a shame that he is. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get too excited about this bill in a sense, but it's a bill of great significance to the future quality of life in the province of British Columbia. And I see the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) looking a little quizzical about my statement. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that Minister of Human Resources was a member of the government of W.A.C. Bennett that brought in the regional concept. He brought in that concept on the basis that some things affect more than one municipality, and that if you want to protect the quality of life in the province of British Columbia, you've got to sort things out, and sometimes they transcend municipal boundaries.

I find this bill totally unbelievable, and therefore I'm supporting the reasoned amendment that has been prepared by the opposition.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I hear from the other side a babble as if it were geese — of people who are not particularly interested in the debate. Oh, it's all right, Mr. Speaker.

[4:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, hon. members, I'll just ask the hon. members if they could carry on their discussions elsewhere, or at least be less obtrusive to the member who's now speaking.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm not too concerned about that. I would have liked to have caught the ear of the Premier of British Columbia in terms of this bill, but I see that he's retired from the chamber. I see that the government House Leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), remains here and he's complained that we're blocking this legislation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You said it yourself.

MR. MACDONALD: I said it and stand by it. I want to explain why.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's not legitimate debate.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, it's not legitimate debate. What nonsense! We're only in opposition. We lost an election on May 5, but I wonder whether there really was a mandate to abolish regional planning in the province in that election. Was there? I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Did the minister campaign on that — that the city of Vancouver would have no say about what happens in the regional district which is known as the Greater Vancouver Regional District? Was that part of the mandate that the Social Credit government received when they were re-elected on May 5, 1983? Was it?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, let's not be frivolous when we're talking about a bill that is going to affect the future of British Columbia for a long time to come.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You've said this on each and every bill.

MR. MACDONALD: On every bill? No, I don't think that's the case, Mr. Minister, with all due respect to you. I think this is the only planning bill we have had. There are other bills to which we take objection but in my humble submission, the one we are considering at the present time will have a more deleterious effect upon the quality of life of British Columbians than any other measure that has been proposed.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Bill 3 was of an entirely different character; objectionable, but for entirely different reasons than the bill we are considering at the present time.

I think it is very strange, through the Speaker to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), that that minister is proceeding to push through this bill, notwithstanding almost total rejection by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Is that not true? And when I say almost total rejection, I wonder what percentage it was…. An overwhelming percentage of B.C. municipalities were assembled there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you there?

MR. MACDONALD: No, I was not. Nevertheless — and the minister can get up and correct me if I am wrong — there was an almost total rejection of this particular bill by the elected municipal aldermen and regional people at the

[ Page 1875 ]

UBCM convention in Penticton on September 15, 1983. As I recall their proceedings — from reports; I was not there — there are one or two minor elements in the bill that they said were satisfactory to them, but they rejected the essential part of that bill: namely, the elimination of official plans. Official plans are being eliminated. There was an almost total rejection of that proposal by our fellow citizens, who had been elected in one way or another from the various regions of the province. They had good grounds for the position they took at that convention.

I have talked to a few people, some of whom are employed now in the regional planning process. I appreciate that in right-wing circles planners have acquired a bad name. They are said to be eggheads who toil not, neither do they spin. They are not cutting wood in the woods; they are not doing this or that. They are planning the growth of parks and industrial sites, plotting the location of farmlands that can be saved for the future, and that kind of thing. Isn't that a costeffective process in which they are engaged, even on a bottom-line philosophy?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It isn't. I am glad that Hansard listens to us, because we don't always get a very good hearing in this House, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect, sometimes some of the people in that back comer are particularly rambunctious, I have listened to them. I'm sure that wouldn't apply to Mr. Speaker, of course, when he is in his other capacity.

I have talked to some people engaged in the planning process, and they told me in the last two or three weeks: "That bill won't go through. This minister is open to reason, consultation, second thoughts. There may be a bill in terms of regional planning and its relationship to municipal planning and whatever powers the Crown has in right of the province of British Columbia, but the bill won't go through." Yet tonight we are being asked to pass this bill which is, as I say, going to drastically affect the quality of life, particularly in our crowded regional districts. At the present time the GVRD has about 1.2 million people, but its rate of population acceleration is pretty good in terms of population growth in different parts of the world.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There'll be no acceleration of population if you block everything.

MR. MACDONALD: This is the kind of mind-set that we are battling at the present time. You really believe that a planning function blocks growth and development and will lead to a static society and unemployment and all the other things. It is simply not the case.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Then let the municipalities plan.

MR. MACDONALD: The municipalities, Mr. Minister, with all due respect, can plan within their own municipalities. I'm glad the minister is not thinking in terms of the elimination of that planning function. When there are proposed developments and growth and changes that affect more than one municipality, apart from the unorganized districts, that planning is being eliminated in this legislation. If you don't believe in planning, why don't you eliminate it altogether? But if you do believe in planning, when a development in one municipality has an impact on the lifestyle and well-being of citizens in another municipality that may be adjacent or fairly close to it, what about that planning function? With the introduction of this kind of legislation, obviously you're going to have unplanned growth and development in terms of parks, industrial land, farmland, traffic corridors.

The Spetifore example has been brought up on many occasions. I support the argument that when you plunge ahead with this kind of bill, with almost total opposition from the whole community that thinks about this kind of problem, particularly from the elected municipal officials, you are doing it from a motive that is very difficult to ascertain. In those circumstances, I don't think it's unfair to say that you were doing it from the motive of aiding the developers, particularly in the Spetifore development. That is a development that the Social Credit government, before May 5 and after, has had very close to its heart. The way in which that Spetifore land was released from the Agricultural Land Commission has been told many times in the records of Hansard. It is not a story that I intend to repeat tonight, but it is a very strange story. Anybody who is interested in that multi-million-dollar development and in the people who have invested in it — they have seen their capital at risk, and seen the influence they have in terms of the veto of that development by the Greater Vancouver Regional District — must be asking themselves whether the Spetifore developers are not controlling this government and this particular decision to eliminate all regional planning in municipal areas — not the unorganized areas, I know — throughout the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You'd better check with Kube about these statements.

MR. MACDONALD: I have no intention of checking with Mr. Kube about the statements I have made. I don't know what Mr. Kube's attitude may be toward regional planning, but I would hope, as a citizen of Vancouver who is concerned about the….

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're pretty independent.

MR. MACDONALD: Of course we are. It's great politics to go around saying we're controlled by the labour bosses. W.A.C. Bennett used to do that, but he always did it with a twinkle in his eye; it was politics. He loved to say that: "the labour bosses." He'd get up in the Orpheum Theatre….

Bill Clancey would have prepared the invitations. He would mail out embossed cards to possibly 10,000 or 15,000 people: "You are specially invited to come to a meeting of the Premier of the province of British Columbia." He filled the halls, and he attacked the labour bosses. He said that the CCF, the NDP — whatever it happened to be at the time — was in the pocket of the labour bosses. We're not in anybody's pocket.

[4:15]

I asked the Premier why this government, which, through the Social Credit Party, established the process of regional planning, has decided, instead of improving that process, to abolish it altogether. You're turning back the clock on a measure of regional planning that was instituted by the Social

[ Page 1876 ]

Credit Party, not by the NDP. I haven't looked at the dates of them recently, but I think those sections in the Municipal Act date back to Dan Campbell — well before 1972 when the NDP became the government of the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier is being a little bit frivolous and silly. He is bringing in legislation which 90 percent of the elected officials of the UBCM reject out of hand. I've got the resolution right here that was passed by an overwhelming majority at the UBCM convention. We have to ask why you are doing that.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: The trigger for this particular amendment certainly didn't come as any request from the people of this province. It did not come from the municipal officials or from Arthur Kube. The trigger for this particular development was to save the Spetifore capitalists, who have a tremendous stake in that particular development.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Here we are in the wee hours of the morning with this significant step being taken and a government which treats it in a totally frivolous manner.

I've mentioned on many occasions….

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, there's nothing frivolous about trying to block this legislation. We intend to block this legislation by anything in parliamentary democracy, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. This is legislation for which you have no mandate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You don't have any policies in your party; that's your problem.

MR. MACDONALD: No policy and therefore we stick to technicalities. Well, we're dealing with policy right now, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. The policy is very simple. I don't know what that interjection can possibly mean. We are standing up for the policy of regional planning, of growth and development, in what will become our even more crowded regional districts.

You take the Spetifore development — not in terms of its scandal-ridden past…. The Premier knows all about its scandal-ridden past. He knows the story of Jim Anderson and the meeting in Laurel Point Inn and the secret meeting of the Agricultural Land Commission.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's frivolous. But, Mr. Speaker, is this a frivolous bill? I've thought about the 26 bills which you've brought down with your budget, and I've tried to sort out in my mind which are going to have a really serious, bad effect on this province, and Bill 9 is one of them. I would think that the old Socreds would have recognized that.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: That's a very sapient remark, Mr. Speaker; you can't quarrel with that. I suppose new blood will come up and all the rest of it. Why be diverted on that kind of an issue?

This bill is one of the most deleterious for the future of the province of British Columbia that was brought down on July 7 by the Social Credit government.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Wrong again.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, which is worse?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: An irresponsible opposition.

MR. MACDONALD: An irresponsible opposition which stands up for regional planning. Is there any place in the whole of North America, Mr. Speaker, where there is not some kind of regional coordinated planning among municipalities? Can anybody say? There isn't one.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You just said there isn't one. You're wrong.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't know of….

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right, and you will have the opportunity when you rise in this debate — as the Premier won't….

MR. HOWARD: Ask Mr. Speaker to bring the Premier to order.

MR. MACDONALD: No, that's all right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member for Skeena please come to order.

MR. MACDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know; there could be another area in the whole of North America where there….

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're qualifying it.

MR. MACDONALD: Let's be specific. I said I do not know of any other built-up area in the whole of North America — the United States and Canada….

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't know about Mexico. There may be areas in Mexico which do not have coordinated regional planning, and they probably have a great deal of corruption surrounding their municipal governments.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You said North America, Alex.

MR. MACDONALD: You like to play these word games while you're throwing away the quality of life in the province

[ Page 1877 ]

of British Columbia, as if you're being very smart, as if we're not debating anything of consequence at 4:22 in the morning.

Your House Leader, through Mr. Speaker to the Premier, said: "Oh, you're just blocking this legislation." That's exactly right. We're doing everything we can to block it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you the head of the blockade?

MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm not the blockhead. This will make great repartee for Hansard. You take a serious issue like that, where W.A.C. Bennett's government had gone entirely the other way, and you repudiate that past and usher British Columbia into a future of smoke-stack development among municipalities….

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier says we don't want jobs. Of course we want jobs, and this is how silly the Premier's being at this time. I suppose you could excuse him. That's the kind of ridiculous statement that's made at this time of the morning. We're not against jobs, Mr. Premier, but we are for coordinated development of jobs. We are for some planning of where the best areas for industry and for parks and recreational areas may be in a regional district, where the best locations for shopping centres and the heavy traffic they engender may be in a regional district, where the best area to protect farmland might be in a regional district. That was what W.A.C. Bennett was for, and that's what this present government is against. This is what all of the elected municipal officials throughout the province of British Columbia are against at the present time. There was almost unanimous rejection of the Minister of Municipal Affairs when he spoke about Bill 9 to the convention in Penticton, and that convention then passed the resolution which I won't take the time to read but I have in my hand, dated September 15, 1983.

I would be the last to say that there are not, in my opinion, problems with the existing legislation under the Municipal Act, because in the past I've had occasion to look at sections 807 to 810. There was a conflict in jurisdiction between municipal planning and regional planning. In my opinion, for what it's worth — and I'm not an expert in this field; I just listen to people — there was a need to make that planning function more effective and to eliminate duplications in it. Section 807 of the Municipal Act says that a regional plan means a general scheme without detail for the projected uses of land. It's that general plan that is being eliminated in the present legislation. Those words are, as they state, of a very vague nature, subject to interpretation in some cases by a court of law, and they've led to problems, because you might have — and have had — a development in the province which has been close to or even straddling the boundary lines of two municipalities. You've had the regional districts come down with a general plan, and the municipalities come in with a detailed plan, and there's been a conflict. Some of those conflicts have ended up in court.

So I've got more respect, Mr. Speaker, than might be supposed for Bill Vander Zalm, who was addressing the kind of problem I'm speaking about at the present time. He brought in his own land use bill and that bill never saw the light of day. There were features in it that the NDP opposition did not agree with, and there were features that the government would not accept. The end result was that Bill Vander Zalm is now, temporarily at least, out of the politics of the province of British Columbia. So there is no question in my mind that there were real problems to be addressed in terms of eliminating duplication of planning, and making the process quicker so that a worthwhile development would not be held up any longer than might be necessary. The total elimination of regional planning, Mr. Speaker, is setting the clock back in this province in ways that it will take us a long time to recover from.

[4:30]

I mentioned the smoke-stack competition, and the Premier says: "Well, you're against jobs." But that's political repartee. Without being against jobs, you can decry the situation where municipalities begin to bid against each other to attract industry by tax concessions and other means. There should be, in the Greater Vancouver Regional District — and there is ample such land — a regional plan that sets out a lot of land reserved for industrial growth and development. In the Fraser Valley and in the areas around the city of Vancouver there is lots of such land. But it's got to be planned growth. You can't have a municipality planting an industrial zone right beside a residential area in the adjoining municipality.

Mr. Speaker, in this elimination of all regional planning in the province of British Columbia we are turning the clock back. The bill we're discussing is a very significant one, and I therefore move that the amendment be amended by adding between the words "districts" and "is" the following: "and the private sector."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair, ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the amendment as submitted by the second member for Vancouver East is not in order. The reasoned amendment is a pro forma amendment and as such is not subject to amendment. I cite, for the members' interest, the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, on page 383, and also the ruling of the Chair itself at approximately 2:36 this morning.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, with regret, I challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 9

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

[ Page 1878 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Continuing, hon. members, on the amendment, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I think the House is beginning to go bonkers this morning. It's about….

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Watch that! The first time the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) makes a speech, he starts making racist remarks. He starts attacking; all this "black and white" stuff. It's too early in the morning. I think this is going too far. Members are trying to do their duty, trying to get some attention…. Mr. Speaker, I think we should call the House to order so that we can deal with a very serious attempt by this government to confiscate the rights of the people of British Columbia with this very vicious piece of legislation.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You don't mean that.

[4:45]

MR. BARNES: Yes, I do, Mr. Minister of Forests; I mean it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the reasoned amendment, if it's possible to make any reason with this initiative on behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I must say it's a pretty difficult task, especially at 4:45 in the morning, when the government feels that we are tired and unable to put together the arguments we would like to make.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

It's difficult to imagine a government that had such a large majority as this government suddenly believing it can now turn its back on the people, with its attempt to take away one of the fundamental principles of democratic rights of people to self-determination at the regional and municipal level. We've listened to quite a few people talk in the last few hours on the demerits of what the minister's attempting to do. In fact, when I reflect on my colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who gave a very eloquent account of the need for planning on the regional level, I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs should have listened very intently to what that member had to say, because he was speaking with the kind of vision that is necessary in a society such as the one we have in British Columbia, where we have traditionally taken pride in the ability to cooperate from region to region and district to district.

I'm recalling one of the dangers of centralization of planning procedures, where the Minister of Municipal Affairs feels that in order to have control over the direction in which planning goes, he himself should control the essential decisions. He wants to have the final say without reflecting upon the concerns, especially the resource controls that have to be in place, the taxation systems that are involved, the facilities that are needed from region to region and from district to district. It is a very dangerous thing for one minister to have the ability to overrule decisions that have collectively been decided upon by local politicians who have had the opportunity to gather information from their constituents.

Prior to May 5, I recall getting some letters from people from the downtown east side and the east end of Vancouver, around the Commercial-Broadway area. As you know, the ALRT decision was made by the government notwithstanding the protestations of the city of Vancouver and the regional district.

MR. REID:, For a $15 million saving.

MR. BARNES: You see, Mr. Speaker, these are exactly the concerns that we on this side of the House have: the inability of this government to recognize the danger of having a simplistic approach to solving the problems of the future.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, what seems to be the problem with these people this morning? What's the problem? We are trying to give some reason to the bill, to bring some sense to the minister, to give him some insight into the danger of central control. We know that his reason for centralization of planning was to assist some friends in the Delta area with respect to the Spetifore lands, but I would like to think that there is more to the minister's planning than just an attempt to pay off political debts.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, I take exception to the remark by the member across the floor that this is an attempt to assist some friends. I would ask for a withdrawal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As is the custom in this House, I would ask….

MR. BARNES: I certainly would withdraw. I don't wish to make an issue of something that is fully canvassed. Everyone knows the facts. I thought that even the minister had accepted at this point that that's a matter that is well broadcast and well known in the community, but he still feels twitchy about it, and I certainly do not wish to offend the minister. I am merely asking for his attention so that we will have an opportunity to perhaps change the course on which the minister is going.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in the late 1960s there were some other attempts by the Social Credit government to undermine a community? We would have had a freeway right through Chinatown if it had been left up to the Social Credit government in the early 1960s when they wanted to put an overpass right over Chinatown and divide that community which is now the pride of British Columbia.

I think the Social Credit government cares very little about the future cohesion and the effective use of resources, and this is really a sham when it talks about saving tax dollars and says that it is concerned about the rights of municipalities to self-determination. I question whether that is the situation at all. The minister talks about the streamlining of the approval process. That is very similar to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) saying that he is going to streamline human rights in British Columbia by getting rid of all of the human rights workers. In order to make things more efficient he is going to appoint four or five of his friends to do a job that 50 people were doing. That is the kind of streamlining we are getting.

[ Page 1879 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Yes, five friends. There are 30-odd rights workers and a commission — close to 40, and they are all gone. You are going to do the job with five, but they are going to be friends, and if they don't do what you tell them to do, they are going to be gone. This is the idea of planning under this government.

I would like for the minister to show us who the people are who support your plan. Tell us who supports it. A lot of the speakers before have….

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not being candid. He is trying to divide city council by suggesting that certain members on city council were opposed and others were not. It was a unanimous decision by them to oppose Bill 9. It was a unanimous decision by practically every regional district, planning institute and organization throughout the province to oppose Bill 9 on the very simple principle that the local people are the best ones to decide their ability to pay — in answer to the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston), who suggested that it has to do with their ability to pay. If you were concerned about the ability to pay, you would be concerned about the inter-regional costs that are involved and the ability to plan livable regions and have facilities in place that will be cost-efficient as a result of cooperation between regions.

Bill 9 has been described as the Spetifore amendment. As such it is an extreme and highly destructive overreaction to the continued frustration of a small clique of Social Credit developers. The company that has received the most attention has been the Dawn Development Corp. In which we find that some government members have interests. Bill 9 is a very blunt instrument. The minister could, if he chose, overrule the GVRD in favour of Dawn Development by using his awesome powers under section 9(42) of the Municipal Act. There is virtually no support for Bill 9, except perhaps from a slim majority of Delta council, including a member of the government, who I will not mention because I understand we are not to reflect upon the good name of the Chair.

Individuals throughout this province have expressed their opposition to Bill 9. The GVRD has a resolution with respect to that, and as a result of that resolution they were offended by some intemperate members of the government side referring to people, who had impartially come to the conclusion that for the common good that application should be rejected, as less-than-honourable elected officials.

The Capital Regional District chairman, the chairman of the lower mainland regional district, UBCM, the Planning Institute of British Columbia, Vancouver city council, and we can also include the Urban Development Institute, are all opposed. If their position regarding the need for regional planning, especially in the lower mainland, has not changed since last year…. The point is that many of these organizations and individuals are anything but enemies of the government, and they certainly cannot, as a group, be described as NDPers or left-wingers. It was an unfair statement for a member of this assembly to refer to those people as being pinkos and communists simply because they refuse to agree that a section of land should be allowed to develop for private purposes.

[5:00]

It's ironic that most of the comments I've made refer to the days of the Bill Vander Zalm bill, which we now realize would have been a godsend compared to what this government seems to want to do now. In fact that past Minister of Municipal Affairs wants nothing to do with the direction which the government is taking today. The thrust of Bill 9 is anything but an economic device or a restraint measure.

MR. REID: What's happened to your support? We don't think your speech is that bad.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, how can it be that that member has sat in this House for three months and has yet to record a single speech on anything except from his seat?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's have order. I would direct the member who's on his feet to return to the amendment on Bill 9.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARNES: It seems as though…. Look, I wish we had cameras. I wish the public had cameras. I wish there was some way to show the public the behaviour of some of these people. This member is really an incredible, but a very likable, member. I don't mean to reflect on him personally. He's a very nice person, but when we have a bill such as this that offends the fundamental principles upon which a democracy is based, which is self-determination by the individuals in the community and something that any responsible democratic government would want to support, it is….

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: No, self-determination. In other words, through their elected representatives, . the local people are able to determine for themselves. And this is what you claim you're doing with the….

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: This is why, Mr. Speaker. You gave a half-truth. You're giving half of the story when you say that this bill will give the municipality the full autonomy. The problem with that principle is that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has that ultimate power to overrule — the ultimate czar of planning in the province of British Columbia. You are also saying that you are going to deny the regional districts the right to cooperate with the municipalities. You are saying that the municipalities have the right to determine what they will do in isolation.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'd ask the House to please come to order and would remind the member on his feet that tempered language in a tempered debate would receive a tempered response. Would you all please keep that in mind.

[ Page 1880 ]

MR. BARNES: The problem is that the government is trying to provoke the opposition. After all, it's 5 o'clock in the morning. They will not adjourn so that we can have reasonable hours in order to do our duty. They insist on pressing the opposition to speak under very difficult circumstances, deliberately trying to confuse us by not advising us of the order of business and doing a number of things that are tactics clearly designed to obstruct the opposition's ability to represent their constituents and the concerns of the people of British Columbia. And we know that. So tempers will fly. I appreciate you admonitions. But I don't think there is any question that we are seeing a takeover of fundamental processes that have traditionally been available to the people of British Columbia. This is one more example of dirty pool. Dirty tricks. Dirty dozens.

We have said that there are 12 bills that are dirty. Perhaps we should ask the people of British Columbia which one is the dirtiest. This bill that will remove planning from the regional districts is probably the most serious, because it deals with the economics that are involved locally. It deals with the ability of regions to sensibly plan the direction in which their communities will go.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, that's like separating…. You divide and conquer when you do that, Mr. Speaker. You're going backwards. That's a retrograde step. The municipalities are just beginning to cooperate. We've had fights for the last 20 years over whether or not there should be regional districts, and they've finally become an accepted….

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: There have been debates over the idea and the concept of regional planning much longer than 20 years, in fact.

If that member wishes to speak in debate, he can rise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member, if you wish to stand on a point of order, I'm sorry. I cannot recognize a member who is not in his seat on a point of order. Order, please.

Hon. members, I think we have just seen what can happen in this House when we don't, as I suggested before, have tempered debate. I intend to have order, and I would suggest once again to the member on his feet that he return to the intent of the amendment on Bill 9.

MR. BARNES: I'm trying to make some reason of this thing, Mr. Speaker. This is exactly what I'm attempting to do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, what's the problem?

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm very concerned that you're reprimanding the person who has the floor and at the same time letting another member….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a point of order.

MRS. WALLACE: It is a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A new point of order?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes. There is no rule in our House that allows another member to speak from other than his own place. You have done nothing to reprimand that member who spoke from out of his place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE: I suggest that he be asked to return to his place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I made it quite clear, hon. members, that there was no way I would recognize that member from someone else's seat.

Would the first member for Vancouver Centre please proceed on the amendment.

MR. BARNES: I'm not going to comment on how the Chair reflects upon the comments of other members in this Legislature. But I can tell you that even at 5 o'clock in the morning this is a very serious issue that we're discussing. Like every other initiative by the government, we find that they have become far more offensive than any of us had ever imagined. The consequences of this initiative by the government is one that will set back the planning procedures in this province to such an extent that it is bound to cost local taxpayers a lot more in the future than they had ever anticipated.

The reason that regional planning is important, and the reason that I am perhaps more concerned than I had thought I was, is because I realized what had happened in one of the communities in my constituency, the Grandview-Woodlands area, where the government has decided to defy that community by putting in an overpass, rather than building an underground system, even though that community is well established.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since I will have the responsibility of responding to all of the debate, I would ask that the member be brought back to the motion at hand. It has nothing to do with overpasses, roads or whatever. I'd appreciate it if he'd be brought back.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The hon. member will please proceed.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, there's only one salient point in this bill. Primarily there is one thing: the loss of planning responsibilities by the regional districts in order to ensure that the concerns and the integrity of the communities are protected.

Why would the minister want the power to overrule local politicians representing those people who elected them? Why? I would like the minister who just took the time to admonish me for not sticking strictly with the reasoned amendment, as he puts it, to explain what he hopes to gain.

[ Page 1881 ]

Especially in light of the opposition, why would he want to…?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You say there's no opposition.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: No, Mr. Member. I'm hust one of 22 members in the opposition in the Legislature. Certainly you don't pay any attention to the opposition in the Legislature, but what about the people on the street? What about those politicians in those regional districts.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The majority supports us.

MR. BARNES: The majority would like you to take away their right to plan and cooperate with the municipalities in their areas or to try to save tax dollars at the local level? Could it really be that you would make such a major shift to strictly allow favours for private friends?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: "It can't be." I'm still hoping you will explain that this is not the Spetifore bill, that this is not a bill that is going to make true the forecast by the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson), who said that one way or another that land will be developed and that Dawn Development's application will become reality, one way or another. No pinkos, communists or anything else on any regional district anywhere is going to stand in the way of those lands being developed one day. That type of insight and information and crystal balling indicates to me that there is a plan afoot. Could it be that the minister has implicated himself in something as diabolical and undemocratic as that?

MR. KEMPF: A point of order. I would like to know if the member on his feet at this time is casting aspersions on the Speaker of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that all, hon. member?

MR. KEMPF: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Chair to inquire of the member if that's what he's doing, and, if so, bring him to order immediately.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think, hon. member, that the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre is well aware — if he is not, he certainly should be — that he was getting very close to the point where the Chair was becoming quite concerned. I don't think, hon. member, that this type of debate is really meaningful or serves any real purpose.

MR. BARNES: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Are you entering the debate yourself?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I'm not, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Well, you seem to be casting….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just like to ask you to proceed and to speak directly to the amendment that is before us.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the difficulty of your job, but you are reflecting upon the remarks that I'm making as if they had no relevance. I would like some clarification. I can appreciate that member for Omineca's annoyance, because he clearly is in support of the move to confiscate the rights of the people in this province, not only in this bill but in all other acts. As we know, the bills, upon which I will not reflect, are certainly bills that are also taking away the rights of the people in this province. This is part of the revolution of the right to change the fundamental nature of this province for private purposes. The member is offended because I am suggesting to him that the people of British Columbia did not, prior to May 5, believe that they were giving this government a mandate to go to this extent.

[5:15]

It's true that there are only 22 members in this House who try and represent this dissatisfaction on the part of the people of this province. Even with 35 members you do not have the courtesy to hear those views. You suggest that the comments are irrelevant and are not speaking to the concerns of the people of this province. But I can assure you….

MR. REID: Ever been to a public hearing out in Delta?

MR. BARNES: Have you been to one in GrandviewWoodlands, Mr. Member? Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the people in the city of Vancouver have not been in support of having a raised transit system go through one of their most valuable and oldest communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: That has nothing to do with it.

MR. BARNES: You can be sure it has everything to do with it, Mr. Member, because that's planning, that's foresight. It has to do with working on long-range plans and not something that happens overnight or that you dream up yourself.

Mr. Speaker, this is what the Planning Institute of British Columbia urges the Minister of Municipal Affairs to do. It urges the minister to withdraw the bill.

Of course, the minister would suggest that that means they support it. But, Mr. Speaker, they suggest that this proposed legislation, which would eliminate many of the planning powers of the regional district, is an ominous and a very regrettable procedure.

"The greater Vancouver and greater Victoria metropolitan regions must have a mechanism for coordinating land use, servicing and transportation decisions among the individual municipalities that make up the urban areas. B.C.'s other urban centres need the ability to coordinate development inside municipal boundaries with development in unincorporated areas on the fringes of urban areas. The rural areas of the province need a process for integrating the resource management activities of the provincial government with settlement planning.

"The institute certainly agrees that the division of land use regulations between municipal and regional government is a complex issue requiring careful consideration, particularly regarding the autonomy of

[ Page 1882 ]

local government. In principle the institute supports the concept of making decisions as locally as possible, but recognizes that some issues transcend the jurisdiction of any one local government. The institute also agrees with the minister that there are problems with the present systems of regional planning and official regional plan preparation, and that there is a need for improving provincial legislation. We are glad that there is a desire to make improvements, but we caution that the simple elimination of all coordination at the regional level will probably cause more problems then it will solve. How will neighbouring communities in metropolitan areas resolve differences on land use issues that affect areas beyond the boundaries of individual municipalities? Who will be responsible for anticipating and alleviating the impacts that actions in one part of a region will have in other parts of the region? Questions like these should be answered before all existing regional planning programs are eliminated, not after" — if you had a regional plan and the regional districts were allowed to remain.

"The planning work of regional districts does not duplicate work being done by municipalities. Planning at the regional level deals with the land use, servicing and transportation issues that cross municipal boundaries. There are many instances in which development in one municipality creates traffic in another, or a shopping centre built just outside a municipal boundary has impacts on commercial development inside the boundary. There should be a planning process at the regional level to address concerns like these without requiring every problem to be resolved at the provincial level.

"Many of the provincial government's programs implicitly recognize the need for, and the value of, regional planning. For example, the guide to the downtown revitalization program advises municipalities to '…take care not to repeat measures which have contributed to downtown deterioration, such as allowing too many shopping centres to be built in fringe areas.' This implies that a method exists for municipalities to participate in planning for areas outside municipal boundaries. As another example, the ALR system and the provincial role in the developments at Lonsdale Quay and downtown New Westminster are major contributions to the development of suburban commercial centres in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Establishing these suburban centres and providing regional rapid transit are key objectives of the GVRD's regional plan.

"The need for land use coordination at the regional level is not diminished by the fact that many municipalities have official community plans. While these municipal plans may address some current issues of regional significance, they cannot effectively provide policy in situations beyond the control of single municipalities. When existing municipal plans must be amended to respond to changing conditions and new issues, will there be an effective mechanism for coordinating the decisions of adjacent communities? What happens in the several municipalities that do not have official community plans, but nonetheless face concerns of regional significance?

"In the long run there are not likely to be any savings on public expenditures on planning if Bill 9 is implemented. Technical planning committees have been performing a valuable coordination function. Regional planning programs have created information resources that have aided land use planning and the development process. These services and the work that is necessary for resolving regional level issues will have to be transferred to the provincial or municipal governments, or else the quality of decision-making will deteriorate. Removing coordination at the regional level will cause problems in our communities that will be expensive or impossible to fix. For example, the cost to upgrade transportation and servicing systems that have become overloaded can be far greater than the cost of the forward thinking that could anticipate and prevent these problems."

In light of the time which remains, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that the amendment be amended by adding between the words "between" and "municipalities" the following: "and understanding of"

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before us is a motion which the Chair will not be able to accept for the same reason that it was not accepted at about 4:30 and for the identical reason it was not accepted at 2:36. I cite the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, page 383.

The member for Skeena on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: A problem with Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice is the multiplicity of editions, and the near impossibility of finding the page reference in the particular edition. So you were referring to the…?

MR. SPEAKER: Eighteenth edition, hon. member. If I could capsulize, a pro forma amendment such as we are dealing with is not subject to a subamendment. That's basically what we are saying, and that's basically the reason that the motion is not acceptable. That ruling, by the way, has been twice confirmed on a division of this House.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I must challenge your ruling.

[5:30]

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

[ Page 1883 ]

NAYS — 8

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

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it should be fairly clear to all of the members of the House that our friends opposite in the loyal opposition are not taking this debate seriously.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I was just about to ascertain whether the minister is on a point of order or is taking his place in debate.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm taking my place in debate, but my remarks will be very brief. They are directed at the proposition that our friends in the loyal opposition this week have not taken debate on any of the questions before this House seriously. It commenced on Monday, Mr. Speaker, if you can believe it, with the New Democratic Party debating at 9 p.m. a motion that the House do adjourn until 8:30 p.m. It carried on with six motions yesterday to adjourn debate, when the members of the opposition had adequate opportunity to debate, indicating that they were not wishing to debate the question before the House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 43, I ask the Speaker to request the minister to make his remarks relevant to the motion before the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The point raised by the second member for Vancouver Centre has validity, hon. minister. We must keep our remarks to the motion which is before us.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the point which I am making is that if the members opposite do not wish to take the debate seriously, and instead of debating the question, respond as they do by requesting adjournment of the House repeatedly, or, as they have done this evening, bringing forth amendments to debate….

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, he's demonstrating contempt for the Chair. He's completely ignored your directive. He didn't even pause in his breath.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if every member of the House would respond to the request of the Chair, then we could see a much more orderly debate take place on both sides.

I would ask that the minister continue, bearing in mind the motion that is before the House.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, if on any motion before the House it is the wish of the opposition not to debate that motion but instead to engage in frivolous debate on adjournment or bringing forward points of order and challenging the Chair when the ruling has been made — it is well known that this is the tactic of the opposition; the member who is leaving knows full well it is not the intention of the opposition to debate — the only appropriate response is to….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Closure?

HON. MR. McGEER: Precisely. I move the question be now put.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the member for Skeena, standing order 46 states, in brief, that after a question has been proposed, the question "shall be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate." The Chair has recognized that prior to that call the member for Skeena sought the floor on a point of order. I will hear a point of order, hon. members.

MR. HOWARD: It has to do, Mr. Speaker, with standing order 46 and the provision therein: "unless it shall appear to the Chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority." I want to point out that there is a reasoned amendment before the House, and I'm talking about an infringement upon the rights of the minority. There are a number of members in the minority, namely the opposition as distinct from the government, nine or ten of whom have not had an opportunity to speak on the very substantial, reasoned amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, clearly….

MR. HOWARD: I think Your Honour should opt for….

MR. SPEAKER: At this point, the member is suggesting that debate is taking place. when no debate is allowed under this particular section.

Hon. member, it is the decision of the Chair….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. hon. members. Not when the Chair is addressing a matter presently before the House.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I have not yet made a decision. I am currently engaged in addressing the matter before us.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Hon. members, the hour is late, but let us not lose sight of what is before us at this time — currently standing order 46. A member has stood in his place and asked that the question be now put. Our standing order states clearly that the question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate, unless it appears to the Chair that such a motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority. It is clearly the decision of the Chair to make that finding. Hon. members, the Chair is prepared to make a finding that the question shall be put forthwith.

[ Page 1884 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, so that we may be clear that we are in fact engaged on a proper course, I cite Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition, page 439, which says:

"A closure motion may therefore be sanctioned by the Chair either immediately upon or within a few minutes after the proposal of a question to the House. In the discharge of this duty, the discretion of the Chair is absolute and is not open to dispute."

Hon. members, the question is….

Interjections.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. There is no point of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The citation is clear, hon. members.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair will entertain a point of order, and I must clarify that at the outset — a point of order.

[5:45]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 58, "whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately before putting the question thereon, and quote the rule or authority applicable to the case."

Under standing order 46, Mr. Speaker, I'm suggesting to the Speaker that it is open to the Speaker to find that the motion put by the Minister of Universities is out of order. If Mr. Speaker finds that it is not out of order as an abuse of the rules, Mr. Speaker should have the decency to explain that to this House before putting a closure motion.

May I point out that no order of closure on a substantive motion has ever been put in this Legislature. To abruptly accept the motion from the Minister of Universities and put it to the House without explanation is a far-reaching step on the part of the Speaker of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for his point. Hon. members, I have listened to the point of order. I am calling the question that the question be put.

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 9

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I now put the question. The question on the motion is….

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order on the vote that has just been taken, Mr. Speaker, standing order 18 says that "no member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any member so interested shall be disallowed."

The very fact that the disclosure forms filed with the Clerk and filed at election time reveal that a member of this House has a direct pecuniary interest in Dawn Development, the Spetifore property and Sunmask Petroleum indicates that that is the real reason for closure. I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that up until now the chairing of the debate about this particular bill has been conducted by others.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) is the person to whom I am referring. It is significant that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam was here a few moments ago but was not here to vote now, indicating he has a direct pecuniary interest according to his declarations. That is the reason for this fascist move over here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Not public policy — special interest, favourite friends! The Premier should be ashamed of himself for associating that family name of Bennett….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair has called the member to order. The member will take his place.

On the point of order raised by the member for Skeena, reference is made to the Journals of 1951, page 110: "A motion to disallow must be made by substantive motion, which must be made as soon as division is completed. It is not a point of order."

The question is that the motion be amended by leaving out all the words following "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." You've heard the motion, hon. members, and on the motion we're ready for that question.

[ Page 1885 ]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

NAYS — 27

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

[6:00]

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), who will close debate.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I can be fairly brief. It's rather disturbing to have listened for many, many hours to the debate that took place around Bill 9. At no time did any member of the opposition make any reference to the other two portions of this bill; they kept relying on the regional plan. There was no reference at all to the fact that this bill streamlines the processes that apply to the notification of landowners within a community whenever major rezoning takes place. Nor has there been any mention of the removal of the technical planning committees, which have become redundant in the system. They are something that created an unnecessary expense, not only in dollars and cents but in the delays they put in the way of orderly development in the province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

A great deal has been said about the inexperience of this minister. If experience counts, then I'd like to reflect back on a previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Lorimer, who, I think, has a record as far as experience is concerned. When it comes to the question of light rapid transit or transit of any kind I believe we still have marks. I believe we still have lying around the province some equipment that is a real mark of an experienced Minister of Municipal Affairs.

We have heard a great deal of talk about the land in Delta; we have heard no talk whatsoever about Tilbury Island, the large piece of prime agricultural land — 700 and some odd acres — that was taken out of the agricultural land reserve and covered with a great layer of sand for a use other than food production.

MRS. WALLACE: No MLA ever made any money on that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, that was prime agricultural land, but no mention of that. Why not, Mr. Speaker? Simply because that was taken out by the socialist party.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Oh, yes. It was taken out by the socialist party, so we don't want to talk about that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What the member said is that no one cares if you take out agricultural land, as long as no one makes any money.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Right.

MRS. WALLACE: That's not what I said!

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We could cite another case where they played their silly games, and here I refer to another fairly large piece of land, the oldest, most productive farm in Matsqui. The owner wanted to take it out of the agricultural land reserve, but at the time the NDP didn't quite agree with that, so they talked him into doing something else. Although they didn't take it out of the reserve, they took it out of production, and allowed the zoning of it for residential development within the ALR. Hypocritical!

At the time that was happening, I called the so-called "Save the farmland group" headed by the NDP, and suggested to them that they come down and take a look at this beautiful land that was being cut up. The okay to go ahead and do that came from the then Minister of Agriculture, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). The most beautiful soil in this province was ripped up, roads put in, services put in and houses built on it. Today we have a residential development on the finest piece of agricultural land in this country, never mind this province. They didn't even take it out of the agricultural land reserve.

AN HON. MEMBER: They did the same thing in Salmon Arm.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, we could go on and on with many of these cases but there isn't much point to it. I would like to suggest very quickly that the municipalities within the GVRD — where almost all the complaints are coming from — stop to recognize the real problem, which is that out of 15 municipalities within the GVRD, only two have an official community plan. We know very well that whenever you put in place an official community plan you have gone through all of the ropes in order to protect those essential things that they are talking about protecting. For instance, whenever an official community plan goes in, it has to go through public hearing. It has to go through the Minister of Environment and Ministry of Transportation, and then on to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. When all of those steps are completed, we know that the overall essentials of a region are protected.

But that wasn't what they wanted. Some municipalities really wanted to be able to say: "Don't do as we do; do as we say. We don't want to lock ourselves into a plan. What we do want is to have a locked-in official regional plan that would allow us to tell another municipality that you shouldn't do that." That isn't the sort of system that built this country. We're overplanned and overregulated. The taxpayer can't afford it anymore.

I could go on, but it has been a long night. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

[ Page 1886 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the bell had rung and the doors were closed. A number of members forced the door and came into the chamber while the attendant was standing there, and I would like your ruling on whether those three members are eligible to vote.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. As you know, a point of order can only be raised during a division if it in fact refers to the division, which I believe this one did. One moment please.

With respect to the point of order raised by the Premier, the Chair did not observe that happen, and the division will occur.

MR. HOWARD: If the Premier is of the opinion that members in this House are not entitled to vote, let him identify who they are.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the member please take his place.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 7

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

[6:15]

Bill 9, Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill 26, I refer the members to the Employments Standards Amendment Act, which is intended to address certain issues which have been identified since the act was proclaimed about a year and a half ago. It's necessary, after having observed the practices of the act over that period of time, to clarify some applications of that act to ensure that employees covered by collective agreements will find that their collective agreements are paramount, and to introduce some new provisions with respect to the enforcement of the act and the procedures through which that enforcement takes place.

These amendments seek two main objectives. The first of these is to remove the bureaucracy — the director and the branch — from disputes which should more readily be pursued through the collective bargaining process; secondly, and not quite as importantly, to improve our own administrative procedures.

Under our system, the collective agreement should govern the ongoing relationship between those parties who have agreed to enter into a collective agreement. These amendments now before the House clearly recognize that relationship and ensure that we don't interfere with it. We believe that when that relationship has been agreed upon, it's up to the parties to determine the terms of their contracts and to pursue the resolution of any differences through their own dispute-resolution mechanisms, which, under the Labour Code, are plentiful in most collective agreements, and through the Labour Relations Board.

I must emphasize that workers not covered by a collective agreement are unaffected by the proposed changes. As well, collective agreements that do not address standards which are contained in the act will be deemed to contain those provisions. In other words, the act will prevail where the collective agreement does not recognize those standards.

Procedures have also been made to ensure that employees in a bargaining unit are protected by the Employment Standards Act where the agreement has expired, even though it may contain a continuation clause, and effective representation has ceased as a result of abandonment of the bargaining unit by the trade union. The applications of these provisions will not conflict with the powers and duties of the Labour Relations Board under the Labour Code.

The second major change is the wage-recovery process. We are proposing some administrative changes. The key to these is a greater use of our officers in the investigation and resolution of disputes. In unresolved disputes an industrial relations officer will now be empowered to issue an order for payment of wages owing. A person affected by an order will have the option of having the matter reviewed by the director or, on the issuance of a certificate, appeal to the county court. We hope that these amendments will speed up the process for settlement of claims and reduce the incidence of non-compliance or wilful delay so that the workers may get those payments which are owed to them in these kinds of disputes as quickly as possible. We think this will provide an efficient method of adjudicating differences in a timely matter and still provide an equitable review process.

There are a number of other minor language changes which are just housekeeping and would be better dealt with, I am sure, in the committee stage of the bill. Basically we are

[ Page 1887 ]

saying that a collective agreement that addresses the provisions which are generally contained in the Employment Standards Act should be the operating instrument, and we make it clear that it is one thing or another and that people can't choose between the best of both.

Mr. Speaker, with that I would move second reading.

MS. SANFORD: This is one of those bills that manages to remove a lot of rights from the people of this province. It is similar to many other bills that we have been dealing with and are still before us. They all add up to one thing: greater dictatorship and greater confrontation in this province. In introducing this particular piece of legislation, the minister spoke in such soft terms. He spoke as though this were a little housekeeping bill and it didn't really do very much and that some of the parts were so minor that they could be better considered in committee stage. After all, this little employment standards bill is just a bit of housekeeping legislation to improve the process and speed things up — the kind of speeding up that we have seen in many other bills.

If you centralize authority in the hands of the cabinet, you can really speed things up. Things can get done very quickly. As a matter of fact, if you eliminated the cabinet and just had one dictator in the province, then it would be even faster, because he could just issue orders.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's coming to that.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, yes, absolutely. They are trying to keep us out of the House and trying to prevent us from voting. They have prevented us from speaking by the actions they have taken.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Your members are all in bed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is reflecting on a previous vote.

MS. SANFORD: The direction in which this government is headed is quite clear. The people of the province are not going to continue to tolerate this kind of dictatorial approach. I know many of them, just four months after the election, are already asking when the next election is.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It'll be 1988.

MS. SANFORD: We heard that, Mr. Speaker. In his usual arrogant way the Premier says 1988. It doesn't matter what people are saying; it doesn't matter what the municipal officials are thinking; and it doesn't matter what this bill does to the labour management climate in this province. None of those things matter to this group. They are determined to go ahead with this kind of legislation. The public be damned is what they are saying, not only through the kind of legislation they are introducing but through the actions they are taking and the arrogance they display in the process. It is criminal! I didn't think that I would ever see this kind of action by any government in this province. I didn't think I would be here to see it.

They are a disgrace and they should be ashamed of themselves and this piece of legislation, which deliberately antagonizes a large number of people in our province who are affected by its provisions. A large number of people are going to become increasingly unhappy. We're going to have more dissatisfaction and more confrontation, and that is exactly what this government is looking for. Divide the people. Deny them their privileges. Deny them their rights. Take away all authority from local people, and put it all in the hands of that cabinet. "We'll tell everybody what to do; we know best. We'll take away their rights." That's what this bill does, Mr. Speaker. They want confrontation.

This particular piece of legislation amends the Employment Standards Act, which was brought in two or three years ago. This has some very dangerous provisions in it. This bill attacks those people who have banded together in this province in order to bargain collectively, as they have a right to in any free society. Those rights are being eroded.

AN HON. MEMBER: How?

MS. SANFORD: They are being eroded by this legislation and they're being eroded day after day by the actions of this government, which is one of the most dictatorial governments that this country has ever seen. There's no doubt about it. You should be ashamed of yourself for even sitting there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Restraint is responsibility.

MS. SANFORD: What a lot of nonsense! What's this got to do with restraint? This is straight confrontation stuff. You know it. If you know anything about labour legislation and labour management relations, which most of you don't, I might add….

AN HON. MEMBER: I know more about it than you.

MS SANFORD: The only thing you know about is confrontation. Eliminate the trade union movement, that's what you would like. You want right to work. That member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) wants right to work, and he has said that time after time. That's how much he understands about collective bargaining. Right to work is what he advocates. Is that what you advocate as well? Does that member for Vancouver South also advocate right to work? I imagine the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston), and certainly the member for Okanagan North (Mr. Campbell) would recommend right to work legislation in this province. There's no doubt about the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid). That's exactly where he is.

[6:30]

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, under standing order 431 would ask that the Chair call this member to order, because she's absolutely irrelevant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The bill is quite technical in principle, and if the member can relate her comments to the bill it will be most appreciated.

MR. HOWARD: The member for Comox was speaking to the bill and was being heckled by members opposite — particularly the member for Omineca — and in the course of being interrupted by that heckling felt it necessary to reply. The person who should have been brought to order should have been the member for Omineca who started this whole nonsense in the first place. With great respect, the Chair should not jump on the member for Comox, who is trying her

[ Page 1888 ]

best to stay on the bill and talk about the danger points in it. She's being heckled and interrupted by people who have got nothing better to do in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Comox will proceed.

MR. KEMPF: You don't deserve to be here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment. The member for Omineca will withdraw that comment. It reflects on a member's position in the House.

The member for Omineca will withdraw the last comment reflecting on a member's ability to sit in the House; the Chair finds it unparliamentary.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, if I've offended that member, I'll withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The member for Comox….

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, the Chair asked the member to withdraw; I didn't. No matter what he says, it won't offend me. It was the Chair, not I. Let the record be clear.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: It's a point of order that the Chair asked him to withdraw and he said he would withdraw if it offended me. But it's Your Honour's position that's at stake here. If Your Honour feels that the member for Omineca can disregard your rulings and reproaches, Mr. Speaker, the Chair will suffer from that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Comox continues.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm still a little confused because the member for Omineca said that if the member objects, he would withdraw. I don't consider that to be an unconditional withdrawal, and I think that if the member for Skeena did not ask for the withdrawal, he obviously didn't express any objection. So I think there is a condition there that the member for Omineca added which shouldn't have been there.

MR. KEMPF: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, and just to clarify for the edification of you, sit. It was the member for Skeena who cast the accusation at the member for Omineca, and not vice versa. But taking it from where it comes, I take no offence at that at all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the matter has been resolved, and I regret that I didn't hear any other offending remarks that might have been said.

MS. SANFORD: One of the dangers of this particular piece of legislation is that under the guise of the Employment Standards Act many of the rights that have been negotiated through the collective bargaining process, which I recognize many of the people on the opposite side do not support, are being eliminated. This is straight confrontational legislation trying to ensure that there will be labour-management conflict in this province. That government has always welcomed labour-management conflict. They thrive on it. But in this particular case provisions are being eliminated from collective agreements through this particular piece of legislation.

I will explain this to the minister. He doesn't understand. I don't believe that the minister doesn't understand what he is doing.

MRS. WALLACE: I believe it.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, no. He is feigning that he doesn't understand. He thinks that this particular piece of legislation is going to be welcomed by the entire labour movement — by all working people. I think that is what he thinks. He is trying to give that impression, but he knows the kind of confrontation and the kind of dismay that the trade union movement is going to meet so many of these provisions of this particular piece of legislation.

One of the provisions in this piece of legislation concerns contract expiry. We have lots of examples in this province where contracts expire, negotiating goes on and sometimes it is several months, a year or two years after a contract expires before another contract can be agreed upon and put into place. Where a contract that is negotiated through the trade union movement under the Labour Code, not under this bill, expires and the appropriate time has passed according to the bill — I don't know who sets the appropriate time; I assume the minister, or maybe the Premier does, I don't know — without progress towards a new agreement, then the director of the employment standards branch can order that the minimum standards of the act will apply if he is approached by "an interested party." That doesn't affect the collective agreements of the province? Before, the minister frowned when I mentioned that this might affect collective agreements as well as those people who are working in this province not covered by a collective agreement but covered under this employment standards legislation. That is a direct interference with the provisions of a collective agreement negotiated under the Labour Code which will ensure a couple of things.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, if you were an employer and you knew the provisions of the Employment Standards Amendment Act and also knew that in a previous contract the trade union had negotiated provisions concerning holiday pay, maternity leave and hours of work…. They sat down and probably bargained away an increase in salary in order to ensure that they had adequate provisions for those various parts of the contract. The contract is about to expire and negotiations are going on. What incentive is there for the employer to sit down and bargain in good faith when the employer knows that the minister can say: "the contract is now expired, and I have deemed that appropriate time has passed without progress towards a new agreement"? That employer, as an interested party — as provided for under this piece of legislation — would then say: "I am no longer going to allow the provisions of the previous contract to apply." The Employment Standards Act says that he doesn't have to. He can now go to the minimum standards that are provided for in this province under the basic employment standards legislation.

[ Page 1889 ]

So what are we going to have? We're going to have fewer contracts signed. We're going to have more acrimony out there between employers and employees. Employers are not going to sit down and bargain in good faith when they know that because of this provision in this piece of legislation they can get away with paying far less. They can get away with providing the minimum in terms of vacations, maternity leave, hours of work and overtime. If it's an employer who requires that the employees wear some sort of special apparel and this has been negotiated into a contract that the employer shall provide all of these things, once the contract has expired the employer then can go to this employment standards legislation. He can make application as an interested party and say: "I want the minimum standards of this province set up to apply to my employees," even though time after time and contract after contract the negotiations have taken place and much superior provisions have been bargained for.

The minister can't sit there and shake his head and say that the employees in this case are not being deprived of benefits that they had negotiated. These collective agreements continue to apply until a new agreement can be negotiated, but under this act those provisions will be taken away. That's a direct interference. It's a direct attack on the employees. As a result, those employees are going to have to negotiate once again anything above the minimal provisions.

Then you have the other example, Mr. Speaker, where some trade unions who have been bargaining with their employers have decided that the minimal requirements are okay. So they have left a provision in their agreement year after year that is somewhat less than that provided for under the employment standards legislation. For instance, the maternity leave benefits in some collective agreements, as they stand today, are not as adequate as those that are provided for under the employment standards legislation. So what happens is that those people are now probably going to have to bargain away some other rights or an increase in income. It may be pension benefits or something else, because they're now going to have to bargain in order to come up to the minimal standards. If there's any reference whatsoever in a collective agreement to hours of work, overtime, special apparel, annual vacations, vacation pay, termination of employment, layoff or maternity leave, then the collective agreement stands.

[6:45]

There are workers in this province who have purposely ignored some of the provisions under those sections because they were satisfied with the minimal standards, as they stand under the employment standards legislation, and have bargained instead for other things, such as improved pensions or some other aspect of their agreement. As a result of this, Mr. Speaker, the minimal standards don't even apply. If there is any reference whatsoever in a collective agreement to any of those provisions, then the collective agreement stands, even though….

Here comes the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). Is it time for closure already under this bill?

MR. HOWARD: He changed his tie now that he has invoked closure.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, he has a new tie on.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is an attack on the collective agreements that stand in the province right now. It is an attack on those who are certified under the Labour Code, even though this is employment standards legislation, which is minimal standards legislation — minimal standards for all workers in this province.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's too bad. Where have you been? Why don't you go back again? Where has he been, Mr. Speaker? He's attacking me. I think I have the right to respond to that kind of attack — just a small response.

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) is reading a paper in this legislative chamber.

MRS. WALLACE: So is the minister of technology.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I understood that people are not to read newspapers in here, and I would draw your attention to the fact that there are two ministers in this House reading newspapers — neither of them is in his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the ruling about newspapers, while it has been in effect for many, many years…. The Chair has allowed some latitude, and I would ask that if members must read newspapers, they could possibly be a little discreet in doing so. I thank the member for bringing that to my attention.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is the workers in the public service who are going to be affected even more by this particular piece of legislation than most of the other workers who are currently covered by collective agreements, because there is another bill which is before the House…. I'm not going to reflect on that bill except to say that when you read that bill, Bill 2, in conjunction with the employment standards legislation, you will recognize that the rights of the B.C. Government Employees' Union are going to be severely eroded by the fact that this bill is before us in conjunction with another bill.

You see, all of those unions under the Public Service Labour Relations Act are going to have…. Their ability to negotiate the provisions referred to above is going to be stripped by Bill 2. So the combined result of amendments under Bill 2 and Bill 26 is that these unions can have collective agreement provisions affecting hours of work, overtime, vacation, layoff, termination and maternity leave and the government can choose to ignore them, because of Bill 2. Bill 2 has not yet been brought forward for debate, but when you have the two of them together….

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: You tell 'em, Mr. Speaker.

The minimum standards of the Employment Standards Act will now not apply. It is mentioned in their collective agreement; therefore they are not going to apply. So this leaves all those unions under the Public Service Labour Relations Act in the position of having to bargain away the provisions from their agreement so that at least the minimum standards will apply. That's what's going to happen. They're going to have to bargain them away — can you imagine that? — so that at least they'll have minimum standards.

[ Page 1890 ]

But like so many of the other bills that were introduced, this Employment Standards Amendment Act really flies in the face of the basic concept of law that has been established in Canada since its inception as a country — the Attorney-General, I'm sure, will be interested in this point — and that concept is, Mr. Speaker, that legislation must reflect the rule of law, not the rule of man. I'm sure that the Attorney-General, when he want to law school, was aware of all this.

But the facts are that Bill 26 strays from the rule of law and in its place incorporates the rule of man, by way not only of the adjudicative function being vested in one person, but also because of the fact that choosing to do nothing is also within the power of the director. Instead of an Employment Standards Board, we have all of these powers put into the hands of the director, but the director doesn't have to do anything. When cases are brought before him, he doesn't have to do anything about them, which again ensures that those employees who have grievances against employers about the minimal standards that apply under this employment standards legislation may or may not have their case adjudicated, and may or may not grab the interest of the director. It's up to him to choose whether someone who feels that the provisions under the employment standards legislation have been violated…. The director may or may not take an interest. Before, when we had an Employment Standards Board, it was required that the board take an interest. It was required that the board look at the cases which were brought before it. That's no longer the case. The director may or he may not. It's up to him to choose.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

This bill really is part and parcel of the whole approach that the government has taken for years and years to labour management relations in this province. I feel very fortunate that back in 1972 we had a Minister of Labour who was prepared to do away with all of the anti-labour legislation that years and years of Socred government had brought into this province, which resulted in the most volatile labour-management relations that we have ever seen in Canada right here in this province, because of the approach taken by those Socreds year after year. That's why I'm assuming, Mr. Speaker, that most of those people who sit on the back bench today are not very supportive of the collective bargaining process. I know that a lot of them are very keen to see the whole trade union movement destroyed. They would like to see "right to work," and we have yet to find out whether or not the Minister of Labour is going to bring in right-to-work amendments to the Labour Code. We've heard a lot of talk about them.

This bill is another example of the anti-union approach that the Socreds have taken for all those years. If we did not have a Minister of Labour in 1972 who brought in under the Labour Code the most progressive labour legislation in this country, the situation today in this province would be such that we would see far more in the way of confrontation. We would see labour disputes that go on and on, and this bill attacks some of those basic provisions that were provided for under the Labour Code by the former Minister of Labour in the NDP government.

One of the things that these back-benchers are always talking about is money-saving devices. That's somewhat of a joke when you see that the province is now $14 billion in debt. Those people are the ones who are responsible for that debt, and I think you know that, Mr. Speaker. They are the ones who have mismanaged this province and when they talk about the costs…. The costs of this kind of legislation, where you invite confrontation, is horrendous.

MR. REID: Cut services, raise wages. That's your policy. Give them whatever they want. The taxpayers will pay the bill.

MS. SANFORD: It's really unfortunate that the taxpayers of this province have to pay for their bills. As a result of these lengthy sittings, they're all talking about how much it costs to run this place. At least we're saving money on the government jet, because they're not running home for supper every night.

MR. KEMPF: What have you ever added to the economy of this province? Tell me.

MR. LAUK: You've never worked a day in your life. What are you talking about! You just talk a lot.

MR. KEMPF: And you either.

MS. SANFORD: One of the problems that has occurred with respect to the Employment Standards Board stems from a decision made by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the Employment Standards Board had too much authority, that it was actually making decision which were beyond the jurisdiction of a board of that type. That's the reason the minister has decided to eliminate the board and go to the director. Unfortunately, as a result of the change in legislation here, we're going to find that the people who do have legitimate grievances under this legislation are not going to be heard in the same way.

[7:00]

Under the board they're not going to have the opportunity to have those grievances addressed as they were before, because at the same time that the minister has eliminated the board — I assume that his excuse is (a) money, and (b) the Supreme Court decision — we have a director who doesn't have to do anything. People who are already working for the very minimal provisions that the employment standards legislation provides — you know, basic things like an hourly wage…. If they feel that they are not being paid even the minimum wage in this province, then the director, if he so wishes, can say: "I'm not interested enough in that in order to take any action on it." Again, it's a reduction in services, but probably worse than that is that it is confrontational legislation which will ensure that the collective bargaining process is harmed, that we will have more disputes and more dissatisfaction among the employees of this province. That will make the Minister of Labour happy, because we know from experience that Socred governments thrive on anti-labour legislation; they thrive on confrontation in the workplace.

This is another example of what this government is trying to accomplish; pit people against each other, make them unhappy, so that we can rule in a dictatorial way without interference from the people out there who are scrambling, trying to find work, trying to obtain the services that they require, trying to get some satisfaction from the director of the employment standards branch. "We can rule. We can fly around in our jet planes. We can bring in closure in this House. We can ensure that the opposition has nothing else to

[ Page 1891 ]

say. We can ensure that they're even locked out in the corridors when it's time to vote." That's what this government is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member who was just speaking had exceeded her time by at least 30 seconds prior to her sitting down. I suggest that any remarks she made after that time not be….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The light had just come on, Mr. Member. It has been some time since the question was put to the House, so I'm prepared to put the question to the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 7

NAYS — 26

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

MR. HOWARD: I think we need to look at the….

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: I'll wait for a moment.

MR. SEGARTY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during the voting on Bill 9 that took place recently in this House, Mr. Bob Fletcher, a member of the Sergeant-at-Arms staff was pushed out of the way. I think the House owes Mr. Fletcher an apology. I would appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if you, on behalf of the House, would send an apology to Mr. Fletcher for that incident.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Clearly, hon. members, that is not a point of order.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the hon. member for Kootenay made a suggestion that was not in accord with the facts, and I wish to correct it under standing order 42.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there is no such correction under standing order 42. Secondly, the Chair ruled that that was not in fact a point of order. The matter has been disposed of. I thank the member for his attention.

MR. REID: I rise on a point of important and urgent business. I would request that the Speaker, on behalf of this House, offer an apology to Mr. Bob Fletcher for the action…. In trying to protect the honour and dignity of the House….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair has already disposed of that matter and has ruled accordingly, and the member's point clearly is not in order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On the previous point of order….

MR. SPEAKER: It was ruled not to be a point of order, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: But the record will show that two members got up in this House and made accusations; those accusations will be in Hansard. I'm in a position, from my seat here, to say that the accusations they made are totally incorrect, and that the government attempted to lock out two members of this Legislature.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the remark by the member that anyone would be deliberately locked out of this chamber is a reflection upon the Chair, and I would ask the member to withdraw it. I'm sure it was made, hon. members….

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I offended the Chair, I do withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Now, hon. members, Bill 26. The member for Skeena. Second reading.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, that's where we are.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if the member for Kootenay and the second member for Surrey feel they owe an apology to anybody on the staff, I'd suggest they go and do it themselves and not involve the House in what they've got to apologize for.

[7:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, when we have disposed — hopefully, neatly — of a matter that is brought before us on a point of order, and the Chair recognizes a member who is taking his place in debate, it, with all due respect, is not a proper time to canvass the matter that's already been disposed of. I would hope that the member continues on second reading of Bill 26.

MR. HOWARD: I will, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

[ Page 1892 ]

MR. HOWARD: I was just trying to be helpful. I was trying to assist in the proper course of conduct in this chamber.

MR. SEGARTY: Would an apology be asking too much?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Sleaze-bag.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Mackenzie must withdraw the remark that was made. Clearly, hon. member, it was grossly unparliamentary. The member must categorically withdraw the remark.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I object to that member intruding when one of our members is attempting to make his speech. But I will withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Has all of this preliminary activity cut into the normal time available under the standing orders? We'll discover that in due course, I guess.

To understand and appreciate fully what the Employment Standards Act is and what the amending bill is, it might be worthwhile to put it in some historic perspective. The government is seeking to amend an act that has a tremendous amount of history behind it, even preliminary to its coming into existence, and its predecessor legislation as well.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

Workers in all jurisdictions in the western world, in attempting to deal with their employers, have always found that it has been an uphill fight. They have always been in the position of contending against the power structure of the employer. That was true in Adam Smith's day when an employer may have had half a dozen employees or less; in fact, when companies had 15 or 20 workers they were considered to be exceptionally large employment structures. It was true then and it was true later on in history. But it's always been….

HON. MR. GARDOM: There was a bigger group of Babylonians.

MR. HOWARD: My knowledge about Babylon doesn't extend as far back as the government House Leader's does. He may have some personal connection with it, but I don't.

There was, initially, a very simple and uncomplicated struggle of workers just to be recognized as having the right to combine together and approach their employer for an alteration in their wages or hours or working conditions — their employment standards. In fact, in England at one time the Parliament passed a law saying that it was illegal for workers to combine, one with the other, to talk with their employer about their own employment standards. The penalty for engaging in that illegal activity was deportation without one's family. In many instances people were deported under the combination laws in Great Britain because they felt it necessary to combine together with their fellow workers in order to have some say in what employment standards would be or some say in simply being recognized. So union recognition was one of the first efforts that had to be made. It was a long and difficult struggle in the face of a law that said something to the contrary. On this side of the Atlantic Ocean, in the industrialization of North America, the struggle continued simply for union recognition. It was always met with the insistence by management or by the corporation that it, the corporation, had the inalienable right to run things in its plants or its operations as it saw fit, and employees were no different than the pieces of machinery that might be in a particular operation or plant. They were treated as chattels, not as human beings.

I recall the late Tom Uphill, from Fernie, who sat in this chamber with distinction for quite a number of years, telling the story of coal-mining operations in the Kootenays — in the Fernie district, in Natal and Michel and those communities — when they used horses underground in coal-mines and when employment and safety standards with respect to open flame or lights were non-existent. Often there were fires and explosions of gas in the coal-mines. If a fire did take place, the first demand on the part of the owner of the coal-mine was to save the horses — the horses, not the workers — because horses cost money and workers came free. That brief reference to history indicates what working-class people have always been faced with.

I know there's a great deal of discussion today about the marketplace being the arbiter of all conflicting demands upon the economy or activities within the economy. In the preliminary stages of establishing a standard of employment, whether it related to wages or simply recognition of that group, working-class people have always had to function in the marketplace economy at a disadvantage and unaided by any legislative support. It was only after the conditions were established, only after they had won a position, a condition or an employment standard in the marketplace that the law — some years later — came along and established a minimum position for that. The law never led the way but always came along afterwards and said: "We need to establish some minimum standards here."

What was happening and did occur was that unionized workers — through their collective commitment to increase and elevate their income levels so they could care for families, put kids through school and all of the other obligations of a family of the worker — were able to establish standards of employment and levels of wages that were probably higher than in unorganized situations. Employers found it disadvantageous that they needed to meet some minimum standards, and the government came along and said: "Okay. We'll put into effect minimum standards of wages, hours of work, the regularity with which wages will be paid, and so on." The protection was minimal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get to the bill.

MR. HOWARD: I am discussing the bill. The bill is the Employment Standards Amendment Act and it seeks to amend an act called the Employment Standards Act under which a number of the subject matters that I'm talking about are covered. I've put it into a brief, historic perspective to lead to the point that this is an inappropriate way to proceed. The bill is inappropriate in a historical context and will not be helpful, in the short or the long run, in dealing with relationships between workers and companies. I was only using these examples to indicate that.

Let me give you a couple of other examples, one from a situation that has been related to me and another from my own personal knowledge. Some years ago, before there were

[ Page 1893 ]

employment standards relating to living conditions in bunkhouses in logging operations — and that's a standard of employment, the living condition that was available — there used to exist what were called "gunshot-load bunks." They had berths for workers that — as described to me by some of the oldtimers — were probably a foot and a half to two feet in width, and about the same in height. They were stacked one on top of the other so that there were double-decker and triple-decker bunks. You didn't get into them like you get into a normal bed by sitting down on the side, taking your shoes off and sort of rolling in and pulling the sheets and the covers over. No, you loaded yourself into them like they load a cannon: you actually had to pull yourself, feet first, into this hole. No sheets or blankets were provided. There were no sanitation facilities. It was straw if you were lucky. No matter how the loggers of that day tried to effect some alteration in those living conditions, they couldn't do it; they didn't have the strength.

An early union called The Industrial Workers of the World — or the IWW — found a rather practical solution after having been frustrated year after year in trying to get management in the forestry companies in this province to do something decent in their relationships with their employees. They finally found a solution by sawing off the upper bunks, firing them outside and burning them. They got single-deck bunks in that fashion. It was kind of tough on the guys who slept in the upper bunks; they didn't have any place to sleep. But they participated in it and had to take that kind of action to struggle against a condition which wasn't very decent or respectful.

[7:30]

My personal experience relates to when I first went to Terrace. There was a small horse-logging operation 12 miles out of Terrace, owned and operated by a person who subsequently became a member of this honourable chamber. At the time he was not; he was the owner and the operator of this particular place. The horses in the logging camp were stabled, maintained, kept and fed — all the things that horses do — on the uphill side of the bunkhouse, so that if it rained, as it did from time to time, any liquid waste material or liquid-leached material flowed down the hill into the bunkhouse. Sanitation was nil, there was no running water, and there were laws on the statute books of this province at that time forbidding that type of activity. It took us literally months to get an inspector to come up from Victoria to look at that accommodation. The law says sheets shall be provided — as it probably says now — and changed every two weeks, or whatever it was; I've forgotten. I think the chap was chief inspector of the health branch at that time, 1951-52. There was nobody locally to look at that situation, and it took months to get somebody from the Health ministry or the labour department — I forget which it was — to go up there from Victoria and condemn the whole thing, which had been in operation, contrary to the law, for years and years and years.

That is what we need to look at in examining just what is sought to be accomplished by this particular bill. The law has always lagged behind the establishment of wages, hours, working conditions, living conditions, obtained by way of struggle within the marketplace of the work force vis-à-vis the employer. In good or reasonably good economic times — and this is fundamental to what this bill seeks to do — the obtaining of benefits, increments, fringe benefits, wages, better working conditions, better living conditions, becomes easier for the worker because there is an expanding economy, and money is more freely available. When economic times are bad, it not only becomes more difficult across the board; in many situations it becomes impossible not only to attain alterations of a more beneficial nature, but even to preserve and protect what little gains might have been made. In bad economic times, the employer, the corporation, has an extraordinary domination over the economy and over the workforce, more so than is the case when times are relatively good or good.

It is in bad economic times that the working force needs the protection, not in good times. They are able to attain it then in the marketplace, if you follow the marketplace philosophy. But when times are difficult and tough and bad, the employer has that overly dominant power to effect change that is beneficial to the employer, and not beneficial to his employees. That is when he needs the protection.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I am sure the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) will have ample opportunity to put a different argument or a supportive argument, or to cover something that I may miss. I would be delighted to listen to the minister if he wants to do that. The difficulty — and I say it politely — is that we have rules against interrupting speakers, but we honour that more in the breach than in the observance, because sometimes it is most helpful. But it is difficult to have a discussion, one member with the other, in the chamber during debate. That is what makes it a bit awkward. I am delighted to talk about subjects that the minister feels should be discussed, if the Chair would turn a blind eye to the conversation. I am sure we are not going to get into a confronting argument about it.

When times are economically more difficult, that's when the worker needs the protection. I submit that this bill runs contrary to that requirement. How? There is a provision in the bill…. This is not a legislative euphemism or gentle declaration, because it's not proposed to be law. Was a provision in the explanatory notes. We know the explanatory notes don't become law; they're supposed to explain what the section of the bill is all about. I refer to section 2, and this is a delightful way of phrasing the approach to cutting standards below the minimum:

"Section 2: Allows collective agreements to make provision for various matters" — I take that to mean various matters within the act — "without conflict with the act."

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: No, they don't break the law. It permits a collective agreement to establish…. As I understand it, if a collective agreement is silent on the subject matters, then the act prevails.

Interjection.

[Mr. Reynolds in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD: It may not be in the section I'm talking about, but I talked about the explanatory note, which allows collective agreements to make provisions for various matters without conflict with the act. That is saying you can do

[ Page 1894 ]

something other than is stated in the act, without conflicting with it.

One of the implications is that a collective agreement can allow for matters, but they've got to conform to the act. I just used that as an example to point out that if a collective agreement….

The minister is shaking is head. Is he saying that the interpretation that I understand can be placed upon this…? We're running into a little difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in that we may lead ourselves into discussing detailed parts of the bill, and we may run afoul of the Chair in doing that. I don't want to do that.

My interpretation of what exists here is that if a collective agreement is silent about subject matters covered in the Employment Standards Act, as it stands or particularly as it's proposed to be amended, then the provisions of the act prevail. But it permits a collective agreement to establish standards and conditions that are less than what is in the act.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The minister says no, and shakes his head. I'll take the no to mean that my interpretation is incorrect; but I would then point out that if in fact the intention is to do what the minister says, and my interpretation is inaccurate, then the draftsmanship is very poor.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: To advise the minister, I read the explanatory notes, Mr. Speaker, to be in order. I know that upon second reading, if I get into the detailed words in the bill I'm liable to run afoul with somebody saying: "Point of order, don't do that." So I used the explanatory notes and found a euphemistic phrase to cover something which is not so. But if it is in fact so….

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: If what the minister says is so, and I am wrong in my interpretation, then I submit that the draftsmanship is very poor. And I'm not the only person who has come to that conclusion about it.

I'm like the Minister of Labour. We had a discussion in this House a few years ago about that $10 million goof on the heroin treatment program. The minister said in the House: "Well, if I'm wrong and it doesn't work, I hope I have the courage to admit that I'm wrong." To my knowledge, he hasn't yet done that. I haven't heard; but maybe he has.

If I'm wrong, I'll have the courage to admit that I'm wrong. It doesn't mean, because my interpretation may differ from the minister's, or may be inaccurate, that you can conclude there is endorsement for the whole package. I think that's extending it a little further than it should be.

Let's have a look at some of the thoughts that have been expressed. I take the minister to say that the minimum standards will apply and no collective agreement can be negotiated for less than what the act states. Put on the other side, many collective agreements now contain provisions that offer benefits greater than what the act provides for. I'll take the minister as saying that you can't go below the minimum.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I will take my interpretation as correct. I may have another look at it at a more leisurely time than now.

Given what the minister said may be the correct stance that the minimum provisions of the Employment Standards Act will prevail — there might be collective agreements that contain provisions more beneficial than what the act says. When times are difficult economically, as I said earlier, the employer is in a more powerful position. He is in a powerful position in any event, depending on the size of the corporation and the like, but in bad economic times he finds himself in a more dominant position. If an employer — and I've known some employers to do this; I've known some unions to do it as well in collective bargaining; I'm cutting both sides on this one — finds it to his advantage in tough economic times to take a hard line on negotiations, he could very easily push the collectively bargained provisions down to the minimum level. "But," you are going to say, "that's mutually agreed to." Altering the bill in the way that it has been just makes it that much more difficult to maintain whatever those standards might be. Collective bargaining is not an easy task, and it isn't a simple task in which employers and unions just sit down and come to an agreement upon something. It often takes weeks and weeks and months and months to make sawoffs, to accept one thing as a trade-off for something else. I submit that because the law has always lagged in practice, it puts the workers in a more difficult position.

[7:45]

Another concern that exists in my mind relates to, as I understand it, a provision about the expiration of a collective agreement. If it isn't renewed or replaced by another agreement or a successor collective agreement, if a certain period of time lapses, the director, as I understand it — who will replace the board if this bill goes through — may declare that it is no longer appropriate for the provisions of the collective agreement to continue in force, if whoever this unknown interested party might be makes an application for that to occur.

Again we come back to the situation of tough economic times. Unions engage in this, companies engage in it, companies that bargain through organized groups for more than one company engage in it from time to time: namely, delaying tactics for whatever suits their purpose. Unions engage in it if they feel it is convenient to their purpose. Collective bargaining as such, in good faith, is often pushed to one side. For some time in North America labour law has been attracted to moving toward that delaying approach. They say: "Let's not move here…."

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, I know, I'm getting into something that we may get into in a later bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Frank, that's why you wanted to have the employment standards available.

MR. HOWARD: I know, but I'm telling you something about a provision of this bill here. If an employer can delay sufficiently with respect to a collective agreement, and the employees, through a union, don't have, in common terms, the muscle to be able to move toward getting a succeeding collective agreement — they are not able to do that; the employer is the dominant force — the employer can go to the

[ Page 1895 ]

director and say, without saying it: "Look, I've delayed long enough. We don't have a collective agreement. I want you to declare it null and void, or that it is no longer appropriate for the provisions to continue to exist or bind the employer or the employee." It puts the employer in a dominant position again.

The minister shakes his head. It does. The words are there. We'll get to the point of having an explanation from the minister. This is the second time of having an explanation from the minister which says: "No, that's not the intent." If that is so, it is very poor draftsmanship of a piece of legislation.

Let me try to paraphrase what it says. When a period for which a collective agreement is expressed to be made expires, and the collective agreement is not renewed or replaced by a succeeding collective agreement, but the employees who were covered by the collective agreement that seems to have expired or would have expired continue in their employment — they are still working; the company still exists — an interested person may apply to the director for a declaration that it is no longer appropriate for the provisions of the collective agreement to continue to subsist or bind the employer or employees. The director can then move to do something about it. That seems to me to be fairly clear. If an employer wants to exert delaying tactics and the employees are in a weak position, either as a collective group or because of the economy, and are not able to effect a renewal of the collective agreement, not because they don't want to but because the dominance is on the side of the employer, then an interested party — whoever that might be; it could very well be the employer — can apply and say: "The collective agreement that did exist is null and void. It doesn't bind anybody any longer. It has expired." It provides the opportunity to move outside of the collective bargaining structure and works to the disadvantage of employees.

I think that's a wrong move. It's going in the wrong direction. It gets back to the time that I talked about earlier. When the economy is on the upward side and moving along, then the opportunity and the possibility of signing and renewing collective agreements increases and it's favourable. When economics are down the opportunity and the possibility of signing and renewing collective agreements fades off. But that is the time when people need the type of protection to ensure standards of some nature; otherwise the dominant force of the employer will wipe out those standards and benefits that might have been attained under a collective agreement under a different set of economic circumstances. As I say, that's the wrong move.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I know that the Minister of Labour is able to substantiate and argue almost any point of view, to make it sound plausible. But it would be very difficult to run contrary to what the provisions in the act are. I maintain that if employers take a hard line on standards that may be established above those contained in the Employment Standards Act and want to reduce them to the level of the Employment Standards Act, they can continue to delay and delay, and always in the background have the possibility of saying: "If you don't sign the collective agreement for these lower standards, then we're going to get to the point where I, the employer, can go to the director and wipe the whole thing out." That's entirely possible. Many people who have had any experience at all, even of a limited nature, in collective bargaining at whatever level — direct negotiations, conciliation or the whole process — know that those kinds of forces are at work.

Collective bargaining, unfortunately, is a confrontation stance. The only weapon available to the employer in the ultimate sense — given other outside forces that he may not have control over — is a lockout. The final weapon available to an employee or group of employees is a strike if there's lack of mutual satisfaction with what's happening. That's the confrontation aspect of things. That's why we need to move very clearly in a different direction in terms of collective bargaining. I've argued that point for longer than the minister has been involved in politics. I argued the point when I was in the trade union movement, when I was an officer of it — that we needed those alterations. It's the process and the technique of getting to those alterations that's important — not one-sided but cooperatively.

Pursuant to standing order 55, it’s appropriate for me at this time to move to proceed to another order of business, namely Motion 32 standing in my name on the order paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I suggest to the hon. member that the government House Leader is the one who calls business.

MR. HOWARD: Thank you for your suggestion, Mr. Speaker. Under other standing orders the government does have the right to call government orders in whatever way it sees fit. When the government has precedence, government orders may be called in such sequence as it sees fit, etc. I'm not talking about a government order; I'm talking about a notice of motion standing in my name as a private member on the order paper. It is not the government's business. Therefore my motion is to proceed to deal with Motion 32.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would suggest to the member that he is out of order. It is still up to the government House Leader to set down the business of the House.

MR. HOWARD: I need, then, to challenge that decision.

[8:00]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 12

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

[ Page 1896 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, for almost a decade British Columbians have enjoyed one of the best employment standards acts to cover people who are not part of a collective bargaining agreement.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm talking about how this has affected workers and the legislation that we've had in this province.

These changes to the Employment Standards Act not only affect the unorganized worker but they are a threat to the very nature of collective bargaining. Section 2 sets forth new powers which would, in effect, bring to collective bargaining a means whereby one side is enjoined not to bargain in good faith: to apply every means of delay and then to fail to come to any agreement beyond the expiry of the collective agreement, and then to apply, as an interested party, to set aside all special standards that might pertain to the collective agreement, so that, in effect, minimum standards would then apply.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This is part of the government's plan. We saw part of it revealed during the election. I suppose it is their plan to turn this country — not just this province; they say that this is their plan for the country…. I think the Premier has said, "Today British Columbia, tomorrow Canada, the next day the world," in one of his more lavish flights of fancy.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mars in 1990.

MR. NICOLSON: Maybe you people should get in touch with your Premier and get him a little bit of counselling, but he has been getting….

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Get in touch with Mars? You're the only one who's ever been in touch with Mars.

MR. NICOLSON: Maybe he is in touch with Mars. If your Premier is going around telling you folks that he is talking with Martians, I would suggest it is time that he got some counselling. That is one of the dangerous signs. I think that in Mental Health 307 that is one of the nine enumerated danger signals. When people are in positions of power and they start saying that they speak to Martians, that is quite a red flag.

I suppose the first strike that affected me in a way in which I could come to some grips with it was the Vancouver Province strike. I was probably about 7 or 10 years old. I remember the very long strike, and that the newspaper was not coming to our home. We were faithful readers of the Vancouver Province at that time, in our household. We didn't subscribe to the Sun; we did without a newspaper. I remember going by and watching the picketers outside the old Province building at Hastings and Cambie. That strike went on for years and years, and it was a test case. The company then brought in a scab group, a scab union which over the years was absorbed back into the good graces of the labour movement. Prolonged, bitter struggles are not unheard of, and through this bill there would be an incentive for employers to create more of these long and bitter struggles, because if they did, so they could then suspend the terms of their collective agreement and, in effect, place their employees under minimum wage, under the hours of work, under the overtime provisions and all of the other minimal provisions set forth by the Employment Standards Act.

This act is a very retrograde step brought forth in a climate….

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, is it Bill 26 that we are…?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe so.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I have been trying to relate what the bill says and what the member says, and there is absolutely no relationship whatsoever. Could you please direct the member to speak to the principle of the bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. All hon. members are reminded that it is incumbent upon them to relate their remarks to the principle of the bill, and I am sure the hon. member for Nelson-Creston can do that.

MR. NICOLSON: I suppose if one wants me to start reading out sections of the bill and getting into the type of debate that would be more appropriate in committee stage, I could perhaps give some….

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: While professionally I am a teacher, I don't think I would be doing a service trying to teach the Minister of Forests the subject of law. My area of competence is physics and mathematics, certainly not law.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Minister of Labour, a few of your senior bureaucrats managed to pass through my classroom without any permanent ill effects.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I wouldn't want you people to become paranoid, any more than you may already be.

If the Minister of Forests is concerned about where the principle of the bill lies, I would suggest a very careful reading and rereading of section 2. It states that parts of the act do not apply where a collective agreement is in effect.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: If you want me to talk about physics, with leave of the House, I would love to do that. I haven't had the opportunity to do that for a few weeks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests will come to order.

MR. NICOLSON: Parts of the act won't apply where a collective agreement is in effect, and the director of employment standards can declare a collective agreement void and apply the minimum standards if he is approached by an interested party to do so after a contract is expired and an appropriate time has passed without progress toward a new

[ Page 1897 ]

agreement. It is a kind of closure that is brought in. The effect of this, I think, is tied in with the draft legislation that became public during the election relating to, supposedly, high technology. I think that the aim of this piece of legislation is to create a labour market in British Columbia like that which exists in Malaysia, El Salvador and Korea — although you'd almost have to exclude Korea, because I would imagine that some of their standards are a little higher than this.

[8:15]

The effect is to create this absolute competitive market. And for what purpose? This is bringing in — in a slightly different guise, probably after some review and so on — the kinds of conditions which exist in those other countries, so that we will presumably be able to put a lot of unskilled workers to work assembling computer chips and such, with very little training; the sort of thing that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has been trying to promote in this province. That kind of work is disappearing, even in countries like Malaysia and El Salvador and other countries where this industry did get a boost because of its lack of employment standards. This type of industry is being supplanted by the very high technology that it is part of. Now when a new computer chip is designed, the process is so automated that even all the technologists are eliminated, and maybe one very low-paid worker operates a machine which does the work which two or three years ago was done by thousands of people.

This is the reason that we're bringing in provisions which will allow the director of the Employment Standards Board to set aside and declare void the standards of a collective agreement, and then apply the minimum standards set forth in the Employment Standards Act. If that is the reason that we're bringing in this type of legislation, then there is no purpose for this legislation, because that kind of employment is already a thing of the past. Even in the eastern United States, where companies like Texas Instruments have been increasing their sales exponentially for quite a few years, they haven't increased their employment. If what we're doing here is creating the so-called climate that the Premier went around the province talking about in the last three elections — and he said many times that we have to create the right climate for industry to come into this province — this is not going to do it. This is going to be a very retrograde step and is almost an admission of failure. What this country is saying is that to create jobs we have to become a deindustrialized nation.

This piece of legislation is saying that we have failed in British Columbia to bring in secondary and tertiary industry, and now we must turn back the clock and put ourselves in the same state that these agricultural and Third World countries were before some of the high-tech industry was brought into their area, and that this is the way to do it. By this we will create the means to destroy all organized labour in the province. If that is what the government is intending to do, then I guess many members of the government are going to support the principle of this bill. It is equally predictable that members of the opposition are going to vote against the bill.

Parts 5, 6 and 7 of section 2 are even more dangerous to union members. If an employer qualifies as an interested party, it would be in his interest to stall collective bargaining until an appropriate time has passed. There is an incentive here to stall and procrastinate and create a very disruptive labour climate in British Columbia.

I don't think that it would be very much in the interests of peace, order and good government in this province to bring in such inflammatory legislation and to allow it to stand. In my opinion this piece of legislation is much more threatening than the old Labour Commission Act, which was called Bill 33, and which created such a furore in, I think 1968. This bill is going to set aside so many of the standards, so that hours of work, overtime regulations or benefits, in terms of the supplying of special apparel…. Look at annual vacation and vacation pay provisions. which are covered in collective agreements. These provisions can be set aside things that have been earned.

Just the other day I had a letter from a civil servant. He was asking, and pointing out….

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh. sure. table it, yes. You guys will have your little ferrets go out and probably summarily dismiss the poor chap. You'll create a job description to which only he applies, and rule his position redundant.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm responsible for what I say in this House, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, this provincial government employee wrote to me, pointing out that under the terms of the collective agreement — I think it was part 16, but I wouldn't swear to that — he had accumulated sick leave, which he can take as part of his early retirement; he would qualify for about five and one-half months. He wanted some assistance in making a decision. But I think, really, that only he himself could make that decision. He wanted to know what would happen if the collective agreement expired. In other words, should he apply for early retirement right now or wait a little bit longer, perhaps jeopardizing some of the terms and conditions of the collective agreement in terms of accumulated sick pay and how it would apply towards his pension? It would make a tremendous difference in future years.

Normally the answer would have been yes, you should not let this thing affect your particular…. In his case, I would say it would have been a very clear-cut decision before Bill 26, but now, if the employer…. Since the employer in this case is the provincial government…. The employer seems to be in a very exuberant mood; the employer might very well….

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I find the behaviour of the former Attorney-General, the House Leader, the now somewhat impotent political member — I'm not speaking in any sort of sexual sense. Just in terms of power in the cabinet benches — rather annoying.

This gentleman would not have had a very serious question to deal with were it not for Bill 26. Now the employer, the provincial government, could delay. It's very likely that the employer will delay. In fact, in the past the employer has delayed and left certain levels of management, I think, without a collective bargaining agreement for something like one and a half years. They could apply to set aside the terms in the collective agreement and have the minimum standards apply. Then if this person were to elect to take early retirement, he would be told: "Had you done this two or three days ago, before application was made to the employment standards

[ Page 1898 ]

branch…. But by doing so you have lost entitlement to this five and one-half months."

This type of thing, I feel, in this piece of legislation is very regrettable. This piece of legislation has gone so far back in time. It will create not labour harmony. This is a tipping of the balance back towards the employers. For years and years — in fact, for almost all of history — the balance has been in favour of employers. Certainly when there was no legal right to strike, the balance was in favour of employers. When there was no right to wrongful dismissal, the balance was in favour of employers. Then in time, in spite of those illegal acts, society came to recognize that labour does have some rights — that we are all part of society. In 1972, when Bill King became Minister of Labour, there were pressures on him to bring in anti-employer legislation. He stood very fast and said he would not replace anti-labour legislation with anti-employer legislation, that we must create a balance. We must create a climate in which true collective bargaining can function and in which — ironically, perhaps, to some, but not to me — the free enterprise system can truly function. We have to create that kind of climate. This province was praised and this government even took credit for the network of labour legislation that we had in this province. People covered by employment standards, people not necessarily part of collective agreements, have also enjoyed some rights in this province.

One of the matters that probably comes to an MLA's attention more often than anything else is the non-payment of wages. I know that there have been some difficulties. There have been some court decisions in which the courts have ruled that some decisions on collection of unpaid wages were in effect usurping the powers of the courts. I think that what one has to do about that is not eliminate the board but go about creating the kind of law which we all know is justified. Who should have the first claim on the wealth that remains after a company goes into bankruptcy? Should it be the banks? Should it be the people who, by their labour, were creating that wealth and were unpaid for anything that they did? Or should there at least be some sharing of that? With this piece of legislation government just now wrings its hands because of a judgment in February of this year. We no longer have the provision for an appeal of the decision of the director directly to the courts. This piece of legislation has brought about great disappointment.

[8:30]

It has been said that this bill was just brought in last year. I believe that it was August 1980 when it was first introduced. Ironically, it appears from this that the member for Nelson-Creston had just taken his seat and under the Employment Standards Act the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) rose and said:

Mr. Speaker, I have a few short remarks on second reading of Bill 36, entitled the Employment Standards Act. The purpose of the act was to improve some standards and was obviously to make additional standards as well. There are also new provisions with respect to procedure and enforcement.

Probably one of the main features of the act was to incorporate within one statute a number of standards which had previously been incorporated in ten other statutes. Since the introduction of the bill it certainly has been interesting to hear from the public, which in many cases was never really aware of some of the laws which had been on the books for 5, 10, 15, and, in one case up to 34 years. The public was wondering whether this was something new; it wasn't. The additional standards that I think we should take note of involve termination of employment and notice, or payment in lieu of notice. The standards are not pace-setting.

They are minimum and, in my view, will be accepted by most.

Where does that place the standards today, Mr. Speaker? If what was introduced back in August 1980 was not pacesetting, with this bill we are going to be trailing the rest of the nation in just about every area of legislation that's meant to protect people's rights.

It should be noted that 145 out of 146 decisions handed down by the board in 1981 were related to the payment of back wages owed, and 162 of 175 decisions during the first nine months of 1982 were related to back wages. This piece of legislation is really ripping the guts out of any protection people might have enjoyed in this province. It is spreading these minimal standards…. The non-pace-setting minimal standards that are left will be very quickly applied to people who are part of collective bargaining agreements.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

I see that three of the cabinet benchers are maybe reading the legislation for the first time. I don't know who prepared this legislation, whether it was the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), but it would appear that this piece of legislation is going to do through the back door what that other leaked piece of legislation sought to do by other means. Supposedly it was to pave the way for the high-technology industry in the province. Since the other draft legislation is not a bill, I can refer to it. One thing that can be said for that, as opposed to this, is that the draft legislation only proposed the destruction of collective bargaining in one sector of the economy: that is, industries that were deemed to be high-technology. I suppose it wouldn't apply to the canning industry, which has been around this province since the turn of the century. One could go through a list of industries that have been around for quite some time that possibly wouldn't be called high-technology. Through this legislation maybe we're going to accomplish the same thing by exempting not just one part of the industry from standards; we're going to wreck the whole thing.

This kind of legislation is to be expected, because of the appointment of the present person who occupies the position of Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland). I won't get into a personal attack; in fact, I might even praise some of the minister's attributes. Certainly the present minister is a guy who can stick in here, in this House. He's always been able to handle himself whether he was in opposition or in government. But some of the qualities of that minister that might recommend him to other portfolios would be the very same qualities, I would think, that would make him unsuitable for this particular job.

Certainly that was the opinion of many of the labour leaders. I don't think that's been the case with every appointment made by the Social Credit Party to the position of Minister of Labour; in fact, I believe that some Ministers of Labour under Social Credit, such as Allan Williams, found some favour. Others, after a period of time, have earned some grudging admiration privately if not publicly. But the appointment of the current minister was seen as a clear sign that we're going to be in for a very tough time in this province. When I say "we" I mean that everybody in the private and public sector — employers and employees — is going to be in for a rough time, because this is the type of minister who gets a few ideas in his head and then pursues them. He's not famous for a second took and not famous for consultation.

[ Page 1899 ]

I suppose if the minister had been appointed to do certain tasks such as the challenge I had in the early seventies of trying to address the housing crisis, he probably would have done a good job. He would have pushed ahead with a singleminded purpose. But that is not the kind of attitude that is required and commensurate with this job.

This bill creates a set of standards that are not pacesetting. Now where a collective agreement has not been settled, this kind of legislation can be applied.

The other principle in this bill is that it's very arbitrary. This bill talks in terms of "an interested party." It hasn't defined "interested party." I suppose it might be defined by regulations eventually. But who is an interested party? Is this anybody? Suppose B.C. Tel was on strike. That's maybe not a good hypothetical case, because they don't even come under provincial legislation; they're under a federal charter and under a federal labour law. Supposing that they were under provincial law. What would we do if they were on strike? Who would the interested party be? Would it be you or I, simply as customers of B.C. Tel? We would certainly be an interested party. Most likely, most logically, it would be the employer. If that's what is intended by this, then why don't they say "the employer"? If the employer or the union apply, then the minimum standards could apply, Mr. Speaker. Why don't they spell that out? Who is this interested party? This is bad legislation because it is very loose in the language and very open to interpretation.

What is an appropriate time? Is an appropriate time a day, a week, months, or — in the case of the Vancouver Province strike — years? What is an appropriate time in this particular scheme of things?

Mr. Speaker, I can't imagine that we would have seen this kind of legislation brought in. This piece of legislation, I suppose, has been lost on a lot of people in terms of its importance. It is submerged among many, many other pieces. This is a very, very dangerous piece of legislation. To the economy of this province this might be the most threatening piece of legislation that is on these books. It might surpass any of the others that are on the order paper.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would move the House do now adjourn.

[8:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

NAYS — 28

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

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that every time I stand up and try to bring to this House the facts and the truth, I get a very high reaction from that crowd next door.

This bill commits theft from the workers of this province, more so than many people realize. When you go through the small print, when you go through the terminology, the….

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was just checking the bill, and the print is all the same size.

MR. COCKE: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I charge that the minister is being mischievous.

MR. SPEAKER: There is every possibility, hon. member.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, in my few years in the workforce of this province, I guess I have worked in as many different occupations over those years as nearly anyone in the House — nearly anyone who has worked. Some of us have worked in our younger days in companies that were struggling along. The employer may have had an excellent record as a tradesman, but when it came to business administration, running a business operation and keeping books…. Let's face it, the majority of companies go broke not from poor management but from poor bookkeeping. So many of the business employers in this province have grown up living on the cash flow and not on the cash investment or the trust funds that they are holding.

There are a lot of companies in the construction industry which have never realized that they are living on the trust funds that they are holding in the name of the employees. Let's face it, Mr. Speaker — and I think you are aware of the section in this bill that says that you can only collect wages or benefits from the previous six months…. I have seen it happen so many times that a company starts up and they hire a group of workers in construction or any type of service. People plan their holidays for the following summer, or the following fall when the hunting season is open, and they depend on the knowledge that the employer is putting away the 4 percent or the 6 percent of his income — in most cases it is the minimum 4 percent. They are putting it away to provide them the holiday pay or the severance pay. Because of mismanagement and the company not understanding that the cash flow is not the profits of that particular company, they fritter away that money and when the employee goes to collect either his severance pay or his holiday pay, the company has gone broke.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

The trouble with the majority of the employees of this province is that they are very trusting. They have faith in those they work for. They have faith in the boss, and if they are not protected by an iron-clad union agreement, they have the opportunity of losing their investment. If one of those employees walked into the boss's office and stole $10 out of a kitty box, he would be charged with a criminal offence.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What is a kitty box? I've got one of those beside my fridge.

[ Page 1900 ]

MR. MITCHELL: I think that's very unhealthy. I would never brag that I have a kitty box there.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, it's very healthy. My cat thinks it's great.

MR. MITCHELL: If you are referring to the kitty box I think you are referring to, I wouldn't have it beside my fridge.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't keep money in my kitty box either.

MR. MITCHELL: All right. The kitty fund.

But if an employee walks in to the boss's office and steals $5 or $10 out of the desk, he is charged with theft. But under this bill, if the employer fritters away or fails to make provisions for the employees' holiday pay or severance pay, he could declare bankruptcy and he doesn't have to pay it. He is not treated with the same standard for stealing money. It is kind of hidden away under some rights that employers seem to have more of than the average Canadian worker in this province.

If we are going to — and I say this very seriously — develop a worker climate in this province that is going to provide the benefits of the strongest and the most militant, and those benefits are going to be shared equally with all those who are part of the workforce, then we must have the type of legislation that is going to guarantee those rights to all the workers in this province. When you have the type of legislation that you are encouraging by passing this type of destruction of minimum standards, you are going to develop the hate and the confrontation that we as mature people should be discouraging.

We can't afford the pleasure that certain people in the business community seem to get from attacking the trade union movement or the working people who have tried to upgrade their standards, to upgrade their expectations and to upgrade the rights that they want to provide for their families, like being able to go on a holiday and knowing that the boss has the money that they have earned so they can have it on demand. It's money that you have earned as an employee. Holiday pay and severance pay is money that is yours. It should be held in trust and it should be protected with all the laws of the province. We should not build in loopholes where that money can be stolen from anybody under the guise that the company has gone bankrupt, certain bank action has been taken, or certain companies have gone into receivership. As I said earlier on, Mr. Speaker, the majority of the companies go into bankruptcy and receivership, in many cases, as a result of poor management and poor bookkeeping. They really don't understand the business they're into, and they have never really had the training on how to get out of a problem before they get into it.

There's another section of this bill that I think has great danger of causing nothing but confrontation and disruption of the laws dealing with services that are provided by those who are in occupations commonly known as essential services. Under the essential services legislation the employees cannot go out on strike. As one who has worked in one of those particular…. If you're classed as an essential service — police and fire — the government can outlaw strikes. It's written in….

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You can go out on strike, and you know it.

[9:00]

MR. MITCHELL: You can go out, but then you're going to be ordered back. What happens? I say this very knowledgeably, because I have worked in that particular industry. I have attempted over months and months of negotiation with an employer to try to come to a just settlement. If you go back prior to 1972, even before the Mediation Act, if the employee….

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Speaker to bring that member to order and ask him to be relevant to this bill. There is no mention in this bill anywhere of essential services, and I challenge that member to find it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to restrict his remarks to the subject matter of the bill before the House.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Labour, for years and years I dealt with these bleeding heart defence lawyers who were trying to confuse the issue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, now I know you're rambling far too far from the principle.

MR. MITCHELL: I am not rambling too far from the principle. What we are talking about is that if there is no settlement of a collective agreement within a period of — I believe it says an appropriate time; I'm not sure of the wording…. If no agreement is reached, then we go back to the minimum standards. If there is no settlement, and if a concerned person 0133.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: And you used to bargain for your union?

MR. MITCHELL: I'm telling you that under this new amendment, if we have not arrived at a settlement, a concerned person can apply that the minimum standards of the provincial wages will prevail. That's what they are proposing. We have seen that in essential services. The negotiations are dragged on and on. The Saanich police have just completed negotiations that dragged on for two years.

Under this proposed amendment, at any time after the agreement has run out, the concerned party can apply the minimum standards, and we go back to the minimum wages of the province, if they are lower, as in many cases, than the negotiated wages. What I am saying is that this type of confrontation, conditions that go back to the minimum…. This is the great danger of this type of legislation: this attitude of a government that all those who are out in the workforce belong to a militant, hard-nosed, organized trade union movement. But out in the workforce — I know in my riding particularly — we have so many employees who are working for small companies, in industries with no guarantees of a contract, where their wages are based on something less than the wages of workers in a trade union.

When the wages are cut for those in an organized trade union, because they can't come to an agreement, they can't go out and strike…. Their wages and conditions are cut,

[ Page 1901 ]

and then the government or the employer doesn't have to maintain the wage. What happens in the workforce is discontent, lack of interest and discouragement, and the production of that job goes down, and everyone loses. Everyone, because an employer — and I think this is important to realize — must have a happy, secure, competent workforce to be able to produce the product that he needs to survive and to make a profit.

When you go out with an attitude that we are going to destroy certain sections or certain conditions within a workforce, you are not hurting CUPE, you are not hurting the large, militant unions; you are hurting the majority of the people who must work. I know it is nice to say that everyone loves to go to work and loves to see that the company is prospering, but in actual fact this whole world is based on a very greedy attitude. We first look at making sure that we are secure, and this is normal; this is natural. When you start to erode conditions within the workforce. you are doing damage not only to that particular individual, that particular company or that particular union; you are doing damage to our economy. Our economy must be built strongly. It must be a happy economy, and it must be an economy based on a workforce — a citizenship — that each one of us are prepared to share in.

I find it shocking that the history of the trade union movement that developed over many years — not because it was ever handed to anybody, but it was fought for…. It was earned over many hours of bargaining, many hours of negotiation and many hours of give and take. If you go back into the history of the trade union movement, originally we all worked…. Those who worked for a living had an employer. Some employers were good and some were bad, but eventually over those years the bad employers developed the strongest union in opposition, because people who were being put down and being denied services then joined together to be more militant and to be more cooperative together as a group.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, a militant union must have the cooperation of all those who are members of that company. There is no way that you can develop a militant union without the cooperation of all the membership. Really, what happened was that the worst employers developed and built up the most militant unions in opposition. That is the history, if you go through the lumber workers, the conditions of those who worked in lumber, in the forests and in the mines; the conditions that those employees lived under and worked under; the death and the injuries that they received because of unsafe working conditions. They built, because of the actions of the employer, the most militant trade unionists. Good employers, who looked after their employees and provided them with benefits — sick leave, turkeys at Christmas — built up a very friendly relationship with their employees. They never had the hard-nosed militancy of a trade union. These are the facts about labour negotiations and conditions.

To support the unorganized group, labour standards have been built up over the years to provide a minimum standard. It was interesting that the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) brought in new labour standards legislation, which I, as an MLA dealing with constituency problems, have found to be very supportive. This was one of the programs that the Social Credit government campaigned on before the last election — the legislation brought in on labour standards.

It's interesting that as soon as the election was over, after May 5, they switched around…. They had already switched the Minister of Labour into Municipal Affairs; now he's in Education. They brought in legislation that is going to erode those same standards that they brought in less than 18 months ago, which were an issue in the campaign. This is consistent with all the legislation we've had in the last two or three months. The legislation is not consistent with the program that the government campaigned on. It is only consistent with cutting back on the conditions that the people of B.C. have enjoyed over many years.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: For the benefit of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), I won't say "small print." He says the size of the print is all the same. If you want to confuse the issue on that….

It's their attitude that if an employer provides any apparel or there is any reference in the agreement on such things as wages and hours of labour, then the minimum standards are not provided for. What it means is that many agreements in the workforce do not have written into them provision for such things as statutory holidays, because they use the minimum standards, They accept the eight-hour day and the 40-hour week because it's in the minimum standards. They accept time and a half for overtime. It's not in the agreements of some of the smaller unions, because they accept what is in the present statute.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They are now being eroded. It says: "…and the employer provides any apparel…." If something is not specified in the agreement, then you're not covered. They're not necessary. If there is anything in the agreement covering such things as overtime, hours of work and statutory holidays, they will not necessarily be covered by the minimum standards. You're going to see a lot of sweetheart contracts written by employer groups and associations, They will be in a contract, but they'll be very weak and ineffective. Those people with low incomes — those pumping gas at garages, or in security jobs commonly known as rent-a-cops…. Little sweetheart agreements with phony unions will be developed with companies by groups and associations that will not give the minimum protection that British Columbians have come to accept.

[9:15]

I find it interesting that the government would go on a positive program of eroding — and this is basically what it is — minimum conditions. The government should be giving leadership and providing the maximum conditions for those who are not protected by the strong militant trade union movement. The same benefits that other people have fought for and other companies are paying should be shared with all workers in this province, not bringing in laws that are going to erode the very minimum ones that they have. These conditions are being eroded and the government is not giving the leadership that is needed.

This attitude is wrong. The history of B.C. has shown that if you start to erode something, then those who are out in the workforce will then become far more militant. They will

[ Page 1902 ]

fight. They will negotiate, and if necessary they will take positive action. I don't think this is bad. I think this is what has built up the trade union movement; this is what has built up rights. We should not always be building up for confrontation. I think confrontation in the workforce is necessary, but it is not always most desirable on a regular basis. I think this leadership has to be given….

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order. I stand on the standing order regarding relevance. Really, Mr. Speaker, this is cruel and unusual punishment that we are being subjected to. I would ask that serious consideration be given to a change in the standing orders of this House regarding a quorum. If we must be subjected to this kind of debate….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if changes are required to standing orders they are not in the hands of your Speaker, but in the hands of yourselves.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continues — with relevance, hon. member.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I listen to my official critic over there, and I know that he is my bleeding-heart defence lawyer who tries to confuse the issue. But I know that he's hungry. I know some of the members of the House have been here all night, and they've missed their breakfast, so with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:20 a.m.