[ Page 2391 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 9). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie).

On section 4 –– 2391

Mrs. Dailly

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Lea

On the amendment to section 4 –– 2393

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lea

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. R. Fraser

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Kempf

Division

On section 4 –– 2404

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Division

On section 5 –– 2404

Mr. Lea

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Rose

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Lea

Mr. Reynolds

Division

On section 6 –– 2419

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Skelly

On amendment 6.1 –– 2420

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Gabelmann

On the title –– 2421

Mr. Hanson

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 15). Second reading.

Mr. Hanson –– 2422

Mr. Skelly –– 2426

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2428

Mr. Passarell –– 2429

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2430

Appendix –– 2431

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1983

The House met at 8:05 p.m.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 4.

MRS. DAILLY: We find that section 4 is really the heart of the bill, as most of us know, because it will allow the repeal of sections 807, 808, 812, 813 and 815. Without repeating what's been said before, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that we primarily object to this amendment because the whole area of regional planning can be lost completely and forever from the planning processes of British Columbia. I don't know how many times we've appealed to that minister to please not put this through. We feel this amendment is based entirely on a philosophical, dogmatic approach to deregulation which is going to set a very bad planning situation in the province of British Columbia for the future. Would the minister please tell the House why he is doing it?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The answer to the member is in order to deregulate, to streamline and to further strengthen the autonomy of the municipalities.

MRS. DAILLY: It isn't going to do it.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to deal specifically with section 807, which section 4 proposes to repeal. What we are trying to do away with here is of course the regional plan: "The regional board shall prepare regional plans applicable to the regional district...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that section was canvassed at some great length last night; the records will show that. We must be specifically relevant in committee of the whole on the section of the bill....

MRS. WALLACE: Am I allowed, Mr. Chairman, to ask a question relevant to section 807?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly, but the records will show that lots of questions have been. Please proceed with your question to the minister.

MRS. WALLACE: The question I want to ask about section 807 is relative to the basic idea behind regional plans, which have certainly been accepted very well in my area by the regional board. The whole area is very pleased to have a regional plan in place. I'm wondering whether the minister has given any consideration to the possibility of allowing some form of choice for a regional district to decide whether or not they want to opt out of planning, or whether this holusbolus removal of planning, as you are proposing to do here by wiping out section 807.... Has the minister given any consideration to providing an option for a regional board that might decide by democratic vote to retain their regional plan? Has any consideration been given to this kind of an option for a regional board that wishes to retain that ability to plan? Has that been considered at all? Has there been any consultation along that line, or any request that this be done? Is it the regional boards that want this power removed? What's the basis for wiping out this political section? As far as I'm concerned, it has been looked upon in my area with a great deal of favourable review and consent from the people around there. They really like the idea of knowing what is being established and having those plans there so they know what they are getting into.

I don't understand why this is suddenly being wiped out, and I'm wondering if there has been any consultation. Has there been any thought of allowing that option for regional boards to make a decision to retain this right to plan?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, many questions were posed there, most of them repetitious. Certainly I don't think there's any question that the regional board liked the idea of a regional plan. I would like the member to explain to me who it is she wishes would have the choice as to whether there is a regional plan or not. Are you asking that the regional board be asked to decide that?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. Would it not be advisable to give it to an area that has, from its own free choice, set up a regional board, elected its people democratically, lived in line with the Municipal Act as far as voting powers are concerned, established itself as an entity and set up a community plan at a lot of expense and effort based on the wishes and desires of all the people in that area? Now I'm saying okay, we've gone this far. We've spent a lot of effort getting this plan. Are we going to be given an option, or have you considered it? Obviously under this bill you are not giving us an option, but have you considered the possibility of giving us an option to retain that regional plan? If you're talking about a regional plan, certainly it has to be the regional board that would have that choice.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I gather that what the member is talking about is really intermunicipal planning. I'm just wondering if the member isn't contradicting her own philosophy: that is, overruling the wishes of the people, say, at the municipal level. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, through you, I would ask the member the question: would she be in favour, for instance, if we asked the municipalities whether or not they wished to be part of a regional plan?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, it's a bit unusual that the minister keeps asking me questions, but I'm quite happy to reply. The part is never greater than the whole and the municipality is part of a regional district. As such, if you believe in democracy, that municipality must abide by the majority decision in that greater whole. That's democracy, Mr. Chairman. It's certainly our concept of democracy: that the part is never greater than the whole, and that the whole must make the ultimate decision. The part is represented. It has its

[ Page 2392 ]

opportunity to vote and to voice its opinion. It certainly works in our area. That's the concept I'm talking about, the concept that I believe the minister should be using before he takes this holus-bolus stroke and wipes out regional plans completely.

He keeps asking me questions, Mr. Chairman, but I haven't heard him answer my question as to whether or not he is prepared to allow that option of choice to those regional boards that wish, by a majority vote, to retain the right to plan on a regional basis.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have a question to the minister with respect to consultation and the whole consultative process. It's my understanding that Dan Campbell, who first introduced regional districts and regional planning — and that's the section under debate right now....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are now extensively canvassing material that was done during second reading. We are on a specific section which is a repeal section and we should be brief.

MS. SANFORD: We had questions today, Mr. Chairman, which I think relate specifically to this particular question.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, it's really irrelevant. I think we're getting far from the section that's being debated, and I would ask that the member stay to the section being debated.

[8:15]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the section that is under debate, as the minister well knows, relates to planning. My predecessor in the constituency of Comox was one Dan Campbell, who introduced planning. He introduced this section. He introduced planning....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on section 4. Those questions might be in order during second reading statements; they might be in order during the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Certainly they are out of order now. They are repetitious and irrelevant. This is a repeal act and we simply must deal with the principle of repeal. That is the question.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the person who introduced consultation and planning, and this is the section....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is...

MS. SANFORD: Now just a minute....

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...not in the act.

MS. SANFORD: Well, it is. It's planning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference to a former minister is not in the act.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, is it not permissible... The section we're talking about, section 4, is to repeal sections of an already existing act. Is it out of order for the member for Comox to tell you and the House why she is against the repeal, to give her reasons and a bit of the history? Is that wrong?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be, hon. members, because that has been discussed in second reading, and second reading has been passed, which agrees to repeal this section.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This section repeals sections 807, 808, 812, 813 and 815 of the Municipal Act. None of these sections refers to any consultative process. Under standing order 43, I think we should draw the attention of the members to the repetitious nature of their questioning. There is nothing that requires the member to answer a question satisfactorily in the eyes of the opposition. He has responded to their questions; it is not necessary that he satisfy them. Yet they persist with the same line of questioning hour after hour. I suggest that perhaps it's time to invoke section 43 regarding repetitious debate in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Comox will please be relevant to the repeal nature of this section.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to explain to you as carefully as I can what I am referring to.

The minister indicated to us during second reading that this bill had come about as a result of a very wide consultative process. First, I am asking specifically, under this specific section, whether or not the minister has consulted with Dan Campbell, who was the minister responsible for introducing the sections in the first place. Secondly, since it is our understanding — although the minister has not clarified that for the House — that Dan Campbell is going to have a very specific position....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not within the context. I will have to ask the member to discontinue that line of debate, because it is not in any way relevant to the section before us.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, maybe it would speed the business of the House if you gave us an example of a line of questioning that would, be in order. We've tried everything possible and Mr. Chairman has ruled everything out of order. Nothing is in order. So, Mr. Chairman, maybe you could give us a small example of'a line of questioning to the minister that would be in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is not up to the Chairman of a committee to advise members how they should carry out their debate. This section is very narrow, in that it deals with repeal. The principle of this bill has been passed in second reading, and this does make debate very narrow on this section. Those are the rules of strict relevancy in committee.

MR. LEA: That is true, but no matter what we say, no matter what question we ask, you say it isn't relevant. I think we are getting to the point where you had better start bringing forward some background to tell us why it is not relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not bring forth advice as to how members may speak or construct their debate.

[ Page 2393 ]

That is entirely up to them. The Chair only has an obligation to enforce the rules of the House. When the Chair hears a debate being offered that is more properly addressed in the ministerial estimates or in second readings, such as reference to a previous minister, who is not mentioned here, then the Chair must intervene in the duty of maintaining House and committee order.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, when you do rule, is it not proper for us to ask you on what basis you are making the ruling? Not just that you make the ruling, but that you bring something forward to say: "Here is the proof that it is not relevant"? That is what I'm asking at this point, Mr. Chairman, because no matter what we say, you rule it as irrelevant, with no reason given. We would like to know what your authority is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think I have just given you that reason, but I will advance it again. Debate in committee on a bill must be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration. The member for Comox has advanced second reading or ministerial estimates debate in that previous ministers were mentioned, and much of the debate that the member has advanced is not contained in this section. This section is strictly relevant to repeal, and repeal only.

MR. LEA: If it's a repeal, we can't discuss it. Is that it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The repeal can be discussed.

MR. LEA: But not the reason.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think where the confusion arises is that clause 4 calls for the deletion of sections 807, 808, 812, 813 and 815. Section 807, as I read it from the 1979 Municipal Act, deals with the preparation, by a board, of "regional plans applicable to the regional district and revise them as necessary, and for this purpose a regional plan means a general scheme without detail for the projected uses of land within the regional district, including the location of major highways."It goes on to say in other sections....

I'm not reading this for the goodness of my health, or to drag it out or to stall; I am trying to find out what narrow parameters exist. Presumably, Mr. Chairman, if someone gets up and says, "This deals with the repeal of 807," and talks about regional boards, plans, maps, general schemes, major highways, and goes along further in other places, that would be in order because it deals with a matter to be deleted. I don't see why we should be precluded from discussing these matters in the fullest possible detail, or from cross-examining the minister on these subjects, because precisely the issue we face here is: why are we deleting something that has been of great value to many people and for which we have no reasons given us — reasonable reasons — for its deletion or abolition?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will repeat: there has been a great deal of latitude allowed in second reading on this debate in the House. The records will clearly show that. There was a great amount of latitude offered late last night and early this morning during committee stage, and the Chair is now hearing arguments that are becoming quite tedious and repetitious. Furthermore, since we have in principle, in second reading, approved the nature of repeal as it applies to this section, the scope of debate is extremely narrow. The House has approved.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to narrow it down much more than it is in this section that we are debating. I move that section 807 be deleted from this section 4. I will read 807. I want to familiarize the committee with what 807 means.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: You are just a jackboot fascist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to withdraw that statement. It is offensive. Please withdraw.

MS. BROWN: I will withdraw it. I mean it, though.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An unqualified withdrawal, please.

MS. BROWN: It is unqualified.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An unqualified withdrawal will be sufficient. Will the member please withdraw, with no further statement.

MS. BROWN: So done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order, hon. member.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the section we've dubbed "the Spetifore section, " but it could just as easily be called "Gloucester." It would just as easily be called the....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, the thing up in Comox.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your amendment relates specifically to section 807 of the Municipal Act. It is quite specific and the debate must be strictly relevant to that section.

MR. COCKE: In order to enable my colleagues to debate that specific area.... I want them to listen carefully to the wording of section 807(1).

Interjections.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, I would ask the member for Skeena to withdraw the phrase that he used twice this evening: "I wonder if he is a jackboot fascist."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Skeena will withdraw that comment.

[ Page 2394 ]

MR. HOWARD: I need to know first to whom it was applied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it was said, it offends the House. Will the member please withdraw it?

MR. HOWARD: It was applied to Mussolini, who is dead and buried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It still has been found offensive. Will the member be so kind as to withdraw the statement?

MR. HOWARD: Just withdraw the phrase?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine. The member for New Westminster will continue on the amendment to section 4.

MR. COCKE: What we are confronted with here is a section that deletes 807. I want to familiarize the committee with exactly what 807 is. After the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) settles down and gets his wits about him, I will do that.

[8:30]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we please have orderly debate? We are on a proposed amendment to section 4. An awful lot of intemperate remarks are being made right now by the Minister of Agriculture and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, and by other members. I ask all members to please come to order, and ask the member for New Westminster to relate his remarks strictly to the amendment,

MR. COCKE: Strictly to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, what I ask in my amendment is that we delete section 807 from section 4 of this particular bill. I want to read section 807 of the original act. Now anybody who cannot understand this section and its meaning that it is providing strength to the Municipal Act — I would like them to tell me they're going to vote against it. Listen carefully: this is the section that this proposed act deletes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Have you moved your amendment?

MR. COCKE: Yes, I have moved it, and I am now about to read the section that I'm dealing with. That Section in the Municipal Act goes as follows....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The House Leader says he can read it. The problem is that I feel there is some dyslexia over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might remind the member for New Westminster that although we are on the amendment to section 4, section 807, referred to in section 4 of the act before us, was discussed at some length last night and early this morning. The records will show that. So I think much further discussion would be deemed tedious and repetitious. The member will be brief in his comments.

MR. COCKE: Certainly I'll be as brief as I can. I will refer you, Mr. Chairman, to that library behind us, the library on that side and everywhere else. Since we've been on these marathon sessions we have not had one copy of the Blues. There is no possible way that any member of this Legislature or this committee knows precisely what's been going on. Therefore I suggest that I should read this section so that the people are enabled....

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I understand that in committee you're supposed to stick to the point, make your point, and not go on about the Blues or the reds, or anything else.

MR. COCKE: Oh, he walked in the door, Mr. Chairman, totally untutored, as is his wont....

MS. BROWN: No respect for the House...

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, hon. members.

MS. BROWN: ...making all of your fascist remarks in here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That word is becoming quite upsetting. I asked the member to withdraw it once. If it occurs again, I will find it grossly disorderly. Please avoid that type of terminology.

With respect to section 807, it was discussed at some length late last night and early this morning. The Chair and this committee are extremely well aware of the length to which section 807, referred to in section 4, was discussed. The Chair will not permit further repetition of any discussion on 807.

Does the member for New Westminster have new material to advance on his amendment? If so, please proceed.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I sat here every second last night during the debate on 807. The Leader of the Opposition got up and asked question after question on 807 and got no answers. What I am doing now is asking that that section be deleted — totally different. There were no answers to the questions that the Leader of the Opposition brought forward last night — not one! — as you know, Mr. Chairman, because you sat in the chair for most of that marathon discovery session.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is well aware that a minister is not obliged to answer questions, but I'm glad the....

MR. COCKE: Perfectly right. Therefore, as a member of the opposition I am obliged to move that that section be deleted. I also have the obligation to let everyone know what that section is and what it means.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The member for New Westminster, on his own admission, has stated that the question was put time after time last night and again today. There is no obligation on the part of the minister to satisfy the members opposite by answering any questions. The member has himself said time and time again here tonight that they have continued to put the same question. Mr. Chairman, I implore you to invoke standing rule 43 and put an end to this ridiculous, repetitive, stupid debate that is taking place in this House at this time.

[ Page 2395 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken and....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! One moment, please. Unless the member has new information to advance, I will ask the member to discontinue his speech.

MR. COCKE: I have new information on the same point of order. Mr. Chairman, you have before you an absolutely brand-new amendment, one that you accepted to be in order. You, Mr. Chairman, with respect, and that group over there, are denying me the opportunity to debate my amendment to this bill. That has nothing to do with what happened last night, or tomorrow. This is today, this moment. Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that I want to outline my reason for wanting this section deleted from the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to continue on the amendment?

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Let me discuss with the committee for a moment or two the very thing that the minister would not discuss last night. He wouldn't answer the questions, so I will bring forward the meat of this issue. Deleting section 807 from this section would mean we keep it in the act. It reads: "The regional boards shall prepare regional plans applicable...."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. During the debate on section 4 of the amendment act, all of the sections to be deleted were read a number of times. I see no reason to have it read again. It's a continuation of the same repetitive type of debate. Again I implore you, Mr. Chairman, to invoke section 43 of the standing orders of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. If the member could explain — not read it, because it has been dealt with at some length, but perhaps some new argument supporting your amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, how can I possibly raise arguments when that minister gets up in the middle of a sentence...? I'm trying to talk about a section that is to be deleted by this government, and one that I'm suggesting should be left in the act. I can only read the section in order to fortify my argument.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would become repetitious.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Oh, here comes the heavy! Here comes the big gun.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, may I or may I not, for heaven's sake, have the rules of this House applied to this situation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you certainly may, except that standing order 43, a rule that governs all speeches in this committee, states that we must not be repetitive. As I've advised the member for New Westminster, we have dealt at some length with reading section 807. If the member wishes to advance new arguments in support of his amendment, then that would be in order.

I now recognize the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications on a point of order.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Chairman....

MR. COCKE: Oh, blazes! Are you on a point of order or not?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman. the member is not waiting for the Blues; he's waiting for the pinks. I was here last night trying to get a little sleep in the chamber, and I heard again and again this particular line of debate. It was very difficult to get some rest in the chamber when the member.... At that particular time the Leader of the Opposition was precisely on this point. At 1 a.m., after much repetitive debate, in frustration the House finally adjourned. I can say that because many members drew attention to the fact that the press, while they appeared to be awake, were actually asleep.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine, hon. member.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, please hear me out. The difficulty the member for New Westminster faces is that he was not present while all of this was canvassed during debate last evening.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I was. Every minute of it!

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: He was not present. And what he is doing — as many members of the opposition do, not being present for debate — is to revisit it at a different time. That's the dilemma the House faces. All of the members wish their right to speak in debate, but seldom exercise their responsibility to vote when the crunch comes, and that's the problem we face. They demand their rights but fail to accept their responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has made a good point about standing order 43.

MR. COCKE: He may have made a good point about standing order 43 — and I don't think so — but the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, while that member slept I sat in my chair. I was here for every moment of the debate last night; I heard every word that was said. The House Leader knows that. Had he been awake he would know that too.

Mr. Chairman, may I continue?

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. When the Minister for Universities, Science and Communications took his place, you asked him if it was a point of order. He said no. He then went on. If it was not a point of order he must have been speaking to the amendment. Yet he rambled on and on and on about not being able to sleep, that this member wasn't here, and he went on about the opposition. Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 2396 ]

you let him go quite a while and nobody said anything about section 43. Are there two sets of rules?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the minister did in fact indicate that he...

MR. LEA: No, he did not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing order 43 was referred to, and the minister's comments also made reference to that.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: I don't want to deal with the member's insomnia, but....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Do you have a point of order?

MR. ROSE: Well, he discussed the matter of sleeping. I imagine sleeping is relevant.

Could I draw Your Honour's attention to citation 299 in Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 98. It has something to offer us both on repetition and relevancy, so I draw it to the members' attention. "Relevancy is not easy to define," it says here. "In borderline cases the member should be given the benefit of the doubt." So I will recommend that to the House.

But here is a citation much more central to the point. It is dead on what we are discussing tonight. "The rule against repetition is difficult to enforce" — get this, Mr. Chairman — "as the various stages of a bill's progress give ample opportunity and even encouragement for repetition."

I would think that in order to underline a particular point, repetition is one of the earliest, most profound, most used, most customary forms of emphasis. It says: "...even encouragement for repetition." It's encouraged by the rules. "In practice, wide discretion is used by the Speaker, and the rule is not rigidly enforced."

MR. CHAIRMAN: We must admit that considerable time has been given to members of this committee to discuss section 4.

MR. COCKE: With respect, we could have completed the debate on my amendment, had we had an opportunity to do so. Here we are at exactly square one. My amendment says that we should bring section 807 back and leave it in the act. That's what it really says. This bill deletes section 807 from the act, and I want it brought back in. The reason I want it brought back in is because I believe that the regional board should prepare regional plans applicable to the region. That's all this amendment is about. That's exactly what I wanted to read in the first place until I got this guillotine, or attempted guillotine, from all these people. That is what it is all about.

This aspect is very important. While the Leader of the Opposition talked about its applicability to Spetifore, Gloucester, and this, that and the other thing, I don't really think it has the kind of applicability that would worry me. There are later sections that do, but what worries me about this particular section is that it takes the responsibility away from the regional districts.

I want to recount an experience. When Dan Campbell came up with this whole concept of regional districts and their responsibilities 18 years ago....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Strictly relevant.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman....at that time I thought it was metropolitanization, or maybe total integration. But aside from that, what we have seen is that this whole area of planning, as has been done by the regional districts, has proven positive and has provided a good basis for planning in our province. All of a sudden, because the minister has had somebody suggest to him that it should be done away with, obviously on a whim, he is doing away with it. It is crazy. I urge this committee to support my amendment. Leave it in. This is planning. Isn't it about time we had a government that is prepared to plan? Even the old-time Socreds were prepared to plan, but these nouveau Socreds, with their "friends," are not prepared to do the planning that's provided for in section 807. It is important. Leave section 807 in the Municipal Act.

[8:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd say the noes have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Coquitlam-Moody on the amendment.

MR. ROSE: I would like to speak on the amendment, and I don't really think that by body language, Mr. Chairman, you should indicate that our debate is not acceptable to you as Chairman. I think that you should encourage us to give our best kind of production in terms of trying to bring some wisdom to our deliberations. That may be difficult for some of us — more difficult for some than others; nevertheless, I think it's worth doing.

I was an alderman when regional plans came into being. I was a member of the council of Coquitlam under the celebrated and long-time mayor, Jimmy Christmas. We had regional planning before we had regional districts. Regional districts didn't come about as a product of the provincial government, They were requested....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, when we are debating a particular section of a bill in Committee of the Whole House, the area of debate is very narrow. But when you are debating an amendment to one particular part of a section of a bill, the debate must indeed be necessarily narrow. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that anything that could possibly be covered under the amendment has already been canvassed, and that the member is now casting his debate far too wide for the very narrow limits that must be imposed upon an amendment to a narrow section of a bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. As interesting as are the member's comments, they would be more appropriate in second reading. We are now in committee, where debate in this Legislative Assembly must be strictly relevant.

[ Page 2397 ]

MR. ROSE: I believe I am being relevant. I am talking about an amendment to retain section 807. I am saying that the section came about at the request of particular municipalities. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) cited nothing in his point of order to support his view that somehow, like a reversed pyramid or a carrot in the ground, the parameters of debate had become narrower and narrower. I would love to hear some support for that particular piece of what I regard as debating nonsense. It is not true that we cannot debate in this particular amendment various things that we....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Look, I know what standing order 43 says. I am not repeating anything.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Have you ever heard me say, Mr. Chairman...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There appears to be a lot of cross debate, which is totally irrelevant. Perhaps the member can now speak to the amendment before us, bearing in mind that in the Committee of the Whole House we do not discuss past history or interesting items, but we discuss, with strictest relevancy, that section.

MR. ROSE: I'm going to have a lot of difficulty, because I happen to believe that everything in section 807 is relevant.

The governments of municipalities do not give up power lightly. Governments of municipalities have resented the giving up of any of their powers, including those powers of planning and other things that might be granted regional districts. They did not give these powers up. They asked for them. There was a lower mainland regional district and lower mainland regional planning and regional parks even before there were regional districts. This was requested by the municipalities. When we come back after we finish this, I'm going to ask the minister how many municipalities have requested the deletion of 807. The nuts and the guts of the whole business about regional planning is contained in 807, and that's why it's crucial. It's not something that we somehow frittered away as irrelevant or far too narrow for the discussion. The whole of Bill 15 is wrapped up in section 807, and we don't intend to let it go without a big squabble.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And that's second reading debate.

MR. ROSE: No, it's not, Mr. Chairman. Regional maps, plans or any other means are an expression of regional planning — here is another citation out of section 807.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Someone is saying: "It's been read before." Lots of things have been read before, including the Bible. "A regional plan may apply to all...areas of the regional district." The minister said a little while ago: "Maybe certain areas might want to opt into it." They can't unless they are contiguous.

What I'm saying is that this thing started in 1967 at the request of municipalities, not at the request of the provincial government. We had a lower mainland regional plan established. It lasted until 1968, when it was chopped up into four pieces.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not in this section. I'll repeat one more time. The House has passed this section to this committee; it has approved second reading of Bill 9. The committee is bound by the decision of the House, given on second reading in favour of the principle of the bill "...and should not, therefore, amend the bill in a manner destructive to this principle." The amendment has been found in order because it only touches part of this section, but debate has to be strictly relevant to the section and not to the principle or the history of regional districts or other items. To section 807, please.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, in debating 807, which, among other things, says a lot of things.... I know that if I start to read it somebody is going to get up and get very, very angry. The House, in its wisdom, has approved a particular piece of what I regard as legislative nonsense in principle, but that does not mean that we support all of its parts. We do not support the part in 807 which is to be deleted. We want it to be retained for good and sufficient reasons. We want the regional boards to be able to become part, should they wish to become part, of a free association which involves interrelated, mutual planning among them. That's precisely why we want this particular clause maintained. It's not that we want them forever — or that they're going to be forever inflexible. Section 4 requires — in fact, it insists, if you like, and certainly provides for — a transition between one set of uses for particular lands in question and others. Therefore it is not frozen in stone. It's a very useful piece of material; it's a very useful clause and we want it to continue. That is the point that I am attempting to make. It is not something that without the approval of municipalities, since they started it in the first place, we should summarily guillotine. So that's the position I take, and that's the position a lot of people take — including the UBCM.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to speak, Mr. Chairman, in support of this amendment to retain section 807. I'm going to be so narrow that I'm going to confine my comments to the last six words on the fourth line of section 807(l) of the act. The last six words of the fourth line of 807(l) read: "including the location of major highways." That's what I am going to confine my statements to in supporting the retention of section 807.

I represent a riding, Mr. Chairman, which has five major arterial transportation routes running right through it. If we include Marine Drive, it would make six. As brilliant, intelligent, astute and caring as the Minister of Municipal Affairs may think he is, it is not possible that he should be able to make a better decision about the location of major highways through Burnaby than the regional planners and regional districts of that municipality.

For the minister to delete 807, to throw the future of the communities in Burnaby on the mercy of the bureaucrats in his ministry, is just absolute nonsense. Nobody, neither the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), nor the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) — if he were in the House. which he isn't — nor I can stand on the floor of this House, or sit in this Legislature, and see that section deleted.

[ Page 2398 ]

No one municipality can make those decisions. That is the reason why it calls for a regional board.

Burnaby is surrounded by New Westminster, Vancouver and Coquitlam. If anyone wants to get to Surrey, Hope, anywhere in the Fraser Valley, or anywhere else, you have to pass through Burnaby. For the minister to delete the board which designs the major highways and their location, and take that responsibility unto himself, is clearly to place the people of Burnaby and their community in jeopardy, because nobody from Burnaby is a bureaucrat in that minister's department. No one from any of the communities in Burnaby has any say about the decisions handed down by that ministry. That is the reason why regional boards and plans are important — so that the community and the residents can have a voice in what happens to their community.

When you deal with a community that has five or six major transportation routes running through it, then the people of that community have to have some say about the location or even the development of additional major highways. The best way devised for those people to have some input into the destruction of the community — which is what usually these major highways represent — is through regional planning; through Burnaby, New Westminster, Coquitlam and Vancouver sitting down together and making decisions based on what is best for all of them, not by leaving it to some bureaucrat in Victoria to make those kinds of decisions.

[9:00]

Now I am confining my statements very, very narrowly to ensure that I am in order. This is a very important issue in Burnaby. If you were to run a questionnaire or run a poll or stop any person in Burnaby on the street and ask him what is the major problem facing him, he will say to you: "Traffic." If the member for Burnaby-Willingdon were in the House, he would support that, even though he is not a member of the opposition. The member for Burnaby North, whom you have difficulty differentiating from me, Mr. Chairman, will support that when she gets up to speak.

The location of highways and transportation corridors is of major importance to the communities of Burnaby. As a result of the location of these highways, Burnaby is not one big municipality or one big city; it is a collection of communities. It is so chopped up, Mr. Speaker, that in some instances you take your life into your hands to move from one area of Burnaby into another. You are crossing either Lougheed, Canada Way, Kingsway, Hastings, the freeway, or, as I said before, the new Marine Drive, if we were to include that as well. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, if for no other reason discussed in this particular section, I have to speak in support of this amendment.

I cannot support the concept of regional planning being eliminated, eradicated — wiped out. Once regional panning goes, Mr. Chairman, the communities of Burnaby are at risk. The things that we who live in Burnaby fight for and try to retain are our homes, schools and the places where we work, shop and have our recreation. They are at the mercy of the minister and some bureaucrats in his department.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am not going to permit myself to digress, based on any of the heckling that comes from the government benches. Until you live in Burnaby — and I'm willing to confess that — you don't realize the serious threat that traffic can be to the quality of your life. Until you have had to cope with five or six major transportation corridors running through your community you don't realize the threat that traffic can be to the quality of your life.

Mr. Chairman, that is the reason why I have to speak in support of the amendment which is designed to preserve regional planning. Without regional planning, New Westminster can decide to send all of their heavy-duty trucks, any time of the day or night, rolling right through the municipality of Burnaby. Without regional planning Vancouver or Coquitlam could do the same. But as a result of regional planning, when all of the politicians representing each of the regions sat down and talked about what was necessary for their own community, compromises were worked out. Cooperation took place. Now we find that trucks are confined to certain routes. They don't run after certain hours of the night. In terms of deciding the location of future highways and future development, it is being done in consultation. We're taking into account our neighbours' feelings and their needs as well as our own. That is what makes section 807 so vital and important, and that, Mr. Chairman, is why I have to speak in support of this amendment.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe this argument has been put before. It is one that I think you will understand because of the part of the country that you represent. At the moment, under section 807, there is a method for people in unorganized areas of a regional district to have some say in what happens to their community. I'll give you a for instance. In my constituency Queen Charlotte City on the Queen Charlotte Islands is an unincorporated community. Nevertheless, it is a very real, vibrant community. I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that you have some in your community.

At the moment, because of section 807, the people in the community of Queen Charlotte City have a say, through the regional district, as to — and I would just like to refer to section 807 — the location of a major highway. They have some say as to whether that highway will go through where their homes are. Take away section 807 and the people who live in unincorporated communities and unorganized areas throughout the province, will have no means whatsoever to have any say in what happens to land use in the community they live in. So there is an argument that has not been put before....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mention of highways planning was just reiterated by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. LEA: Yes, but highways is a broad scope.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And repetition is repetition whether it's of your own argument or other members'.

MR. LEA: But the member for Burnaby-Edmonds was talking about highways within municipalities. I'm talking about highways that are not within municipalities but in unorganized areas.

Section 807 says: "A regional plan may apply to any or all areas of the regional district." That part of the section then says there is a means under the act, if 807 is in, whereby a section of the unorganized area can be set aside, for reasons of planning, into what is called a specific area. That will no longer exist once this section is deleted. Therefore the amendment....

[ Page 2399 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, you're wrong.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it would be much better if the Minister of Municipal Affairs would stand up and give his reasons in this House.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The member is entirely wrong. If he would read the bill he would see that we are dealing with official regional plans as they would affect land use decisions in municipalities. Regional districts will continue to do official settlement planning in the unorganized areas, and I think that is very clear here. Obviously he doesn't understand the system; otherwise, he wouldn't be saying these things. Regional districts continue to do settlement planning in the unorganized areas. We're dealing only with official regional planning as it affects land use decisions in municipalities. Is that clear?

MR. LEA: I thank the minister for clearing that up. Now let's talk about the Spetifore land.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the member for Prince Rupert to deal specifically with the language of section 807, which is the item we're discussing now. As Spetifore was dealt with at some length in second reading and in committee, I believe that any further argument would be repetitive and the Chairman would have to ask the member to discontinue. Does the member have new information to advance with respect to the amendment dealing with section 807 of section 4?

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, let me tell you something. I have lost faith in the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you challenging the Chair?

MR. LEA: I'm saying I have lost faith in the Chair. My arguments are finished. I have lost faith. Mr. Chairman, that is a very, very serious statement I'm making.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It certainly is.

MR. LEA: It certainly is. There will be no more arguments from me. I can see it's useless.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have more to say?

MR. LEA: Yes, I do. I think what we're seeing here tonight in this Legislature is only the beginning of what can be disaster for us as a Legislature. Mr. Chairman, I honestly believe that what we're seeing here is a conspiracy to stifle debate around the Spetifore land, and as to that, I have lost faith.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the member accusing the Chair of any dishonourable motive? If he is, the member will withdraw.

MR. LEA: All I am doing is saying I have lost faith in the Chair.

MR. MITCHELL: I was going to step down for the member for Burnaby North. I would like to say, before I get started, that I realize the pressure you're under, and I promise not to make the mistakes you have. I will not refer to you as the member for Prince George North.

What I would like to do is follow up again on what my colleague was talking about....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The member says he is going to follow up again on a point previously made by another member. I suggest that is contrary to standing order 43.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order as made by the Minister of Forests is well taken. However, we have not yet heard the member for Esquimalt–Fort Renfrew. Perhaps we could allow the member to continue to speak and see if he can advance new material with respect to this amendment.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am rising under standing order 43 to bring to your attention that the Minister of Forests persists in irrelevant, tedious, repetitious interjections when the members of the opposition are trying to do their business. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is time you name him, and that you should report him to the House.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be indeed a sad day in this Legislature when a member is named or chastised in any way for trying to bring to the attention of the Chairman or the Speaker the orders by which we must conduct our business in this Legislature. I think it is incumbent upon every member to see that the rules are very strictly enforced.

MR. KEMPF: On the same point of order, it is quite clear in standing order 43 that that repetition and irrelevance is only named in debate. It has nothing to do with points of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. It refers to arguments in debate either by the member or another member.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you for listening to that and still keeping a smile, after all that repetition I get from my official critic over there.

We have to look at it very seriously now. When we were debating it on second reading, we could not deal with the sections. As you recall, on Friday morning, when I was trying in principle to refer to a section, I was ruled out of order. In fact, they were just about ready to throw me out. So we are trying to keep it very close to section 807.

I have to congratulate the member for New Westminster for bringing in this amendment, because what we are doing and why we want to keep this particular section in the bill is that when you repeal a section of the act, as Bill 9 does, you leave a void. When you leave a void, you are creating chaos out in the community. We in the opposition.... Some of the government members feel we shouldn't enter into this debate, but we have to look at what will happen if 807 is taken out. I had a mark before my colleague got up about the location of major highways. I am not going to mention any land in Delta, but I'm going to refer to land that is affected in my constituency. It is a particular subdivision. I am sorry the Minister of Highways is not here because I have debated his with him, I have spoken with him, and he understands the major problem within this particular community when the

[ Page 2400 ]

regional directors of that community are preparing their community plans. In this particular area, the community plan that is being prepared overlaps two regional areas. The regional directors in the Western Community of my riding have been fighting for the right to establish the location of highways.

[9:15]

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, we've talked many times this evening in regard to relevance in debate. I was out of the House for just a few moments about ten minutes ago, and what I want to know, Mr. Chairmen, is whether we dispensed with the amendment to section 4. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, since he started his debate, has not been relevant in any way, shape or form to that particular amendment. Time after time members opposite have stood in this House and made an absolute mockery of this parliament. I would ask that the Chair bring them to abrupt order. The only one who was relevant in this debate tonight in regard to section 4 of Bill 9 was the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. The rest have been absolutely out of order, and that makes a mockery of this Legislature. I would ask that you bring those members to order.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The amendment deals with section 807, which deals with regional plans. The member who has the floor at the moment is talking about unorganized areas, where the regional plan does not apply; rather it is the settlement plan. He is totally out of order. He is not dealing with the amendment at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will be advised to speak specifically to section 807 of the Municipal Act, as that is the amendment before us, and not relate his remarks to debate that might be better done during the estimates of the Minister of Highways or the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I have heard a lot of interruptions tonight about points of order, and in spite of what was said by the member for Skeena I think the Chair is in a pretty good position to determine whether or not the member is out of order in his remarks. I think by and large the House will support the Chair, if not in all of his decisions, at least in most of them. If points of order are used to distract or obstruct or harass a member when he makes his remarks, they should not be accepted by the Chair. I know the Chair has difficulty, because the Chair has to hear the point of order before he can determine whether it really is a point of order or a spurious point of order. The point is that when people pop up one after another to bother a speaker, then I think the Chairman has a right to ignore that person.

Could I direct the Chair, for his wisdom, to a citation, because I think we should base these things on citations. I look on page 79. I won't read it all, because I know time is of the essence, but part of citation 238 of Beauchesne says this: "Points of order are justified when there is some flagrant misuse of the rules, but they are unfortunate necessities which should not be regarded as usual phases of procedure, and ought not to develop into long arguments with the Speaker, who, being in a quasi-judicial position, should not be drawn into controversial discussions." I think that that is good advice for all members of the House, and I think it gives us an opportunity to place our faith in the Speaker to make certain kinds of rulings to protect the person who is attempting to do what he is supposed to be doing. We're examining clause by clause in a committee deliberation. The purpose of that stage of debate is to go into detail on matters which may have been lost when we are looking at the great, broad sweep known as the principle.

So that is my particular offering. I'm prepared to accept the viewpoint of the Chair on matters of order, and I think the spurious points of order raised by people across the hall distract the speaker unnecessarily.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the member for his support, but I will remind members that the Chair, in most cases, supported members who rose on points of order, particularly standing order 43, which does deal with tedious repetition and irrelevancy. As members have pointed out, some debate has been quite in order and other debate has not. It is the duty of the Chair, in serving this committee and in following our rules, that in fact the rules be maintained.

MS. BROWN: Further to the point of order raised by my colleague, would the Chair cite for me which of the standing orders a member would be able to use in appealing to the Chair for protection against spurious points of order which harass a person trying to participate logically and legally in orderly debate? There has to be a standing order here somewhere. I have read my Standing Orders from cover to cover, and I cannot find which one I could rise on and ask for your protection against these spurious points of order, which only serve to harass a member trying to carry on orderly business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing order is number 9, dealing with the Speaker and how he will decide. Following that are standing orders 14 and 15, which deal with the Deputy Speaker and the rules in Committee of Supply.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, getting back to the bill, I believe that if we had some intelligent debate in here, a little give and take, we would get through this particular section a lot more quickly than by having continual interruption that we're having. I know my friend the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) keeps saying that the minister doesn't have to answer. Well, maybe he doesn't in parliament, but I think he has the moral obligation at least to listen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: I know the minister got up and tried to say that section 807 and "including the location of major highways" was not a part solely left in the hands of a regional district. But when we are making a major plan such as a regional plan, the parts that go into that plan — the community plans, the local settlement plans.... It's important that their input is.... As I believe the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) said, the whole is bigger than the parts.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to rise again and draw to your attention the fact that section 807 deals with the regional plan. The member is now talking about planning in unorganized territory, which is settlement planning. Settlement planning stays in place; regional districts continue to do that. You have to stay with the amendment as it affects section 807 — regional planning. You can't

[ Page 2401 ]

go drifting all over the place; otherwise I don't know how to answer you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point of order is well taken. The minister has indicated that we are beyond section 807 as discussed in this amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: No, we are not, Mr. Chairman. The minister keeps on deliberately missing my point. What I am saying is that if we don't have the regional board or someone to coordinate it, we will go back to the Ministry of Highways foisting it onto the communities. I don't care if it's the Western Community or if it's part of the community that makes up the riding of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). The location of highways, the location of major roads is of prime importance to everyone living in a community. There has to be some avenue whereby the community, through their regional directors and regional board, can coordinate the actions of the Ministry of Highways. This has been the major problem that regional directors in the Western Community, who are also part of the Capital Regional District, have always had. When they try to get the beginning.... Everything starts at a beginning at the community level. When they are trying to get that into place so it can become part of a regional board, there is a lot of interruption by the Highways department. Now you're taking out the one section that coordinates it all. It would be ridiculous for each regional director to say: "I want a major highway at this point...."

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The member is rambling on and obviously does not know what he is talking about. The transportation corridors and highways in the unorganized areas are taken care of by the Ministry of Highways, and official settlement plans are not registered unless they respect them. We're not dealing with the unorganized areas of settlement planning. We're dealing with an amendment concerning 807, which is regional planning as if affects municipalities, not unorganized areas.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, in the interest of fair play, the minister that time clearly was not on a point of order. He was debating. He has the opportunity during this discussion to get up as often as he wishes. I'm sure that any time that a member sits down at the conclusion of his speech, the minister would be given the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't accept that. The minister clearly pointed out that what the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was referring to is not included in section 807 of the Municipal Act, which is the amendment that we are currently debating. Since we must be strictly relevant, I could not find how we could allow the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to continue if he's not speaking to that particular section,

MR. NICOLSON: When the minister says things like, "The member doesn't know what he's talking about," that's fair enough comment when you're in a debate. That certainly sounds like debate to me and not like a point of order. If I missed the point he is trying to make, it might have been because it was couched in such rhetoric that it sounded to me more like debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member finds that expression by the minister offensive.... The minister was pointing out that the member's argument is not strictly relevant to this section.

MR. MITCHELL: That's the minister's opinion, and the minister is trying to confuse it. He knows what I am saying, because we have met with that minister. I have to repeat this two, three or four times to get through: the location of major highways is important to this section 807. If we wipe out the right of the communities to get involved in the location of highways so that it is coordinated and viable, you're going to have chaos out there. You're going to have every little regional district, municipality and city bringing in where they would like highways to go. It wouldn't work. You will throw it open to people who will fill that void that is being created by removing section 807. It would then become the sole policy of the Highways department. This is the whole theme of this particular type of legislation. It is to centralize it within certain hands in Victoria, the centralized government. I say very sincerely that I feel it important that the community — not just Colwood, Langford, Esquimalt or Saanich, but the total community — have that major input into the location of highways. This is the part that you're taking out by removing section 807. You're leaving that void, and if you leave a void, somebody will fill it. It will be the Highways department who will do the major planning. At times it is important that the community does have the input. I'm really worried, and I know the minister keeps on saying that the community plans and the settlement plans will look after that. But there has to be that overall coordination.

[9:30]

1'm not trying to get into the technical design of highways how wide they should be, the cloverleafs — which is the technical end of things which the Highways department should be looking after. But the social impact that the major highways have on the greater Victoria area, in my particular case, requires some group that centralizes it. This is why I have to support the reasoning of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) that we can't wipe out a section unless there is something else that is going to carry over those duties that have developed over many years; someone said this section has been in there 17 or 18 years. Whole governments have spent hours and hours, days and days, weeks and weeks living within this parameter of the regulation. Then, all of a sudden, it's wiped out without something else replacing it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I do think at this point we have really canvassed highways planning, in arguments very well presented by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds and now by the member who has taken his place. I think we could consider that the relevancy of that item in this section has been canvassed to the utmost in this committee.

MR. R. FRASER: It is apparent to me that I have a faith in people that is more deep than that of many others, and I have a feeling, having been a resident in the largest city in the GVRD, that planning in the area began intermunicipally long before we had the regional district. Certainly my experience in local politics in Vancouver has brought me to the point where I know that many of the things that were planned by people who were in office in Vancouver were to be for the benefit of the region and in fact were outside of the boundaries of that particular city. I have a lot of faith in the councils

[ Page 2402 ]

of Burnaby and New Westminster, who I am certain will take no time to raise their voices against anything that they may feel is imposed upon them.

I will reflect on the most recent speaker to the amendment, who talked about centralization, and in fact the theme of this particular motion is decentralization. I would like to put back into the hands of the local municipal councils the right to do some planning. Further, if the time should come somewhere down the pipe when we would wish to then again recentralize the planning of regional districts or cities within districts, I am sure we can do that, but at this particular time I am quite happy to speak against the amendment and will so do.

MRS. DAILLY: I am not going to reply to this last speaker, because I realize that is not the purpose in this debate on the amendment; besides, what he said had no validity. Subsection 807(4), which will be deleted, reads: "The regional board may, in a regional plan, provide for transition from present to proposed use, and shall, in preparing the plan, have regard for interrelationships of areas and uses." Why we have moved this amendment is that it is absolutely essential that that not be taken out. I want to say to the minister, and I hope he will reply to this, that in asking this question I am not going to repeat the very good points made by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) regarding highways. The same thing applies in my area of Burnaby North, so I won't talk highways, but my area has, as you know, a tremendous amount of traffic going through it constantly.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, as I stated before — and as you have tried to advise the House — the debate on each section of the bill is quite narrow, and the debate on the amendment to a section of the bill is even narrower. The debate on a section of the amendment is even narrower. This member is now repeating arguments put forward by other members on the section, the bill in second reading and the amendment to the section, and she is extending that to a section of a section to be amended, which must indeed be extremely narrow, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, I am rising, Mr. Chairman, as recommended by you, under standing order 9, to bring to your attention that the Minister of Forests continues to harass the members of the opposition when they try to discharge their responsibilities on the floor of this Legislature.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're obviously delaying the democratic process.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I distinctly heard the Minister of Forests say that the intention of the opposition is to delay. In other words, what he is doing is giving a motivation here that is not present, and I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not an unparliamentary motive applied to any particular member, and I don't consider it worth withdrawal. With respect to the point of order raised by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), the minister simply rose to indicate that he detected some repetition in the debate. But I would defend the member for BurnabyNorth (Mrs. Dailly) who I am sure is going to advance new material in her discussion of section 807 of the amendment.

MRS. DAILLY: Before I was rudely interrupted by the Minister of Forests I was going to advance a new argument, Mr. Chairman. Because of the location of my constituency of Burnaby North, if an area adjacent to it decides that it wishes to build, for example, a large shopping centre, which is going to inject thousands more residents coming through the riding of Burnaby North...Surely it is only reasonable that the municipality of Burnaby should be part of a regional decision, because it is going to affect my area. What I am asking the minister to tell this House is this: if he removes this, what protection is he going to give the residents of Burnaby North?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I take it that what the member is referring to here is some sort of intermunicipal....

MRS. DAILLY: Yes.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Right. So I have to ask the question which I think is the real problem that we're having. You people are saying that we must not give the decision-making to the municipality, to the grass-roots people. We must take it away from them and give it to a higher level of government. This is where we are disagreeing. The bill is actually giving the authority to make those land use decisions to the municipality. I would like to have you, Madam Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, or any other member on that side of the House tell us: are you opposed to allowing municipalities to make such decisions?

MR. COCKE: Yes, absolutely.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I wanted that on record, because you're going to have to answer to most of the municipalities in this province for wanting to take away that autonomy.

MR. COCKE: We'll stand up and do it. They don't want it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister and many other members are now once again getting into debate which would have been better canvassed in second reading. I'll caution all members that we must be strictly relevant. The member for Burnaby North.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the minister finally stood and went into some detail on his reasons for this amendment. The very points that he made make it even more essential that our amendment be passed. If I can reiterate one more argument, you cannot live in isolation in 1983 in any municipality. It's just a lot of nonsense to say that the NDP is against local decision-making when what we're for is proper planning so that every member of our community will have a good life and a good place to live in. Mr. Chairman, will you please understand that what you are doing is going to be disastrous for every community and every district which before had the protection of proper planning. Our amendment, particularly section 4, which we want to make sure is maintained, states again that you must have an interrelationship of areas and uses, and if you remove the whole board and structure for that interrelationship, how on earth can you maintain it?

[ Page 2403 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, that can be retained, not by the domination of the regional board but rather on the wishes of the municipalities. Under legislation, that can be retained. I am sure that once we get this amendment out of the way and get further on in debate in committee here, we'll be able to point that out to you.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to "including the location of major highways." I was going to leave it at where I sat down before, until the member for Vancouver South got up. If I can paraphrase what he said in his statement.... He said he lives in the largest municipality and that he has faith and that they can get their ideas across in conjunction with the rest of the area. I would like to bring to his particular attention.... I am sorry again that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is not here, because I know he would support me.

I go back to the previous Social Credit government, when they were trying to bring in the major Trans-Canada Highway that was coming from Victoria. It went through Blanshard Street six lanes wide to the Saanich border. At the same time they brought the Trans-Canada Highway right into Douglas Street. The major connection for the highway for serving greater Victoria had to go through an area of less than a mile, and that location could not be settled with the Saanich municipality. There happened to be kind of a conflict of interest between the municipalities and then the Minister of Highways. And what happened for I don't know how many years.... That six lanes ended at Tolmie.

I know that when the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was the Minister of Highways, they were trying to get it straightened out. They didn't know if they'd have to dig a tunnel underneath Douglas Street, because what had happened.... There was never any firm commitment by the regional for the location of major highways, and that bottleneck sat there to the extent that they ran one highway to the north and another highway jogged around the shopping centre — because we did not establish the location of major highways that can only come in on a regional basis. You cannot allow these decisions to be left to the whim of the individual municipalities; it is costing the taxpayers a bundle — and I use that conservatively — because of the personalities that get involved.

When you take out section 807, the section the member for New Westminster is trying to hold in, it is because of this past history of what happened when regional districts or regional boards did not coordinate it. When you leave it to the personalities of Highways Ministers and mayors.... I am sorry the Minister of Finance is not here, because he was the mayor who caused this bottleneck. I say to the government, before they remove this particular section, tell us — tell the province, the community — what they are going to do to coordinate the location of major highways in an area like greater Victoria if you don't coordinate them throughout the whole area, and not have a repetition of what we had in Saanich.

[9:45]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it may seem that we are pressing the minister rather hard but this section has stood the test of time. It was, as pointed out previously, introduced with the regional district concept in 1965. For 18 years it has existed almost unamended. In 1966 — I don't think anyone has mentioned this — it was amended, but only a few words were changed; the concept wasn't changed at all. In 1969, again it was changed, but again by just a few words; a few clauses were changed but no real change in concept. The minister really hasn't told us what urged him, what persuaded him, what convinced him that he should do away with a section which, as I say, has stood the test of time and has served the municipalities.

Mention has been made several times of highways, but there are other things. What about the planning of other services — water lines, sewers — that run among municipalities? What about the planning of gas lines that run among municipalities? All these things have to be supervised, organized by someone above the municipal government. As I say, the regional district government has been doing this since 1965, with only two nominal amendments in 1966 and 1969. So it is with a great deal of concern that we see the bill before us deleting this section which has stood the test of time.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, again I repeat that the reason for removing the regional plan is to deregulate, to streamline and to strengthen the autonomy of municipalities. The regional plan deals only with land use decisions within a municipality: right?

MR. LEA: That's right.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It has absolutely nothing to do with the provision of other services. The regional district continues to have the authority to provide joint services, which could be sewer and water service, parks, recreation. They are into different things. This deals only with land use decisions within a municipality those other services continue. If you study the act you will find that, indeed, the legislation permits services to be provided through the regional district at the request of the municipalities. The member for Nanaimo is quite incorrect in his statement, and certainly there are no grounds for fears that there will be no possibility of regional districts providing those other services. This deals only with land use decisions within municipalities.

MR. STUPICH: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, section 807 reads: "Projected uses of land within the regional district" — not within municipalities, but within the total regional district. Is the minister talking about a different section than the one I am reading? Furthermore, is the minister saying that 807 is redundant in that the same protection or the same instructions are contained elsewhere within the Municipal Act?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: While 807 is dealing with a regional plan that affects municipalities within that region, it has nothing to do with unorganized areas that have settlement planning. Yes, the Municipal Act does indeed allow for the the provision of other services by the regional district upon request by other municipalities.

MR. STUPICH: Is this duplication, then?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You could consider it that, except that in one case it's requested, while in this case it's a decision by the regional board. The purpose of this bill is to take away that veto power.

[ Page 2404 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, as I see it then, the minister is saying each municipality may go its own way in planning highways, water lines and sewer lines, without any regard at all to what neighbouring municipalities are doing. That's what he wants. That's what he's proposing. I just want to be clear. Is the minister saying that if we take this section out, if we agree to the bill before us to delete section 807, each municipality may go its own way with respect to all of those planning functions, regardless of what happens to the neighbouring contiguous municipality?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: A municipality may — and some have already — put in place an official community plan. That can become official only when it's registered, and it's only registered after it has respected all of these other things, particularly transportation corridors.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I think we've heard sufficient debate. This has gone on and on — last night for a number of hours, tonight for almost two hours. Mr. Chairman, I move that the question now be put.

MR. COCKE: A point of order. Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the minority must be heard. The member for Vancouver South made a point, and I wish to come back on that point. This is my amendment. Mr. Chairman, the member is premature in his closure. It's a disgrace in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair must decide this. I think the Chair has heard.... There was ample opportunity for all members. All members wishing to rise in their place have had an opportunity to speak countless times on this amendment.

One more point of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, as to your comment that everyone has spoken, there are still at least two members on the opposition side who have not had an opportunity to speak to this amendment. I would also like to suggest that the danger with using a tactic as final as closure...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now the member is entering into debate.

MS. BROWN: ...is that it can become a habit, Mr. Chairman. I'm just bringing that to your attention, that’s all. That bullying can become a habit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Points of order were allowed as a courtesy to the members, but the question is put without debate.

MS. BROWN: There are two members who still haven't spoken.

MR. COCKE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I was the mover of the amendment. For example, when making a motion, a minister in this House has an opportunity at least to sum up the debate. There have been questions put by the members of the government side. Mr. Chairman, I think it's your obligation to see to it that I have an opportunity to answer those questions. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kemp) is using the muscle of government to trample all over the opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Now the member is clearly entering into debate, which is not allowed under standing order 46.

The question is that the question now be put.

Question approved on the following division:

[10:00]

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 8

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 8

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 4.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this section also deals with the repeal of another section — section 808. I cannot support the repeal of section 808. I want to read the statement specifically....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'll advise the committee that we had great discussion on section 808. I would consider much more debate to be repetitive and tedious and I would have to ask the member to discontinue. If the member has new information the member wishes to advance, that would be appropriate, but not much else.

[ Page 2405 ]

MS. BROWN: Well, I don't know whether the information would be new to you, but I have not used it before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That doesn't matter. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Okay. Section 808(l) talks about a regional plan prepared under any act as an official regional plan. To delete regional plans does two things. It says that the regional plans which have been prepared at great cost to the municipalities who were involved in contributing to those plans — that that is no longer operative. It also says that the wishes of the people of the region which were taken into account in the designing of those plans are now going to be ignored. That's what repealing section 808 is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support that section, and so I want to move an amendment to it. My amendment reads that section 4....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Take your hands out of your pockets.

MS. BROWN: It's my hands and it's my pockets. You take your hands out of the taxpayer's pocket, that's what you should be doing. As long as my hands are in my pockets that's okay. When you and the rest of your party stop slurping at the public trough....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will come to order and continue on debate or take her place, in her chair.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Because I don't like dealing with bullies, that's why I'm touchy tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please state your argument.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, section 4, line 1, where it reads section 808 — that the number 808 should be deleted.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I don't care if Schroeder thinks I'm an anarchist. That's a lot more than I think of him.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I will observe that the Chair had some reluctance in accepting the previous amendment, which dealt with section 807 as contained in section 4; however, that was allowed. But it is clear that this amendment is equivalent to a negative of the bill or would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to on second reading. Therefore it is not admissible and not acceptable. I rule the amendment out of order.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order with respect to the ruling, I suggest to you that if in fact an amendment of this nature.... The amendment prior to this certainly could have been deemed to have reversed the principle of the bill, but this, Mr. Chairman, is much narrower and certainly does not in any way negative the principle of the bill. Good heavens, the weight of the amendment on 807 compared to the amendment on 808 is like a ton over a pound.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is now clearly debating the ruling of the Chair. Do you wish to challenge the ruling of the Chair? I have ruled the amendment out of order. I have cited Sir Erskine May, and I will give further citations if you wish.

MR. COCKE: I challenge your ruling.

[The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[10:15]

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 8

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

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order on section 4.

The hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: I rise under standing order 26. Prior to the taking of the vote, while I was speaking, someone on the government side made the sound of a cat. I was unable to do anything about it because I couldn't identify who it was. However, Mr. Chairman, my colleague the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) assures me that it was the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) who made that sound.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: May I proceed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. State your point of order.

MS. BROWN: I am not asking the Minister of Health to apologize. I merely want to say that that act is indicative of the violence directed towards women by that minister and his government.

[ Page 2406 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, if you insist — the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, that member, who knows very little about anything, is wrong again on both counts. I find her remarks offensive, with her great knowledge about the attitudes of other people. I find her remarks completely offensive, absolutely wrong. I won't ask her to apologize, because it's not in her nature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Her idea is that she knows everything about everyone. If I made a sound, it wouldn't be that of a cat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think we can dispense with the matter.

On section 4, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Having listened with a great deal of attention to the garbage being thrown across the floor by the opposition, I move that the question on section 4 now be put.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. A member taking his place in debate may make such a motion. The member was standing, the Chair recognized the member, and the motion has now been put. I will accept a point of order but no debate.

MRS. DAILLY: I was rising to my feet at the same time on a point of order, which is that my name was brought up when the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) referred to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). I wish to completely back up everything she said. The Minister of Health made a fool of himself here earlier tonight, and I want that on the record.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the statements have been made. I think we've had adequate debate.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on another question right now, but briefly and in order.... Please refrain from any unparliamentary motives.

The Minister of Health.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) is also completely in error.

MRS. DAILLY: No.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh! She knows more than the person whom she accuses. The member for Burnaby North.... You shall accept my statement that you are in error.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Minister of Health will take his seat, please.

One more point of order....

MR. COCKE: No! This is a point of order with respect to the closure motion on section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That will be allowed. That's just what I'm referring to.

The member for New Westminster on a point of order only; no debate can be entered into.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I don't propose to debate the section. I propose, however, to indicate very clearly that this section has not been properly canvassed. This is not an opposition amendment; this is a motion. This is the Spetifore clause in the bill. Mr. Chairman, this must be debated thoroughly before the question is put; otherwise parliament is a joke.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. COCKE: What do you mean, "order"? That's what I seek.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the House will come to order.

MS. BROWN: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I will not allow any more points of order, because we are now entering into debate. The Chairman must decide whether or not there has been adequate hearing of the matter. I'm sure the records will show that ample opportunity has been given to all members of this committee to discuss section 4 last night, this morning, this evening and in discussion on many amendments. Therefore I rule the motion in order.

The question is: shall the question now be put?

[10:30]

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 8

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 2407 ]

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 8

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, would you note that the salt has just gone down the tube and I hollered "no" for the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I will advise the member for New Westminster that timing was done. Two minutes had transpired, and that is the time which we can allow for a division. Two minutes to five minutes is pointed out in our standing orders.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds on a point of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could tell me under what standing order you exercised your authority to refuse to accept my point of order prior to the vote,

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member raised a point of privilege....

MS. BROWN: No, I tried to raise....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was it standing order 26?

MS. BROWN: No, I tried to raise a point of order prior to the taking of the vote, and you said you would not accept my point of order. I want to know under what standing order you exercised that authority.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing order 9.

We've had three members ask for recording, I believe. That's satisfied, and now the Chair recognizes the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) on section 5.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'd like to pursue the point of order. Mr. Chairman, standing order 9 says in the second sentence: "In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or authority applicable to the case." That is exactly what the member for Burnaby-Edmonds just requested — that you state the standing order or authority applicable to the case whereby you refuse to listen to any more points of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The authority is standing order 9, followed by standing orders 14 and 15, giving the Deputy Speaker the same power that the Speaker has to decide rules and points of order. The member had originally risen on standing order 26, relating to a matter of privilege. That was what the Chair heard.

MS. BROWN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Prior to the taking of the vote there was a discussion pertaining to the matter of closure. At that time I rose on a point of order; it had nothing to do with standing order 26. I rose on a point of order, at which point, Mr. Chairman — may I repeat that it had nothing to do with standing order 26 — you refused to accept my point of order. You did it under standing order 9, which states that you had to state the standing order or the authority under which you made that decision. At the time you did not, and I am now asking for an explanation. Standing order 14 simply says: "At the commencement of every session.... . the House may appoint one of its member to be Deputy Speaker." That doesn't mean anything.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Your point is well taken. However, I will remind the hon. member that a citation from the powers of the Speaker indicates that if the Chair thought the point of order not to be a valid one, it must allow the House to get on with its business, and that is what the Chairman ruled.

Now, on section 5. the member for Prince Rupert.

On section 5.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman. It seems strange to me that a government that says its main intention is restraint would eliminate a bill — and section 5 is part of the elimination of these other sections, especially the regional plans.... This section is going to cost the taxpayers of this province millions and millions and millions of dollars; over the course of time it will cost billions of dollars. I would like to point out exactly how that will happen.

When you have uncontrolled development, non-planned development, there follows from that uncontrolled, unplanned development the need for somebody to put in a transportation infrastructure to serve that development, and that infrastructure is something that costs the taxpayers of this province millions and millions of dollars. This piece of legislation, when it goes through this House, is going to cost the taxpayers of this province millions of dollars; over the course of time it will be in the billions of dollars. If the Spetifore property is developed, if the Gloucester property and other property is developed.by municipalities, someone has to pay for the infrastructure surrounding transportation that will service that development, and that someone will be the taxpayers of B.C. through the general revenues of this province.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to know how the government can do this, and at the same time — out of the other side of their mouth — talk about restraint. It's impossible. For instance, in order to serve Delta.... If there's a large subdivision and an increase in the population in Delta, then the transportation system that leads into the city of Vancouver is going to have to be expanded. Probably there will have to be another tunnel, or at least another transportation link across the river. Who is going to pay for that, Mr. Chairman? It's going to be the people of this province. So what's happening here, as far as I'm concerned, is that in order to satisfy the

[ Page 2408 ]

whims and desires of individual developers, this piece of legislation is going to cost the taxpayers of this province millions of dollars. It's going to be a horrendous cost over a period of time, and there is no way around that.

When I was the Minister of Highways, I experienced that. If you allow a developer to do exactly what that developer wants, they're going to develop into areas where it's not going to be necessarily within.... Well, there won't be any plans any more. There's going to be development willy-nilly, and that willy-nilly development is going to have to be serviced by transportation corridors and systems. It's going to have to be serviced across the municipal boundaries of all of the services that my colleague from Nanaimo was talking about earlier — water and sewer. In the final run, somebody has to pay for all of the servicing necessary for these kinds of unplanned developments. There is going to be no provision for the developer to pay for it; none whatsoever. I know from experience that it is going to end up falling on the backs of the taxpayers.

I would like to hear what the minister has to say about that particular thought.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the municipalities will continue to do their official community planning. However, if the concerns of that member and all other members on that side are real and they are interested in seeing some intermunicipal planning; and if indeed they are real when they talk about giving local government and councils the autonomy and freedom to make decisions that they indeed should be making; if in fact they are being real and honest when they say they don't want the heavy hand of another government but would rather see councils make the decisions for themselves, then indeed that can continue.

Mr. Chairman, let me read a note I have prepared that I think should put their concerns to rest, provided they are sincere and honest when they say they believe councils should have a choice, and that councils should make decisions because councils are close to the people who elect them. To follow through with this, Mr. Chairman, there has been criticism that the elimination of regional plans would remove regional districts from any involvement in the coordination of the land use development strategies of its member municipalities. In response, I point out that under section 770(2) of the Municipal Act, regional districts may contract with a municipality to provide any work or service within the powers of the municipality. A municipality or a group of municipalities may contract with the regional district to provide them with studies, reports and recommendations addressing land use development strategies. The individual municipalities would retain autonomy with respect to the implementation of such reports, studies and recommendations but would be acting from a common or intennunicipal perspective.

[10:45]

Mr. Chairman, allow me to read section 770(2) of the Municipal Act: "A regional district may undertake any work or service for a member municipality, other than an electoral area, on mutually agreed terms, if the work or service is within the powers of the municipality and the entire cost of the work or service is home by the municipality." To the members over there, what this really means is that they may continue to do intermunicipal planning on request by the municipalities. If indeed a municipality should have on their border a development that may be offensive to neighbouring municipalities, they may enter into an agreement with the regional district to do an intermunicipal plan. Yes, they may request it.

The thing here, Mr. Chairman, is that we are trying to remove the veto power, that control that you people want over municipalities. The indications from all over the province.... Here we have it in the local paper; we are getting telegrams from up north. We are getting requests from all over this province asking us to take away this regional power over councils, and that is what this does. When you refer to section 770(2) of the Municipal Act, you will see that they could continue to have those services, including intermunicipal planning, provided they request them. If they should request them, then they have to pay for them. That, to me, is the democratic way to do it.

MR. LEA: The minister is suggesting that the people who run the municipalities are nuts. Why would they? He says they may; why would they? It wouldn't make any sense. Why would they go to the others and say: "Would you please come in here and help pay for this project that we have approved but you don't agree with?" Does that make any sense, Mr. Chairman? Let's say Delta goes ahead with a project that is going to impinge on the neighbouring municipalities. Why would the municipality that is next door — which was against the project because it affected them in an adverse way, in their opinion — help pay for the project? It just doesn't make sense for them to do that. So the minister's argument really doesn't hold water.

What I am saying is that it's going to cost somebody money. It's not going to cost the developer money. The developer will go out to the development that he is responsible for, within the confines of that development; but all of the services for that development have to be paid for, and will be paid for, by somebody else. Whether it is the taxpayers of a neighbouring municipality or the taxpayers of the province, they are all taxpayers. When section 5 passes — as I am sure it will, probably by closure — it is going to mean that one municipality is going to have to pay for a project that it doesn't agree with. It means the taxpayers of that neighbouring municipality will have to pay for a project that they don't agree with, or it is going to fall.... Or a combination of the neighbouring municipality and the taxpayers of British Columbia.

One of the craziest things.... The chairman of the transportation committee of the Greater Vancouver Regional District came to see me when I was the Minister of Highways, imploring me to use my power to make sure that all of the municipalities — I think there are 14 of them in the Greater Vancouver Regional District — would come together with some plan for transportation. I said I had no power to do that. I said: "If you go away and come back with the written permission of all of the regional districts to grant me the power to do that, I will do it; I will make sure it goes through." Bill Vander Zalm didn't come back with that.

But Bill Vander Zalm is a man who understood the need for county systems, because he found the need for regional planning, and regional planning was just another word for county planning. It seems strange that we would have to do this, but if I had my way we would have Mr. Vander Zalm sitting in that chair of Municipal Affairs because I don't believe there is any way in the world he would take away the powers of county. He was a very strong proponent of county government. He understood from his experience as a mayor

[ Page 2409 ]

of Surrey and from being involved in the regional district involved to the point that he was the chairman of the transportation committee — the need for this thing we are eliminating. I cannot support section 5, because it's going to cost the taxpayers of this province millions and millions and millions of dollars, As I said at the beginning, it seems a rather strange course of action for a government that says they are talking about restraint.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I listened with a great deal of intent to the member for Prince Rupert speaking about how this section will cost the taxpayers millions and millions and millions of dollars. On the contrary; the removal of this planning by regional districts will save the taxpayers millions and millions and millions of dollars. But that is not the point. The point is that we have listened during this session to hours and hours and hours of debate by the official civic affairs critic, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe); literally hours and hours and hours of debate on the same subject. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the question be now put on section 5.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: One speaker and you are moving closure, At least pretend, for God's sake, that there's still a democracy, even if you don't believe in it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, although a great amount of debate has been allowed in second reading and in other....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, profanity is not allowed in this House. I will advise the member for Burnaby Edmonds to avoid using profane language in this House.

MS. BROWN: I withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

If we can move back to the motion put by the minister.... I declare that I will not put the question at this point or accept the minister's motion. But I would ask all members to be strictly relevant to the clause that we're dealing with now. There has been ample opportunity to discuss the principle of the bill in second reading. I think if we can maintain strict relevancy to the section before us, then we can probably carry on the debate in a more amicable manner.

MR. LEA: I'd just like to read one thing into the record, because what I think it does is let us know that the municipality which probably a lot of people suspect would be most in favour of this legislation is against it. This is from today. "Delta council wants the provincial government to table its restraint legislative package for a cooling-off period while it consults with the groups most affected. Council approved the motion after listening to Gary Johnson, Delta's representative on the Solidarity coalition and a Canadian Union of Public Employees official."

MR. REID: What's Bill 7 got to do with restraint?

MR. LEA: We're not on Bill 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But we are in Committee of the Whole, and the argument that the member is now advancing was, I think, discussed at some length in second reading. We are on section 5. We must be strictly relevant. This is a consequential amendment; it deals with section 808 of the Municipal Act. Please make your remarks strictly relevant to the section.

MR. LEA: I understand what you are saying, Mr. Chairman, and I agree with you. I was only answering a question that the minister threw out. The minister said that everybody was in favour of this legislation.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the Hansard record will show that I did not say that everyone was in agreement with this. But let me say, Mr. Chairman, that at my most recent meeting with the table officers of the UBCM they presented me with a paper; the heading on one section of it says: "How Can We Help to Achieve Your Objectives?" — that's the objectives of the government and of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. "(1) Remove the regional veto; (2) restore local autonomy" — which you oppose — "(3) eliminate the official regional plan; (4) clearly identify regional district functions; (5) minimize the cost of government." Listen to this one, Mr. Chairman, the final one: they ask that we "ensure certainty and predictability in community development and coordination between local plans." This is what I point out that section 772 of the Municipal Act does. We all agree with what we're doing here. The last one, to ensure certainty and predictability in community development and coordination between local plans, is what that section allows. But it allows it in a democratic way, not in the socialist way, which says: "We at the regional level will tell you what you're going to get." What we're trying to do here is to take away that power that the socialists would have. What's wrong with you folks over there, that you're all hung up on a piece of land in Delta?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. RITCHIE: A regional plan was in place here back in the seventies when the Tilbury property came out. Where was the hue and cry then?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister will come to order. I've asked the members of the committee to please restrict their debate to debate that is strictly relevant to the section. I find that the minister has strayed. I will ask all members to be strictly relevant to section 5.

The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: I would ask that the minister table the document that he read from, as called for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You cannot table in committee.

MR. LEA: But he can table after committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He may or he may not; that is not a responsibility of the committee.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, could you explain that to me? I thought that if a minister read from a document it was a

[ Page 2410 ]

requirement of the House that that document be tabled. When would be the appropriate time for that action to take place?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be appropriate in the House. The Chairman of the committee can make no ruling on that, I regret.

MR. LEA: So it would be when we go back into the House that I ask for the tabling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be the decision of the member and of the Speaker of the House, not of the committee.

MR. ROSE: I've sat here tonight and listened to a lot of very wide-ranging discussion on this particular clause from the minister himself. He was the one who got into section 772. He got into this great diatribe about this great socialist plot, which means veto power, which was brought in, incidentally, by W.A.C. Bennett, and has been perpetuated throughout the years through all kinds of governments. He has never at any time, to my knowledge, agreed or offered to put forward any correspondence from any source that has asked him for this removal; that's the part that particularly bothers me.

The other side of it is that we were ruled by closure — out of order before we could even discuss one of the protective things in a previous clause, which was a part of section 4. I'm not reflecting on it, because we haven't even discussed it. The particular section — 812, which no longer exists — prevented a municipality from visiting upon another municipality a multitude of problems which they could initiate on their own without any kind of reference to that other municipality. It could be anything from a garbage dump to a cemetery next to a shopping centre, a single-family dwelling or high-density area — whatever. A municipality now is free to do whatever it wishes along its borders or within its borders regardless of its effect on contiguous municipalities. And for the minister to stand up and say: "Well, 772 permits various municipalities, if they insist on moving ahead in a headstrong way...." It permits them in a voluntary way to share some of their power with a neighbouring municipality — one which might be affected and altered tremendously by a decision made. That's why we're opposed to this.

The minister says we're opposed to various levels of government such as senior governments making these plans. I wouldn't object if there were something in this bill, this new act as amended, which would ensure that someone would take the responsibility for that, not just leave it willy-nilly to a lot of independent, autonomous or semi-autonomous municipalities. If the minister would guarantee that he is going to take over these regional plans, that he is going to provide the planning and plan for the interrelationship, we might be somewhat relieved on that score. But he is not going to do it. But even if he did, I don't think it's as important as the regions dealing with it, because they know what they want. They know what their problems are.

[11:00]

I was there when these things started, as an alderman. Municipalities don't give up powers willingly. It's not in the nature of the municipalities. They rant and rave about losing their powers all the time. So that isn't the objection. The major objection is what was outlined in former 812: the municipality could no longer, after the letters of patent were issued, enact provisions or initiate works which would impair or impede the ultimate realization of all or part of the objectives of the regional plan. This is eminently sensible. This is the kind of protection we need in a modern and complex, highly urban world, particularly in the lower mainland. I would like to hear the minister's response to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As the member from Coquitlam-Moody noted, the minister took some latitude when he first spoke, and the member also took some latitude. Perhaps the minister can answer briefly, but confine his remarks to the strict relevancy of section 5.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: As the member knows, a municipality may produce an official community plan, and it will be the intention of this ministry to encourage that. Now you must realize that at the moment there are 15 municipalities in the Greater Vancouver Regional District and only two have official community plans. The others have not done so. Realize too that an official community plan has to go through all of the loops, and therefore all of those things that you are concerned about — transportation corridors, etc. — are all respected. As far as I can see here, Mr. Chairman, the whole argument is on the basis of whether or not the councils are fit to look after their own affairs. I would like to again read a telegram that was received here September 30.

YOUR EFFORTS TO HAVE LEGISLATION PASSED IN THE HOUSE HAVE BEEN CLOSELY FOLLOWED BY THE MAYORS IN THE NORTHEAST SECTION OF THE PROVINCE. WE WOULD LIKE TO ASSURE YOU THAT WE SUPPORT THESE EFFORTS IN GETTING BILL 9 PASSED BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO STRENGTHEN THE AUTONOMY OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS IN MATTERS OF PLANNING AS WELL AS OTHER AREAS. AFTER ALL, WE ARE THE ONES WHO MUST ANSWER TO OUR ELECTORS FOR WHAT TAKES PLACE WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY.

Mr. Chairman, that is what this bill does, and there is no need to have anything in this bill that is going to allow control by the regional district. I again refer you to section 772, that municipalities in a democratic way may request a regional district to provide them with an intermunicipal planning service, and if they decide to request that, they pay for it.

MR. ROSE: Just on that particular point, I don't think I've abused the time of the House on this particular matter. The minister said on the one hand that each municipality was encouraged to have a community plan. That's excellent; it does zoning and planning and all the other things that go with it — corridors. Then he said that the ministry had to approve these official community plans and by that means the ministry would see that these various community plans hooked up to one another and related to one another before they would be approved. Is that true? Is that what you said, sir? I would like to know whether you said that or not, because it seems to contradict your whole autonomy argument. You've removed 808(l) and you have substituted ministerial approval of the interrelationship of intercommunity plans.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, what I said was that an official community plan, in order to be official, has to go through the various ministries including the Ministry of Highways. That's where those things such as the transportation corridors are going to be respected.

[ Page 2411 ]

MR. ROSE: So, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the community plan, communities are not autonomous. If any of their planning decisions contradict something that the ministry feels is a positive step, or if those plans include some provision that is likely to cause interurban difficulties, the minister has the power to abolish it, to prevent it. So much for autonomy. I am glad that that is cleared up.

The minister has told us that he has received a telegram — he has said this in several instances — from the northern municipalities requesting the rapid passage of this measure. I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to tell us who sent those telegrams, or the telegram. Is he prepared to table, either now or when the appropriate time comes, any other requests? For instance, has he had any from the southern part of the province, where, after all, the need is greater and we have a much larger urban concentration?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. With respect to the telegram, that was also read last evening, and so further comment would be considered to be repetitive. The minister may wish to briefly state the case once again now.

MR. ROSE: Well, if it's in Hansard two weeks from now, Mr. Chairman, I'll get a chance to read it,

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, he said "some northern municipalities." Is he not prepared to respond to that? And a further question was: does he have any similar letters from anybody else — official individuals, mayors or councils in the southem part of the province where the need for urban planning and the coordination of various community plans is far more important than in the rather sparsely populated northern areas?

MR. KEMPF: That's where the wealth of the province comes from. What are you talking about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Omineca will come to order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in speaking in opposition to section 5, which eliminates official regional plans, I want to use two examples. The minister quoted from telegrams which he received from the northern end of the province. I'm wondering whether the minister was present at the UBCM when a resolution was passed, or if he received a copy of the following resolution:

"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 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" — we're debating section 5 — "of Bill 9 should be withdrawn forthwith.... "

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that quotation has been made several times in the House and in committee.

MS. BROWN: The only reason I raised it, Mr. Chairman, was that the minister was quoting as though he's got unanimous approval. I was wondering whether he would respond to my question, which is: was he present at the UBCM when that resolution was passed, or is he aware of that resolution and would he like to respond to it?

The second reason that I am opposed to this section.... I don't think this has been raised on the floor before, because it's a new one. It's a letter which I received from the chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and it says:

"Dear Ms. Brown:

"Local and provincial governments have worked together for more than 30 years to provide overall guidance to the lower mainland's growth. The update of the lower mainland plan completed in 1980 with extensive financial and staff support from the province and the region's regional districts and municipalities marked a major milestone in this process.

"The attached pamphlet is a handy guide to the updated lower mainland plan and I hope you will find it useful in explaining the plan's provision."

What this plan does is to demonstrate the really positive things about regional districts, regional boards and regional plans which this particular section is now moving to eliminate. Working together as a cooperative group, the Greater Vancouver Regional District designed a plan for the entire lower mainland. When this particular section of this bill becomes law, this plan is going to be cancelled; it's no longer going to be in effect. What he talked about....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're now entering second reading style of debate. Please, to the section.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I appreciate your point, Mr. Chairman. I'm certainly going to endeavour to do everything humanly possible to stay in order. Believe me, I am aware of that guillotine which is just a hair's breadth away from my neck, as far as this bill is concerned. The government need not ever worry about me rambling or being out of order, because I know precisely how vulnerable and defenceless I am in the face of its overwhelming majority. Elected as I was by the people of Burnaby-Edmonds to stand on the floor and do a job for them....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are now really getting out of order. Strict relevance to the section.

MS. BROWN: I'm to be strictly relevant to this section. I'm merely reminding the House that I am not speaking on this section on my own behalf; I'm speaking on behalf of those people who elected me to come here and do a job for them, which I'm trying to do. In my efforts to do this job, I am speaking in....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The government threw their best guns in there and still couldn't defeat me, so I'm not worried.

[ Page 2412 ]

I'm speaking in opposition to this section, simply because of the benefits which have accrued to Burnaby-Edmonds and Burnaby as a whole as a direct result of the kind of planning which the regional district does. It talks about its objectives when it's planning, that it takes into account something that the bureaucrats and the minister will not be able to do, something which individual municipalities will not be able to do on their own. It takes into account, as I said before, the objectives of the surrounding municipalities, the other municipalities that touch on its borders. Together, representatives from all of these municipalities that sit on the regional district and participate in the development of the planning came up with some shared objectives.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, discussion of objectives, plans or history is really appropriate in second reading; it is not appropriate in the committee stage of a bill. Section 5 is quite specific: it's a repeal act. Please, if the member could speak to the specific clauses contained therein.

[11:15]

MS. BROWN: The only reason I'm mentioning objectives is that the shared objectives of all of the municipalities which are part of the building and the designing of a regional plan are going to disappear once section 5 becomes law. I am opposed to section 5 becoming law, because once section 5 becomes law the shared objectives.... That's the only reason I raise the term "objectives." I'm not even going to mention in any great detail what those objectives are, except to say that it's not just the objectives of Burnaby that we're talking about, or the objectives of Vancouver or New Westminster or Surrey. We're talking, as the UBCM resolution stated, about the cooperation....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that has been introduced. Please, to the section. I will advise the member one more time that the debate that she's carrying on with is second reading debate; she's speaking to the principle, not to the specific section. The member will advance new material or will discontinue her speech.

MS. BROWN: Once section 5 becomes law, all of the official regional plans prepared or designated prior to this time are cancelled. They have no effect. That is the reality of the situation. I am opposed to this for a number of reasons. I'm not discussing the spirit of the bill. If I were discussing the spirit of the bill, I would be dealing with it in terms of the centralization of authority, which is not what I'm talking about. I am talking about the loss of cooperation which is going to take place once this section becomes law; the loss of shared objectives; the loss of shared planning; the loss of shared designing and development of a plan. It's that loss that I'm opposed to, and it's why I'm speaking against this particular section. I am opposed to that loss, Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, on very selfish grounds. The very selfish ground is that Burnaby benefited from that cooperation. Burnaby was a beneficiary of that working together, of those shared objectives, or those shared goals, of being able to participate in the decisions, in the design, development and building of the regional plans. Going back 30 years....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, now we are stretching it. Principle is not allowed in committee stage. Can you be relevant to the specific section? If you can't, then I will have to ask you to discontinue your speech.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this section because once this section becomes law there is going to be a loss to my constituents. The people who elected me to be here are going to be the victims of this section. That is the reason why I am opposed to this particular section. Now was that in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, because it has been stated before and it becomes tedious and repetitious when one hears it. Can the member advance new arguments.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I note that you are likely getting tired, having sat in the Chair all evening, and probably under those circumstances you would become a little bit less than patient. But the fact of the matter is, in order to develop an argument, whether it is on a section or second reading or anything else, you have to relate it to something. That is what the member is doing: relating it to her own constituency, which she knows best and has the responsibility to represent.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Over and over and over.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Your point of order is well taken. The member for New Westminster will take his place, and I will point out to all members of the committee that standing order 43, which has been quoted till it's repetitious itself, advises us that we should not be repetitious. I am sure the member for Burnaby can advance new arguments in the debate strictly relating to the section before us.

MS. BROWN: Okay, here come the new arguments, Mr. Chairman. I want to quote again from the Greater Vancouver Regional District — a new quote, a new argument, which says: "A workable plan must do more than provide objectives and strategies; it must also provide practical tools to achieve that plan." That is what was possible under this section: the practical tools to achieve the objectives and the strategies. That is what we are going to lose when this section becomes law, and all of those regional and official regional plans are cancelled when this becomes law.

I want to raise another new idea — again quoting from the same document, but only because I am speaking through the voice of the people who know their job the best, the regional district people, and only because I am speaking on behalf of Burnaby and the benefits which accrued from this. Implementation. I don't want to reflect on a statement which I made earlier, but to remind the Chairman that it is more costeffective when the region works in cooperation rather than when municipalities work in isolation. That is a given in other areas of life as well, not just in the area of planning. That is a fact, that the cost of implementation goes down when municipalities share that cost. Instead of duplicating services and whatever has to be done in each municipality, the region can operate as a whole, as one body.

Another new idea, Mr. Chairman, never before advanced by this member. Coordination. "Planning coordination is one of the responsibilities of the regional district." Nothing in section 5 has been stated to reassure us that once all of these

[ Page 2413 ]

regional plans and official regional plans have been cancelled and are no longer in effect, any other structure is going to be put in place to ensure that there is planning coordination between the municipalities. I am sure that each municipality on its own will make its own decision. I am not arguing with the minister about the right of each municipality, but the municipalities themselves are defending their need to work together, and coordination is one of the arguments which they put forth in this defence. Once this section becomes law and all of these plans and this planning function has been terminated, coordination is no longer possible — unless, when the minister stands up to respond, he will be able to tell us about another structure which is going to be introduced to take the place of the regional board.

Another new idea, Mr. Chairman. I must say that I find your request for new ideas a very challenging one, and I'm trying to rise to the challenge as best as I can. You may have heard it before, but it's still a new idea because it doesn't happen very often, and that is the idea of cooperation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's been stated. hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Oh, that's an old idea, but its a new concept.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, to the section.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, just this once, I want to wrap up my opposition to this section by just repeating. Practicality, in terms of the practical tools to help achieve the objectives and strategies; implementation, in terms of the cost-effectiveness of it and the lack of duplication; coordination, in terms of working together, planning together and being sure that things come on stream with some kind of logical sequence; and cooperation. I just wanted to keep those key words in place, because when this section becomes law, those functions are going to disappear and it's going to be each municipality unto its own. What the municipalities themselves have learned about the benefits of working together, they are going to lose as a direct result of this section becoming law. I am opposed to this section Mr. Chairman, and if I thought I had the chance of a snowball in the tropics of getting this section amended or deleted, I would move such an amendment. But I know that I haven't got a chance, and that's the only reason why I'm not moving this amendment. This section is going to place the municipality of Burnaby at risk, and although I'm selfish and speak more for Burnaby than I do for other municipalities, I know it's also going to place at risk the other municipalities that benefited from that regional structure. I hope that the minister will use the opportunity to rethink this section, because this section is destructive and should not be permitted to pass into law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the section pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

MS. BROWN: No, people are on their feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ordered it. I did not see members on their feet. Section 5 has passed.

MS. BROWN: No. It's not passed. You can't do that. People were on their feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll recognize the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Profanity is not allowed, hon. member.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm really concerned with the wording in this section, and I'm glad the House Leader is in the house. What the section is doing is amending the Municipal Act. Already under section 4 we have wiped out section 808. So I feel 808.1 is not needed. I mean 808 is wiped out, so I believe, and I say it seriously to the House Leader, who is a member of the legal profession, that if we are going to reword this section.... If it is the intention of the government to jam this through, it's going to be part of the Municipal Act where it says.... I'm not going to make an amendment, because I know it'll be thrown out because I made it. But if we are going to change 808 — we have already wiped it out — then the section should read.... This particular section that we're debating — 808.1 — should read: "All regional plans and official regional plans prepared or designated before July 7. 1983, are cancelled and have no effect." I think that wording, and I give this to the House Leader, would be better terminology when it becomes part of the act. I think from a very legalistic point of view this type of amendment to become law in the province will have to be corrected later on in further parliaments. If we're going to jam it through, let's jam through something that at least establishes in the terminology and the legal words what the government wants. I know in their haste to wipe out regional plans, they are determined to wipe them out, but they're not doing it in a legal manner. I feel that the wording of that particular section should be taken out and the proper terminology brought back. We're determined to jam it through, but 807 and 808 are repealed and won't be part of the act, so why have 808(l)? Let's put what you want in properly.

[11:30]

I'm not trying to correct your legislation or to take away from our opposition to what you are doing. But if you are going to do it, let's do it properly. For the benefit of the House Leader, if you're determined to jam it through, just put in a new section 808 which says that all regional plans and official regional plans prepared or designated before July 7, 1983, are cancelled and have no effect. I think it would look better in future municipal acts that are printed than the present wording you have here now.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd like the House to make welcome a former member of this assembly, the mayor of Nanaimo, Frank Ney. I don't know what he's doing up at this time of night, but it can't be anything good.

MR. BARRETT: On the same leave, may I add the comment that he must have missed the bus back to Nanaimo. The mayor of Nanaimo is always welcome in this chamber, as

[ Page 2414 ]

a visitor. While he was here during his short term as an MLA, he returned to sanity and has not been tempted to insanity since that time. Speaking to this section, the insane has become sane, the irrational has become rational, and the impossible has happened.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please.

MR. BARRETT: Under this section all of the money spent by the municipalities, all of the taxpayers' money spent....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That argument has been advanced, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not even finished yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm afraid the argument is. Hon. member, the record will show that....

MR. BARRETT: I haven't even started.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's regrettable, but standing order 43 indicates that an argument is tedious and repetitious if it is advanced by a member or in fact has been advanced by other members. I will ask the member to discontinue that and to advance to new material.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, just so I may stay in order, would you tell me what my argument was going to be so that I know what was out of order'?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe you were talking about money, and that argument has been heard.

MR. BARRETT: That wasn't my argument. Before you throw me out or rule it out of order, will you wait until you hear it? You're jumping the gun. Hang on to your little red book.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! To the section.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. I'm speaking to section number....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Five.

MR. BARRETT: You're ahead of me again.

MR. REID: Everybody's ahead of you.

MR. BARRETT: That may be, but they're catching up to you.

"All regional plans and official regional plans prepared or designated before sections 807 and 808 were repealed are cancelled and have no effect." I'd like to ask the minister a question under this section — I have his undivided attention. Will the government reimburse the taxpayers for the money spent on the studies that will no longer be used by those taxpayers?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it's a time of restraint. I want to know: will the government pay back to the taxpayers the money that was spent in good faith for this planning? Will you send the money back?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll advise the member now speaking that that point was well canvassed by, I think, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Leader of the Opposition just arrived in the chamber now. He's been absent all evening. Obviously he's going to find it difficult to stay on the section because he doesn't know what has already been said. He's being repetitious and tedious. I would suggest that he be ruled out of order.

MR. BARRETT: I have enough trouble with one Chairman, without two. I asked the minister a question, and I'm informed by my colleagues that this question has not been asked before. Does the government intend to reimburse those taxpayers who spent their money in good faith for this planning?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now the question has been asked twice. Is there new information?

MR. BARRETT: Well, the first time I asked it it was out of order, so this time it only counts as once. Please, Mr. Chairman, let us have good rapport, since you and I are the only two involved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure we can.

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking the minister: will the money be reimbursed? Under this section the minister can choose not to answer questions, but if I may have an instruction from the Chair, it is advisable in committee to ask questions rather than to make prolonged speeches.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right.

MR. BARRETT: But it is difficult, you will agree, to ask questions without getting answers. However, I will proceed.

Since we do not have an answer we can assume this is a spendthrift government....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be second reading debate, hon. member. We're on a specific section.

MR. BARRETT: Well, we're having a good debate.

Now we come to section 807, which is being repealed. It is referred to in this section. I would hope that we could expedite the work since there is such an emergency that the Spetifore land be dealt with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will speak specifically to the section or discontinue his speech.

MR. BARRETT: I would hope that I could proceed without interruptions from the government members, other than perhaps the answers to a few questions from the minister. I read in section 5 the following sentence: "All regional plans and official regional plans prepared or designated before sections 807 and 808 were repealed are cancelled and have no

[ Page 2415 ]

effect." One of the regional plans prepared as referred to in this section was the saving of the Spetifore land in the Land Act. I ask the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That matter has been canvassed extremely well. Does the member have further...?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, may I complete my question? I asked the minister this question. Can the minister inform the House whether or not he discussed the removal of the Spetifore land as designated under section 807, verbally or with any...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to discontinue this line of speech. That question has been canvassed in second reading and in other forums of the House. If the Leader of the Opposition can advance new material, then he can proceed. I have recognized the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, you have warned the Leader of the Opposition a number of times under standing order 43. He has only been standing for a few minutes. I know he hasn't been in the House all evening, but if he had been here he would have known that you are correct. These questions have been asked over and over again, and I would ask Mr. Chairman, under standing order 43, to ask the member to discontinue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point of order is well taken. I have just asked the Leader of the Opposition to discontinue that particular line of speech and advance new material. Perhaps now I will read to all members standing order 43 one more time just so we can understand it: "Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.... " All of the arguments we have heard so far have already been advanced, with some repetition, by other members in argument.

The Leader of the Opposition on section 5.

MR. BARRETT: I don't wish to argue with the Chair, but could the Chair advise me how in seven minutes the Chair can come to the conclusion that that standing order can be applied to me when the House has had some debate? The Chair should not abuse the rights of a minority member — which is also in the standing orders. I find, Mr. Chairman, that you are too quick at jumping the gun and you are not even letting me advance my questions or argument.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will remind the Leader of the Opposition that the arguments he has advanced even in the brief time that he has been beginning...

MR. BARRETT: I haven't even finished yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...have all been advanced last night, early this morning and this evening. I think all members of the committee will agree with that. I am sure the record will show that we are persisting now in tedious debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have a right to respond to your admonition of that standing order to me. It is now 11:40, we have been sitting day and night, the government is attempting in an abnormal way to ram legislation through this House, and I will ask the questions that may indeed bear on standing order 81, as I warned last night. In terms of corruption and bribery, I may indeed raise that question of 81. Unless I am given my chance to ask the questions that are here in this House, and there is public suspicion abroad that this is politically....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Leader of the Opposition is now persisting in most irrelevant debate that is not at all related to the bill before us. If the member wishes to invoke other sections, he could perhaps bring that to the attention of the House, but while we are in committee on a bill, speaking specifically to a section, we must do that. I will commend the Leader of the Opposition to speak to the bill, be in order, and take his seat, please. Thank you. The committee will be well served with respect to standing order 43. I think it is incumbent upon all members to read that section and be aware of what it says and remind ourselves that we are now entertaining debate that has been said many many times before. We are offending the rules of tedious repetition.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I find it impossible to accept an argument that in nine minutes I've reached the point where I've offended this rule, without even finishing two questions. I haven't finished two questions, and before I'm through half of the question I'm ruled out of order. That is either a prescience of a magnificent scope that would be envied by Pocklington, or some attempt to block what I am trying to get at. If you will let me continue, perhaps it will take just a few minutes.

I'm asking the minister directly if he had any conversation or correspondence with any citizen or any executive member of the UBCM asking in general that these two sections be removed, and in particular related to any special land problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That question has been asked many times.

MR. BARRETT: Any special land problem?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Many times this evening.

MR. BARRETT: Who asked "any special land problem," without naming one?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the question and its intent has been addressed many times during the debate since 8 o'clock this evening.

MR. BARRETT: And the minister has seen fit not to answer; is that correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The records will have to speak for that, hon. member. I'm just pointing out....

[ Page 2416 ]

MR. BARRETT: If the records can speak as to what's been asked, the records have to inform me what's been answered. How can the records show one and not the other?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, that is irrelevant debate, please.

MR. BARRETT: Then, Mr. Chairman....

[11:45]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Come on!

MR. BARRETT: "Come on," my eye! This is political railroading for payoffs and we're going to deal with it in this House in the manner that it should be paid off.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, and you know it, too. At a quarter to 12 at night, my dear friend...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will come to order.

MR. BARRETT: ...you're paying off your friends. Shame on you!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will everybody take their seats.

MR. BARRETT: Who do you think you're paying off in this place? My dear friends, who do you think you're paying off out there? We're going to deal with this here in this House.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I will say it outside. You bet your life.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Bloody payola! Payola, payola, and you know it!

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Step out and I'll say it out there. You wait until I'm finished in here!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'll ask all members to take their seats.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, look at those crazies!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister of Labour will come to order. All members will come to order. I think we've had quite enough abuse of the rules, and unparliamentary conduct. We've had a chance to vent some of our feelings. Perhaps now we can return to orderly and parliamentary debate on section 5.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister.... It's pretty much well known that there was more money loaned....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. LEA: I'm not on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, well, you indicated to me you were on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Oh, no, I didn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you're entering into debate, then I would like to take a point of order from the House Leader.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I found the remarks of the leader of the official opposition disgraceful, extremely offensive and, if I may say so, a total lie. He accused me of receiving a payoff...

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. GARDOM: ...and under no circumstances will I accept that from that member, or from any other member in this House, either in here or out there. Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the official opposition wishes to make those kinds of statements and hide behind the skirts of privilege, I'll tell you what kind of a person I think he is. I will demand that he come outside and say that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a little problem here. I will first of all address the Leader of the Opposition, and then the government House Leader.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please.

MR. BARRETT: All right, are you going to withdraw that kind of junk?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I will ask the member that as well.

First of all, would the Leader of the Opposition please withdraw any statement that may have offended another member of this House.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw any offending statement. And I ask the same from the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Now I will ask the House Leader to withdraw the statement that offended the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If I have in any way offended the Leader of the Opposition, I would indeed withdraw, but I fail to see how I have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was unparliamentary....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would unqualifiedly withdraw. Make no mistake of that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, the matter is now settled.

[ Page 2417 ]

Now back to the debate on section 5.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it's well known that there was more money loaned to people who purchased the Spetifore property....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's not within the confines of the section.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it will be if you just hold on a second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I really can't see how it can be.

MR. LEA: You will. Mr. Chairman, there was more money loaned for the people who purchased the Spetifore property than the property was worth under the old zoning....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not within the confines of the section, nor in the references to the Municipal Act.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the minister whether, when this bill was put together, there was any representation from lending institutions — banks or others — to the government...

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, that is not....

MR. LEA: ...asking that this legislation go through the House to protect the investment of the bankers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will discontinue that line of questioning.

MR. LEA: Why, Mr. Speaker?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not in order. Section 5 is very specific. It mentions repealing and cancelling, and has no bearing on arrangements that might have been made in some other area. It deals with the Municipal Act, which I am sure is not to do with the line of questioning that members are dealing with now.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, if it had no bearing on this section, then I would ask why the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has absented himself from this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is out of order as well. Hon. member, this is becoming quite tedious. Does the member have any further debate?

MR. LEA: Yes, I would like to ask the minister a question.

You can strike out the reference to the Spetifore property, but what I would like to ask the minister is whether there was any representation to him or to government....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would not apply under section 5, hon. member.

MR. LEA: That's what I'm asking. We're on section 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can tell you now it won't.

MR. LEA: I want to ask the minister whether it was at the request of lending institutions that section 5 — in fact, all of the sections of this bill — is before us today to protect their investment in a piece of property that they thought was going to be rezoned by the regional district, but ended up not being.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will come to order. That line of questioning has no relevance to the section, and the member...

MR. LEA: It sure has to morality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...must discontinue his speech.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the question be now put.

MR. LEA: A little nervous now, are you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Hon. members, when standing order 46.... When a member calls the question to be put, the Chair must first of all ascertain whether or not there has been adequate debate. I do so. I think we have been on this section for quite a while now.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition will be advised that in fact the Chairman declined a similar motion about 45 minutes ago. If the Leader of the Opposition continues to....

The question is that the question now be put.

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 13

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 2418 ]

[12:00]

Section 5 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 14

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, when reporting to the Speaker, would you inform him, with leave, that a division took place in the chamber on this section of the bill, and would you ask him to ascertain fully, in terms of the recorded vote in the committee, whether or not standing order 18 has been fully complied with. Standing order 18 says: "No member....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is out of order, hon. member. The committee may ask for leave to have the division recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. BARRETT: At the same time, I'm asking that the Chair bring standing order 18 to the attention of the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman of the committee cannot make that commitment.

MR. BARRETT: The Chairman is the only one who can report, and I'm asking that the Chairman report, saying that the question of standing order 18 was raised by a member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman can only report progress or the completion of the bill, and can also request that recording be asked for — ask leave to have it recorded in the Journals of the House.

Shall section 6 pass?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, the amendment standing under the name of the minister will come after section 6 is dealt with.

On section 6, the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the Chair has asked: "Shall section 6 pass?" I believe there are amendments to section 6, so I don't suppose that one wants to see things....

MR. CHAIRMAN: What the Chair proposes to do, unless there is any serious discontent, is to pass section 6 and then have the minister introduce 6.1 and then 6.2. They will be passed separately, and debate will be allowed on those sections.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that those are out of order, because you can amend sections, but you can't go writing a new bill inside of a bill.

You are saying these are new sections. They can't be sections. If we adopt section 6, we go on to section 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, hon. member. I understand what you are saying and think maybe we are in agreement.

This may be complicated, but I assure you that I am not trying to frustrate debate on any of the items before us. I do propose that because of the amendments, the numbering, the way they are presented on the order paper and the way the bill reads, we deal with section 6 first and then move the amendments 6.1 and 6.2, which will appear as separate items. There will be every opportunity to debate all three items sections 6, 6.I and 6.2.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The member has raised an interesting point but I think he is misconstruing.... It is not a question of subsections 6(2) and 6(3); they are not subsections. It is a question of additional portions of a section — 6.1 and 6.2. This is the process that is now followed by legislative counsel.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, I say that if we pass section 6, there is no opportunity then to amend section 6. If, Mr. Chairman, we do bring this into law this way, then I suggest that there would be an equal opportunity for the opposition party to introduce amendments simply by creating a decimal point that falls somewhere between two numbers. In other words, you could say 6.5, if you wanted to. If that is going to be the situation, this is something quite different. Perhaps speaking to the bill — and I've actually been concentrating on the amendments — section 6 says: "Section 809(l) is repealed and the following substituted: (1) A regional board may prepare an official settlement plan." Mr. Speaker, amendment 6.1, which is going to repeal subsection 809(3) of the act, which is going to repeal a method of approving.... Subsection 809(3) says: "The regional board may adopt or amend an official settlement plan only by a bylaw adopted by an affirmative vote of a majority of the directors present at the meeting at which the vote is taken and entitled to vote on the bylaw, having among them a majority of all votes cast." Mr. Speaker, while it is pertaining to official settlement plans, it's a totally different subject, about as totally different as any of the other sections of this bill. In other words, we are introducing totally new sections into this bill if this goes ahead. I say that this is out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I don't want to be difficult, but I assure you that in no way will debate be frustrated on any of the three or four items left in this bill now facing us — which are, specifically and discreetly, section 6; and then on the order paper there will be an amendment proposed by the minister, 6.1.... After section 6 is dealt with, we will go to section 6. 1. When that is dealt with, we

[ Page 2419 ]

will go to section 6.2. When that is dealt with, we will go to section 7. If we had any other numbering system, then in fact number 7 would be out of order, but I can assure the member that there will be no frustration of debate. Also, I will quote from Sir Erskine May, the sixteenth edition, which does allow the Chairman to decide that an amendment offered in one place should be moved in another place in the same clause or some other clause, or that an amendment should be moved as a new clause. So the Chairman does have that discretion, and therefore we will deal with these as three separate items. We are now on section 6 as it's contained in the bill, and on that the Chair recognizes the member for Omineca.

On section 6.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I wish to say a few words this morning on section 6. I want to say that I have agreed with Bill 9 up to this point, but particularly under this section we have not gone far enough in regard to curbing regional district governments in this province. I say once again on behalf of the rural people that I represent that we should be doing away altogether with the regional district concept in this province. However, barring that event, certainly this section regarding official settlement plans must be done away with. We in this province, and particularly in the rural areas, are 50 years ahead of our time when it comes to planning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF: That's how much the members opposite know about the rural areas of this province. I say it again, Mr. Chairman: we're 50 years ahead of our time in the rural areas of this province when it comes to planning. We're planned to death. We're virtually planned to death.

[12:15]

Mr. Chairman, official settlement plans, as mentioned in section 6, are a prime example of this very harmful, very frustrating and very regressive planning legislation. Settlement plans are the grandiose ideas of a very few people foisted on many. Citizens in our rural areas, people living miles from any development at all, are being stymied in their attempts to develop anything, in their attempts to make something of themselves — albeit a very slow process — by these grandiose ideas of a few planners sitting in offices in the towns and in the cities. As I said before, we're 50 years ahead of our time in planning in the rural areas, and that's why I cannot agree with section 6 of this act.

My first question to the minister is, why has he not addressed the very real rural problem created by settlement plans? Why was the entire planning process not done away with? Why have we gone the half mile and not the whole mile when curbing those planning functions of regional districts? To leave the settlement plan section of this act in place is to ignore the problems of those very vast areas which exist between municipalities in the rural areas of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is reminded that the debate he is embarking on now is probably more relevant to second reading, so would he debate specifically to section 6.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I am relating to section 6, which deals specifically with settlement plans, specifically with the ability of the regional districts to adopt settlement plans....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, they were, Mr. Member. It was an absolute travesty that the land act was not passed in this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, to the section. In section 6, official regional plans were done away with. Why were settlement plans not done away with at the same time?

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: No, I did not, Mr. Member. I never did and I never will.

Why have we not treated the rural citizens of this province the same as we have the urban citizens? That's all we've talked about. All night — and all last night in debating this bill — we have talked about the problems of the urban areas of this province, not the problems of the rural citizens. Settlement plans are a very real problem for the rural citizens of this province, particularly those citizens in the very vast riding which I serve. Again I ask the minister, why the double standard? Why have we not addressed the problem of the rural citizen of this province, as well as that of the urban?

Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister through you why we haven't treated rural citizens in the same manner. I would ask the minister, under this section, to consider doing the same thing with settlement plans as he has with official regional plans. I would also ask him — and I would like his comment in committee — whether he would at the same time give serious consideration to retracting those settlement plans already in place, for they are a very real problem. Not only is it a problem in that regional districts have the power and may adopt future and additional settlement plans, but there is a very real problem out there in the rural areas with the settlement plans already in place. I would ask that minister what he intends to do about it.

I will not take up any more of the time of the House tonight. Again I would ask that the power of adopting settlement plans — which power is now in the hands of the regional district, and given once again to the regional districts of this province — be repealed; also, in order that there be some measure of justice given to the rural citizens of British Columbia, that the settlement plans already in place be as well repealed.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Very briefly, I thank the member for Omineca for his comments. I suggest. however, that settlement planning in an electoral area could be compared to official community planning in a municipality. However, I do recognize that the need for planning in high-density areas such as the lower mainland is much more important than it is in the unorganized areas of our province. I also recognize some of the obstacles that have been placed in the way of many of our people throughout the province as a result, in many cases, of overplanning. No doubt as we progress we will be looking to see that indeed settlement planning is not getting in the way of progress.

[ Page 2420 ]

MR. SKELLY: I'd just like to draw the House's attention to the fact that in 1977, when this section was originally brought in, the member who spoke so vehemently against planning in rural areas, which the official settlement plan system provided for — a system brought in by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Vander Zalm — not only supported the bill in principle, but he opposed a six-month hoist on the bill. He wanted rural planning under official settlement plans done right away, without any delay. That member's name was.... If I can read the member's name from the division when he opposed the six-month hoist, Mr. Kempf is listed as opposing any delay in implementing that legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Could we speak to the section, please?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, the member — from wherever he's from — was allowed to cite votes that were taken in this House. Yes, certainly at the time it was thought by this member that possibly that kind of settlement planning would be good for the rural people of this province, and possibly for my constituents. It has certainly been found since then that it is not, Mr. Member. I stand in this House tonight and say it was not, and on behalf of those whom I represent, I say we must repeal the right of regional districts to bring in settlement plans.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the matter is resolved.

Section 6 approved.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move amendment 6.1 standing under my name on the order paper.

On the amendment.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister what the amendments mean. What are the implications? How does he see that in terms of the developing of regional matters?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Would you repeat the question?

MR. HANSON: My question is: can the minister give us a brief outline of what the amendments mean and what the implications are?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Of course, 6.1 states quite clearly that section 809(3) is repealed. You'll see that the regional board may adopt or amend an official settlement plan only by a bylaw adopted by an affirmative vote of a majority of the directors present at the meeting at which the vote is taken, and by those entitled to vote on the bylaw, having among them a majority of all the votes cast.

MR. HANSON: How does 3 relate to the subsequent amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That will have to be discussed in that subsequent amendment.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I believe the order paper indicates that 4 follows from 3: 1 is deleted and 4 is affected. Can the minister advise us how it is affected?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't see a reference to that in the order paper, hon. member. We are on section 6.1 dealing with section 809(3) of the Municipal Act. The next amendment will deal with the Municipal Act, section 814(3).

MR. SKELLY: The minister didn't completely explain how an official settlement plan will be passed if we do away with the section which requires it to be passed by an affirmative vote, a majority of the directors present having a majority of the vote. How then would a planning bylaw of this nature be adopted?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: One man, one vote. We do away with the majority on the board — the weighted vote.

MR. SKELLY: So in an area where there's a majority of municipalities and a minority of electoral areas, it means the municipalities will still dominate the vote.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No. The changes to the act will allow a municipality.... If a municipality decides that a settlement plan taking place on their fringe area may be of interest to them, and they wish to have some say in that plan, then they would vote to do so, and would participate in the cost of the plan.

MR. PASSARELL: I have just a short question to the minister in regard to the definition of the official settlement plan. Section 809(2) says: "An official settlement plan applies only to that area of the regional district outside a city, district, town or village." My question to the minister is that in some parts of the very northwest comer of the province, particularly at Haines-Mile 48, over into the national park and then on to the border of Alaska, there is not a regional district. Who has the jurisdiction over that area if it doesn't fall within the definition of the old Municipal Act or within your new act?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is interesting, because the member referred to subsection 809(2). We are on subsection 809(3), but perhaps the minister may wish to answer.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: "An official settlement plan applies only to that area of the regional district outside a city, district, town or village, and may apply to all or part of that area."

[12:30]

MR. PASSARELL: Just one further clarification on this to the minister: my question is about an area that is not covered by a regional district. Will that area, around Mile 48 on the Haines road, fall 100 percent under the jurisdiction of your ministry? There is a settlement of approximately ten people who live in that northwest comer of the province. Where does the official settlement plan fall? Does it come right to your office?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Only those areas that would fall within a regional district. I would guess that what you are

[ Page 2421 ]

getting at is that possibly that would fall under the jurisdiction of another ministry — Lands, Parks and Housing.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question that relates more to procedure than to the contents of the section. If we eliminate subsection 3 from section 809, does it follow automatically that all the other sections are renumbered? Is that how the new procedures work? Or does...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe you could rephrase that for the House Leader. It is a legislative drafting question, which I think is to remain to the....

MR. GABELMANN: It may be that the new procedures that have been developed over the last few years in terms of legislative drafting look after this; if they do, I didn't know and I don't know. But if you eliminate subsection 3 entirely and you no longer have a subsection 3, are all the other subsequent sections automatically renumbered?

HON.MR.GARDOM: No.

MR. GABELMANN: In that event, we are going to have subsections 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, etc., and will just simply have no subsection 3. That's pretty sloppy, isn't it?

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I move the amendment 6.2 standing on the order paper under my name. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 approved.

On the title.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the title adequately reflects the content and the motivation of this bill. I wish to move an amendment to the title and add after 1983 "(Spetifore)." The title will now read as follows: Municipal Amendment Act, 1983 (Spetifore).

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would not be in order. It is not relevant to the bill.

MR. HANSON: It is totally relevant, Mr. Chairman. If I may speak to the amendment...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member wishes to speak to the title. The amendment has failed.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a bill to undermine all regional planning in the province with respect....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that debate cannot be allowed. We are on the title. The member has had ample opportunity to speak to the principle of the bill, and unless the member has anything further to say on the title, there is nothing more that we can do.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, can you advise me on what ground my amendment is out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is irrelevant to the section. The Chair does not know of what the member is speaking, and....

MR. HANSON: Is that your ruling, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's my ruling.

MR. HANSON: I challenge your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 6

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

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 9, Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 15.

[ Page 2422 ]

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we oppose and object to the increase of the sales tax. It is a stupid, simple-minded approach to economics; it's from the Chicago school of 1930s economics, withdrawing $175 million of consumer money from the economy at this' time. It's the height of idiocy. If there's anything to push a teetering recovery over the brink, it is extracting $175 million of British Columbians' revenues from circulation at this time.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, there are other points that we object to in this bill: namely the increase of the sales tax from 2 percent to 5 percent for gasoline-efficient cars. In 1980 this Legislature approved a budget which provided that an automobile that had gas mileage of over 33 miles to the gallon — whatever that is in metric — was given a tax break of 5 percent. In other words, the sales tax was 2 percent rather than the existing 6 percent, I should say. That was a wise move, because it offered those wanting a fuel-efficient car an extra incentive to purchase one. It also offered central Canadian auto assembly plants and so on an opportunity to compete on a more equitable basis with foreign import energy-efficient automobiles.

Now we have a situation where those automobiles are going to be slapped with an additional 5 percent tax to bring it up to 7 percent, which, on a ticket price of anywhere between $7,000 and $10,000, will clearly be a disincentive for people to buy those automobiles. They may just as easily buy large energy-consuming automobiles.

[12:45]

Mr. Speaker, it was indicated in the notes for the 1980 budget that the government recognized that taxes on telephone calls were a particular hardship for the elderly, because the telephone is a lifeline for the elderly and the disabled in a way that is magnified because of circumstances. To penalize those individuals with an added tax was clearly recognized at the time as being a regressive and unnecessary move. Now we have a situation where the government is going to charge a tax on long-distance calls, which flies in the face of all of the arguments printed at government expense in the budget of 1980.

Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable argument in the press about the plight of the small business community — particularly the restaurateurs, who are going to be required to collect a 7 percent meal tax for all meals over $7. This has a negative effect in two areas. It discourages many British Columbians, who have very little disposable income, from going to a restaurant and being slapped with a 7 percent tax. That particular aspect is an impediment to economic recovery for the hospitality industry, the restaurant industry and so on. It is also a hardship for the small restaurateurs and operators who have the administrative responsibility for sorting out this mess of the difference between a meal that exceeds $7 and meals that do not. For even parties of three, four or half a dozen individuals the staffing and administrative implications of sorting out this tax are ridiculous. Restaurant associations have asked the government to cease and desist and allow these organizations an opportunity to come forward with proposals such as across-the-board taxes. If the government has to press ahead with the tax in this area — which is highly questionable in the first place — that tax should be, perhaps, 2 or 3 percent across the board rather than one of these goofy taxes that has a boundary that all meals in excess of $7 are taxed, whereas something that costs $6.99 is not. Now that is Chicago school 1930s economics which has been gathered up by this government as some kind of progressive measure, which, of course, is absolutely ridiculous.

So we have a government moving backwards as it is in so many of these other pieces of legislation before us. In this bill we have — and I think I was talking to you about this earlier, Mr. Speaker — a rolling back of energy conservation measures. We had this incentive to buy energy-efficient automobiles and to conserve our finite oil resources, rather than burning them up in an automobile. Here we have the government rolling back in that area, at a time when we have a very fragile recovery occurring in the United States and more and more receiverships here. Bankruptcies are occurring in our small business sector, which could be given some kind of stimulus and opportunity to create employment, to be given the benefit of the doubt. Here we have them slapped with added disincentives to recovery. They have to be functioning as tax collectors for the Social Credit government, which is an incredibly regressive step. We have the slapping on of taxes on long-distance telephone calls, which again is a hardship for the elderly.

Mr. Speaker, whenever you have a tax where the poor pay the same amount as the rich, it's a regressive tax. We hear a lot of rhetoric and hot air coming from that side of the House on many areas this session about the notion of ability to pay, but it's a schizophrenic notion because ability to pay really means that. It means that a person who is poor and doesn't have the money can't pay the same kind of taxation in sales tax as a person who has an adequate or excessive – very large surplus — income. So sales tax is a regressive tax. The Gillespie report indicates that British Columbia is only second to Ontario in the regressiveness of its taxation policy. So rather than having some kind of graduated income tax revisions come into this House so that people who have millions and millions of dollars in the bank, or millions of dollars in investment, in tough times, are asked to pay a little more, guess what? They're ending up paying less and the poor people are paying more and being slapped with user charges and all sorts of added hikes in services that they normally could expect that government would provide at a standard and fair rate. But this government has the notion to move into user pay, which hurts the ordinary person, and also to in crease taxes that are not in any respect progressive but are just regressive. They slap on taxes where the poor people, who spend all of their money and keep all of their money at all times circulating in the economy, which is the most efficient and effective way to have dollars moving in the economy, rather than locked into bullion or locked into coupons, locked into other kinds of capital assets.... But their money flows, so they get slapped with an extra tax. I think I'm making my point, Mr. Speaker, and I think you understand that it is a totally regressive measure.

I think that part of the reason we are being inundated with these regressive tax measures, particularly from Ontario, is that we seem to have a cabinet, who are importing all of this regressive taxation baggage from Ontario and foisting it on the people of this province. At a time when we should be encouraging and stimulating the small business community and assisting them, the people who are still answering the phones, the people who have survived to this point — and Mr. Speaker, there is this folklore that is happening out in the

[ Page 2423 ]

depression and the recession that small business people are saying to themselves in a very macabre way: "I guess I'm okay, I'm still answering my phone" — we have a government that is adding on to their burden and making them tax collectors, making them handmaidens to a regressive taxation policy by an Ontario-led Socred government.

Many people say: "Oh, it's only 1 percent. What can it amount to?" Mr. Speaker, the 1 percent increase is a 17 percent increase in sales tax. At a time when we hear that Mr. Peck and other people want to roll back the wages of people who have not had increases for years, the government feels it is fine and dandy to go ahead and slap on a 17 percent increase in sales tax. This diminishes business revenues and frustrates the recovery. There is no doubt about that.

There are other things that this sales tax does. By, removing the $175 million that normally would be flowing, it will cut sales. Certainly the confidence of the overall community — if I can refer to British Columbia as a community — has been impaired and is certainly depressed by this government. This government, in its bills, has threatened the spending power of all public sector workers, which is 250,000 families. When you multiply the affected parties there, it translates to roughly one in four British Columbians who will not be spending a dime. They will not spend a dime because they do not know, from one pay period to the next, whether they are going to have a job. They are threatened in the newspaper by cabinet ministers who they only knew from news reports on the radio and who now are directly attacking them in their own workplace, whether they're teachers and so on. This tax measure is compounding that fact. It will be restricting the confidence even further than these repressive labour measures that the government is bringing in. People will not have the confidence to spend money. Now we have a situation where the government wants to draw $175 million more out of B.C. circulation, which will hurt small businesses that could be taking people on, could be expanding, could be trying to get it together again in anticipation of the recovery which we all hope is around the comer.

Mr. Speaker, there was a very interesting article by Toby's Restaurant that was printed in a local publication. I think it is worthy of putting into the record because it strikes right at the principle of this bill that affects the restaurateurs.

"Dear Sir or Madam:

"Social Services Tax on Food:

"In order to avoid any confusion (usually done deliberately by governments?) which inevitably follows a tax introduction, we wish to clarify the recent tax levied on food served in restaurants in British Columbia. The intention of the new tax is to gain 7 percent from any unfortunate individual who dares to consume food in excess of $7. Alcoholic beverages are not affected (the addition of another hike would drive everyone to drink, anyway!)."

This is important to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 43 and would draw the member's attention — he may have been off shift.... When I first saw the advertisement to which he is referring, I thought that it was rather well done. It has been read into the record in this debate at least once, if not twice, on a previous occasion. I suggest that this is repetitious.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. In light of the fact that it has been read into the record, I concur with the Minister of Finance. I do not believe there is a necessity to have it read in again.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in Victoria there are a large number of restaurants directly affected by this bill. This particular very small item reflects, better than anything I have seen, the feelings of that community. If the Minister of Finance gets agitated and uncomfortable when he hears from the restaurant community directly affected by his bill — and I'm speaking to the principle of the bill and I have not spoken on the main motion, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the point is not that he is taking issue with what's in the content of the article, but rather that the article has already been read into the record. As such, it is not necessary to have it read into the record again.

[1:00]

MR. HANSON: I won't read it into the record, then. I'll just paraphrase the points in it, adding a word here and there.

"If the total amount of food and coffee, tea or pop on your individual bill exceeds $7, a tax of 7 percent will be added to that bill." That is ridiculous. "If two or more customers share a bill, providing no person's individual bill exceeds the magic figure, the total bill cannot be taxed. In other words, no matter what the total comes to, that bill will not enjoy (!) tax. Our staff has been briefed on this issue, so please assist us by not asking for separate checks unless it is clear you intend to purchase more than $7 of food. If you do, then please ask your table attendant to give a separate check for yourself, and the others at your table can combine their expenses.

"We shall be pleased to assist our valued customers should they have any questions regarding this tax. We cannot guarantee we can explain the sanity or logic of the minister" — that's the minister there — "who introduced it. We do, however, recommend that you watch what you consume, and if you dare to enjoy our food and spend more than $7, not only will you be taxed, but you could run the risk of having the Ministry of Health taking some punitive action against you for overeating!"

Here we are in the depths of a recession, a depression, and the government is literally pounding the small business entrepreneurs — a government that always claims to be acting in their interest and almost invariably acts opposed to their interest. I can cite numerous examples where this government has not provided assistance to the local business community or the small business community in general, and particularly the restaurant business, which, as you know, has a high incidence of failure. It takes a lot of courage to get into that business, a lot of chutzpah to survive, and they are always right on the edge. To push them, teetering on the edge.... There are many other sources of revenue. The amount of money that will be returned to the province from this tax could easily be gained by a modest increase in the graduated income tax at the top levels.

Stats Canada reported that the budget of this government, including this tax levy, will increase the cost of living by approximately the same amount as this tax. Here we have a

[ Page 2424 ]

taxation levy translated into a direct impact on the cost of living of all citizens of this province. Currently we have an annual inflation rate of.... In July it was 5.8 percent, up from 5.1. It seems to be somewhere in that range. So what we are expecting is an increase of up to 6.8 percent — almost 7 percent — as a result of the tax measures of this budget, at a time when we are looking forward to any progressive, constructive measures which will provide employment and which will put more money into people's jeans, to stimulate a consumer-led recovery. Instead, we have a government which is impaling the people of the province on the sharp sticks of this budget.

The sales tax has angered the merchants. Mr. Mark Startup, the executive director of the B.C. division of the Retail Merchants' Association, indicated that 7 percent was too high, and we certainly share that view. He said: "We want to be assured that when, things get better, the government rolls back the sales tax. The people this hurts most are the consumers, and they are going to lose faith in spending." That gentleman is saying the same things that we are saying on this side of the House, but he is a representative of the B.C. division of the Retail Merchants' Association. Really, he should probably see the New Democratic Party and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as his natural allies. I hope he will, and I'm sure he will, after he receives the full impact of the taxation measures of this government.

He said it was too early to tell what benefits are available from the budget breaks on property tax and equipment purchases. He doesn't understand — and we certainly don't understand — how the government proposes a 12.6 percent increase, and at the same time is levying all these taxes and slashing services. The only conclusion we can come to is that the whole budget estimate book and the whole budget are somehow cooked. It doesn't have any reality.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have had debate on the budget and that debate has been concluded. I request that you go back to debate on Bill 15.

MR. HANSON: What's happening is that every small merchant who is struggling to survive and to keep his operation viable is having to develop creative ideas on how to circumvent some of these tax measures, and that is unfortunate, because taxation should be very simple and straightforward. No one should have to stay up late at night trying to create various ruses and approaches to legally get around paying taxes. For example, a restaurateur in Vernon said: "The provincial budget announcement imposing a 7 percent tax on meals costing more than $7...." He said he may start charging patrons of his establishment for parts and labour to avoid the taxation. He said he knows of no law which would prohibit him from charging for food and labour separately.

Here is a situation where we are going to have a nightmare because some of these are going to end up in the courts at enormous costs, not only to the small business person who is charged but to the whole operation of the capital plant, the judiciary and the legal industry as we know it. We are going to have people circumventing this tax by dividing up parts and labour on meals. He says: "The basic feeling with many of my colleagues I have spoken with is that we are not going to charge the tax for the time being." I have heard many stories from up-Island which indicate that they simply are not charging it. If we don't see the recovery as quickly as possible and those owners are then going to have to be levied 7 percent of their entire income, that is going to push a lot of businesses over the edge.

He said they will withhold charging the tax partly because the government has yet to provide information on its application. How can we have a situation like that? "...taxation is discriminatory. If the government is going to impose the tax they should do it across the board. The tax applies only to meals purchased in a restaurant and not to supermarket food bills."

As I pointed out earlier, the restaurant associations and the hospitality industry in general made constructive criticisms and suggestions that the Finance minister should look at the possibility of generating the same amount of revenue by an across-the-board tax. The Finance minister rejected the proposal out of hand. Why he did that I haven't got a clue. He said, however, that "consumer taxation bulletins" — the kind used whenever there is a change in tax law or regulations — "were sent out Thursday and Friday to all those affected by tax changes in the new budget." He said:

" 'Some restaurants may not have received their bulletins yet, but I would think they would be in the minority.' As of Monday the Restaurant and Food Services Association was advising that it had not yet received formal notification on how the tax is to be applied. Spokesman Don Bellamy said that many restaurant owners were taking that to mean they shouldn't collect the tax, and that's fine with them. Curtis said he has instructed the consumer taxation branch to exercise all reasonable cooperation with those who are now collecting the new tax; however, it is to be collected."

It is a silly tax; it is a silly way to create revenue. The best way to create taxes is for the government to put people to work, to generate income to circulate in the economy throughout the small business sector and to give confidence. On the other hand, what we have is a government that has done precisely the opposite. Wherever they have had the opportunity to create confidence and security, and to say to the people of the province: "We are going to hunker down. We are going to stand with you. We are not going to scare the daylights out of you...." Instead they have taken that approach: they frighten people; they operate on the basis of fear; they govern by fear, by threat, by regressive taxation, by right-wing ideology and economic policy. The same people that advise politicians of this government's ilk advise governments in regimes such as Chile.

Dodging the new dining tax seems to be one of the new parlour games in British Columbia. Bob Naicker, sales manager for the California-based restaurant chain Denny's, said: "They moved too fast on this thing." That, in the parlance of the California-based restaurant chain, means the Socreds have screwed up on this taxation. "We told them today we are not comfortable with this tax. Denny's will personally pay the bill for a week or two until its cash registers are programmed."

That was another thing, Mr. Speaker. All of the modern accounting machines and cash registers in restaurants are computerized with a chip computer; these costs are passed on to those restaurants for having to make the transition over to this new tax. So a furious Don Bellamy of the Restaurant and Food Services Association of B.C..... The new tax has

[ Page 2425 ]

not been thought out. The government — in true style — went ahead without having a clue about how things worked.

Mr. Speaker, I think I've touched on the basic reasons for my objections to this bill. Certainly it is hurting the tourist industry in my own community.

Mr. Speaker, one of the few bright spots through the summer months has been the Marguerite, which was rescued by the New Democratic Party from the tentacles of the Social Credit government and put back on the run. Now people coming into our community not only have to face inordinately high costs, by comparison to many costs in other U.S. destinations, but they've got this taxation which is totally beyond comprehension: someone who has something that costs $6.95 doesn't pay tax, but somebody who has something that costs $7.05 pays 7 percent tax. The tourism industry is a vital part of our mixed economy here, and this tax is hurting that industry. Not only is it hurting in the restaurant area but also in terms of purchasing power for all citizens facing any acquisition of durable goods, or just buying things to survive.

Mr. Speaker, all of these taxation measures are regressive. They put a greater burden on the poor. They are not progressive in the sense that they could have been by looking at revenue generation for the government out of taxation such as the graduated income tax or something like that; rather, they've socked it to the people and we're having to tough it out in tougher times with a government that has economic policies that are somewhere in the order of 1930 to 1940.

I would like to move that the Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1983, be amended by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words "on this day eight months hence."

[1:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would suggest that since we have already had an amendment on this particular resolution to hoist the bill for six months — which resolution has been defeated by this House — a similar resolution to hoist for eight months would be out of order. Consequently, I consider this resolution out of order.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, would you explain why you feel that the motion is in order.

MR. D'ARCY: Normally Mr. Speaker does not accept debate on questions that challenge the Chair, but I feel that adequate time has not been given for proper consideration of all the aspects of this bill in considering its effect on the economy of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for those comments, hon. member. If I might reserve your challenge to the Chair for one moment, pending clarification from the Clerks.

The Chair has not seen fit to reconsider its decision. If you still wish to challenge the ruling of the Chair you certainly may.

MR. D'ARCY: With the greatest reluctance, Mr. Speaker, I have to challenge the validity of your ruling.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 6

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

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if we could perhaps have the electricians check the bells in the Premier's office. I know he loves to work in the middle of the night, and I know he's not lazy, and I know he wouldn't want it to be said that he is being lazy and shirking his duty. I would ask that the electricians please check that out so he can be in attendance in this House, as is required under standing orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order raised by the member for the opposition, I wonder if perhaps we could check the bells in the opposition offices, because we know there are 16 lazy members there who haven't attended the division.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. One point of order which is not a point of order only elicits the equal response and serves no constructive purpose for debate. It is, however, entertaining.

MR. BARRETT: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker — and again tonight — I raised a point of order on behaviour in the chamber. When a member is stretched out asleep on three chairs in the chamber, is that appropriate behaviour?

MR. SPEAKER: Standing orders leave the regulation of order and decorum in the hands of the Chair, and the Chair cannot help but concur in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition that such behaviour would not be in keeping with parliamentary traditions. I would so instruct the members of the House.

MR. SKELLY: Regarding your ruling, Mr. Speaker, he did roll over, but I don't think that complies with your ruling.

HON. MR. SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that it is a principle that one must have knowledge of a ruling of the Chair before that ruling can be binding upon him. I don't think in this case the member, with all due

[ Page 2426 ]

respect, has such knowledge. I'm sure that if he had such knowledge he would want to comply immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: A legal technicality, hon. members. Nonetheless, the point is made and I'm sure all members concur.

MR. SKELLY: It is good to see the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) back on his feet or back in his seat.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about the increases in social services tax that are provided for under this bill and also the application of the tax to new items. As a number of speakers have pointed out before — to quote the minister, in fact, several years ago — the last thing you do in a time of recession is to increase taxes, because it operates to deepen the recession. In the same way, at the time of an economic recovery or in anticipation of an economic recovery, the last thing you would sensibly do would be to raise taxes and to dampen the process of recovery. That is precisely what the minister has done in increasing the social services tax and in applying it to other goods and services.

As a number of economic commentators have pointed out, the B.C. tax increases have contributed directly to the increase in the consumer price index and have added to inflation; they have increased the economic problems of our citizens and dampened the progress of the recession. That's one of the reasons we're concerned about this increase in the social services tax. It also removes disposable income from the community. Rather than having that money — $170 million in total around the province — invested in communities, in the same way as this government, in all of its legislation, is centralizing power in Victoria, this increase in the social services tax results in a centralization of that $170 million — it's out of local economies and into the city of Victoria, where it is spent on luxurious ministerial offices, travel, Broadway shows, wasteful government expenditures. Blowing jet fuel out the back of the Citation to take the ministers back and forth to Vancouver for lunch, and for other things, the economic value of which, as well as its contribution to the economic recovery of the province, cannot be quantified.... In fact, it thwarts economic recovery. That is another of the reasons why we're concerned about this measure.

[1:30]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is some debate about the suggestion that in a time of recession it is probably better to reduce the sales tax in order to increase disposable income. In that way you increase retail sales and consumer spending. For example, the $170 million that the 1I percent increase represents could be spent in communities to create as many as 8,500 new jobs in the private sector. That's if it's left in the pockets of consumers as disposal income. This takes that community job-creating money out of the pockets of our citizens and puts it in Victoria, where it's spent on the public debt that has been run up by this government or else on wasteful government expenditures.

We're concerned that this represents just another in a series of steps whereby the provincial government is confiscating the disposable income of citizens and blowing it on wasteful and job-destructive measures here in Victoria. As the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) pointed out, this is a form of tax that's absolutely new and unique in its application to restaurant meals. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as was pointed out before, the cost of food in a restaurant is probably a very small percentage of the total restaurant bill. Most of the cost of meals in restaurants is actually labour costs, although they're not itemized as such. The cost involved in preparing food, in building maintenance and cleaning, and the cost in service of the food is a major portion of the final bill in a restaurant. So this is a unique application of the social services tax, in that the majority of tax under this provision is a tax on labour rather than on consumer goods.

As was mentioned before, in other sectors of the economy such as the automobile repair sector, labour and parts are itemized separately; the labour is not taxed but the parts are. The same is true of furniture repair and other repair businesses, where the labour component is separated from the sale of goods and each item on the account is taxed separately. But in this instance we are combining those accounts, and the majority of what we are taxing under this provision is labour; so it represents a whole new area of taxation under the Social Service Tax Act. It's probably something that other retail operators in the private sector should fear, because this represents a kick in the door to tax labour.

As you know, in many of the other bills we've debated in this session, and in many of the debates that have taken place in this House, the government has talked about the need to economize and make government less of a burden on the people. The government has talked about downsizing, in particular the cost of labour. Even though direct salaries and labour expenses are only 12.7 percent of the budget, the government seems concerned, in its own house, about decreasing the cost of labour. In the tourist industry, which is a growing industry in British Columbia, and in which there is a tremendous potential for growth, already food and accommodation represent the employment of 100,000, only 10,000 fewer than are employed in forestry and related industries. We're talking about a growing major industry, and the government, at the stroke of a pen this year, has added 7 percent to the cost of labour in that industry.

You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that that has a dampening effect on growth in that sector and a dampening effect on the tourist industry, which is a very competitive industry. A number of areas around the world compete with British Columbia in attracting tourists, and we cannot afford to price ourselves out of that market. Yet the minister, probably without thinking, probably without very much in the way of studies — in fact, no studies that were made public — tacked 7 percent onto the cost of labour in the restaurant business, and contributed to making that industry much more expensive. Tourists are pretty discretionary — discriminatory, I should say — in the choices they make. They will go where they get the best value for their dollar. To give credit to the B.C. tourist and restaurant industry, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), when she was Minister of Tourism, demanded that people involved in that industry go that extra mile, as she used to say. The former member for Okanagan North when she was Minister of Tourism, used to hand out gold pins and suchlike to encourage people in the tourist industry to give that little bit extra. Now it appears that once they have given that little bit extra, the government is going to tack on an additional 7 percent, which doesn't make any sense at all.

In fact, a lot of people working in the industry are going to say: "Why should we give any more when the government once we've given our best is going to tax 7 percent on top of

[ Page 2427 ]

that?" Really, this is an industry that deserves all the encouragement we can give it. It is tradition — in fact, it's good economic practice — for a government, in order to encourage the growth of an industry, to give tax holidays to that industry. Here we have a case where a tax holiday is deserved, because in this industry jobs are created at a greater rate than in virtually every other industry in the province. This is one of the fastest growing sectors, as the credit union monthly report pointed out back in June. The forestry sector is losing jobs, the mining sector is a very small percentage of our workforce and is losing jobs, while this one is growing at a tremendous rate. Most of it is locally owned small businesses and very employment intensive; yet the government is adding a 7 percent sales tax on meals, a unique new area in which to apply this tax. As far as we're concerned on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, it simply doesn't make sense at this time, and would probably not make sense at any time, to tax meals in restaurants. We believe it is counterproductive to economic recovery in the province of B.C.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) also mentioned the energy conservation aspects: doing away with the lower sales tax provision on energy-saving automobiles. I think that is unfortunate, even though there is an energy glut at the present time. We have a tremendous surplus of natural gas in the province. We appear to have a worldwide surplus of oil and refinery products from oil, so energy is not a problem right now. I suppose the government would believe that this is probably a good time to get rid of the energy conservation provisions in the Social Service Tax Act — the reduction in tax that you are allowed if you buy an energy-efficient motor vehicle. But this is exactly the wrong time. We know that the international oil glut is going to last for only a short period of time. We know that the natural gas surplus is going to last only a short period of time. It is strange that at a time when we have a surplus of natural gas we are increasing the payments to producers so they can go out and drill for more and create an additional surplus which will contribute to lower prices. Here was an excellent provision which allowed for lower sales tax on energy-efficient motor vehicles. We know that in some communities....

As I pointed out earlier, in one community in the east Kootenays — their member isn't in the House now — the total energy bill for that community is something in the neighbourhood of $50 million. As a result of a study done in that community we know that 80 percent of that energy expenditure goes outside the community to oil companies in the United States or Britain or the Netherlands. If those people bought energy-efficient motor vehicles from multinational companies that produce vehicles here in Canada, they would benefit from a tax reduction under previous legislation. They would also benefit by paying less for gas. Instead of that money going outside the community to other areas, or to American, British, Dutch or whatever oil companies, the money would be retained in the community, spent to produce new jobs, new industries in that community. So the energy conservation provisions, even in a time of energy surplus, have a direct local benefit to the community.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: We could talk about the power line to Vancouver Island, if you'd like, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I listened earlier with interest when the member alluded to natural gas and now the possibility of a Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. That has absolutely nothing to do with an increase in sales tax, or with changes in other sales tax measures.

MR. SKELLY: It is probably going to have a lot to do with it.

MR. D'ARCY: I agree totally with the comments of the member for Saanich and the Islands about the irrelevancies of the interruptions of the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), and I would hope that all members of the House would show some respect for the member for Alberni and allow him to complete his remarks in the most economic time possible, so that the business of the House can be expedited and we can get on to other important matters which we have facing us on the order paper.

[1:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Nevertheless, we must bear in mind the relevance of the bill we are debating, and on that note and the timely comments from the member for Rossland-Trail, I ask the member for Alberni to continue.

MR. SKELLY: How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker? Twenty-five minutes! That is why I asked your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether we should be talking about the Vancouver Island electrical transmission system, which the member for South Peace River brought up. I didn't think it was in order, but I thought I would ask your opinion on the subject, since you seem to be aware of what is in order and what isn't. That's the only reason I asked, and I thank you for the guidance. And I appreciate the attention from the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain and the occasional interjections.

In any case, I was talking about energy conservation and the fact that even in a time when energy commodities appear to be in surplus, fiscal measures to encourage energy conservation are a wise investment of public funds, even though these measures take the form of a sales tax reduction on energy-efficient vehicles. There is a direct local benefit that can be obtained through those tax reductions. It encourages people to buy a certain type of vehicle with energy conserving characteristics and increases their disposable income, and that income is invested directly into the community. It saves jobs and also prevents the export of our money to the major oil companies, who own most of the oil resources in the country. For those reasons we have opposed this increase in the social service tax legislation. There are a number of alternative taxes that the minister could continue, a number of other revenue-generating measures that he could consider, and yet it appears that as is the bent of this government, they seem to want to implement the most regressive tax measures available to them from a whole constellation of measures. They take the one that is most regressive. It is unfortunate that this province has one of the lowest provincial income tax rates in the country. I think we only pay 32 percent, is it? We pay a very small percentage of federal tax, relative to some other provinces. The income tax system is not the most progressive system in the world, but it certainly beats the sales tax by a long shot. By perhaps small increases in the B.C. Income tax, we could raise the revenue we require without the regressive measures that we have here, and in

[ Page 2428 ]

fact, more on the basis of ability to pay than we do under the social services tax system.

Our suggestion is that the government should be trying as much as is humanly possible to avoid regressive tax measures. Where they do require increases in revenue to go to taxes that are based on the ability to pay, and this runs absolutely counter to that direction.... I would encourage the government to vote against this measure. I certainly will be voting against it myself.

I would move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6

NAYS — 30

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

MR. GABELMANN: I intend only to make a few comments this evening on this bill. It will be quite brief, primarily because I don't think my voice will last very long. The bill that we have in front of us, I think, symbolizes as much as anything else the economic direction that the government in general and the Finance minister in particular have decided to opt for. It is one that I disagree with. We are not talking in this bill at all about the classical debate that goes on constantly between supporters of private enterprise and social democrats about creation of wealth; we are talking here simply about distribution of that wealth in society — how much should go to government and, more importantly in terms of this bill, where a government's revenue should come from.

I think all in this House would agree that at this time there is a need, if the deficit isn't going to increase too much, and it shouldn't, to collect additional revenues from some source. Where we would disagree is on the sources that are chosen for increased taxes. There have been a number of studies over the years, and I don't intend to refer to them in detail, that demonstrate to my satisfaction that the sales tax is a regressive form of taxation as compared to a fair income tax system. I am not suggesting for a moment that we have a fair income tax system in this country, because we don't. I find it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that we constantly have tax increases from this government that hit those people who earn less than $15,000 a year far harder than those of us who earn more than $15,000. Why the government would choose to opt for that particular approach is beyond me. The increase of the sales tax from 6 to 7 is justified by the minister partly on the basis that most other provinces have at least that much and many have more. Alberta, of course, has no sales tax at all.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: At least they have a human rights ad campaign starting in that province, unlike this one, I noticed in the news tonight.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to raise the kind of money that can be raised by a 1 percent increase in the sales tax, we don't need very much of an increase in the income tax rate in this province to raise the same amount of money. My primary objection to this direction is that the government has chosen to not make those of us who can afford a little more tax pay that extra amount but has made those people who can least afford it pay the most — proportionate, at least, to their income. I find that a regressive measure. I am not going to say more about it than that. I think it very nicely symbolizes the difference between the opposition and the government. I hope some day the debate will take place in public on this issue in a reasoned and informed manner and people can make a choice between regressive or progressive tax measures. Unfortunately we have never had that kind of reasoned debate, either in this House or in the public, in any way.

[2:00]

I find curious the second provision in this bill. The incentive to purchase more fuel-efficient automobiles is denied by changing the preferential rate on vehicles with good gas mileage. Since I don't know what the word is in metric for "mileage," I'll use that term and hopefully not be out of order. I'm not going to say " kilometrage," because I don't think that's much of a word, Mr. Finance Minister.

I do find it curious that that particular progressive move, which was made by the same Finance minister in 1980, I believe, would be stripped away in this province by this budget only three years later. There seems to be a general view in the world lately that the energy crisis has passed and we don't need to worry any longer about fuel efficiency and all of the things that come with smaller vehicles and better mileage. I think that's a false reading of the reality. The price may have levelled off and, in fact, declined somewhat in terms of oil price, but it is still a heck of a lot higher than it was not very many years ago. We're spending an incredible amount of our national revenue on subsidies for oil, and anything we can do to reduce those subsidies and the amount of oil consumed in this country is a worthwhile thing. Therefore to abolish the provision doesn't make any sense at all to me.

The third item in the bill, the sales tax on meals over $7, has been well canvassed. I find that a curious kind of move when restaurants in this province, particularly in the last couple of years, have been suffering, not just in terms of reduced tourism....

AN HON. MEMBER: I can hardly hear you, your voice is so weak.

MR. SEGARTY: Speak louder, Colin.

MR. GABELMANN: How does he know I'm not speaking now, if he can't hear me?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We'll have order in the House, please, hon. members.

[ Page 2429 ]

MR. GABELMANN: I doubt it, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order in the House, please.

MR. GABELMANN: Watch the furniture. The decision to impose the 7 percent meal tax — if it's a good idea, and I think you might be able to make some argument that in some economic circumstances that's a reasonable course of action — I don't think is reasonable at all at a time when the restaurant and tourist business is suffering in the way it is. There's no doubt in my mind that that has had an added effect on people's decisions about eating out; most of us do much less of it than we did. For many people that extra 7 percent is a burden that is just too much, and it tips the balance. I think you could make a good argument about putting that tax on in good times, but to put it on in bad times just doesn't make any sense at all to me.

The final point I want to make in these few brief comments relates to the 7 percent tax on long-distance telephone charges. I don't know whether or not the point has been made before in the House, but I think MLAs representing constituencies that are diverse and far from the lower mainland or lower Island are hit harder by this particular measure than businesses particularly, but individuals as well, in the lower mainland or lower Island.

I want to read a letter dated July 27, just three weeks or less after the introduction of the budget, from a small business person in Port Hardy. I won't read his name into the record, but it is available if anybody wants to see the letter. It happens to be an accountant writing to me, and he says:

"I'm not happy with the imposition of the 7 percent tax on long-distance calling. I feel that this tax weighs heavier on people in outlying communities. These people must do much of their business with suppliers, etc. In the larger centres. If you compared sample bills from households and offices in Vancouver and in Port Hardy you would surely find a greater emphasis on the use of long-distance calling in Port Hardy. The cost of living in an outlying resource community is already high without the imposition of another unfair tax.

"If you feel my reasoning is sound, I request that you use your position to bring this to the attention of the Legislature."

Which I have done by reading his letter.

I think any rural member knows full well that telephone bills, particularly for contractors and small business people, but also for ordinary citizens who have to do a lot of their day-to-day commerce and transactions in other communities, are much higher than is the case in the bigger centres like Vancouver or Victoria or even, for that matter, in a place like Campbell River. The people who live in Gold River, Tahsis, Port Hardy, Port McNeill or Alert Bay — and I know the same is true all around this province — have considerably higher long-distance telephone charges. What we're doing is adding even more to the economic disparity that exists between the urban centres of the province and the rural centres. Already there is great ferment out there in many of those resource-based, one-industry towns where people feel — and I think correctly — that they are doing far more than their share to produce the wealth of this province and get so little in return in terms of social services. I'll just touch on this — it's not particularly in order. All of the things that they get from the government they get less of — highways, health care, education. Everything is diminished. Their taxes are effectively higher because of the cost of living in those communities. Now they find yet another tax added to them because they live in the resource communities. I suppose one could say that they don't have to, but the reality is that somebody has to live in those communities. The imposition of a sales tax on long-distance telephone charges is, in my view, inappropriate. As an urban dweller, the number of personal calls I make is not sufficient that it would affect my particular cost of living. I think that's true about most people in similar circumstances. But it sure isn't true for the people who live on some of the small islands and in some of the small communities in North Island.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I want to say on this bill.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, it's 2:07 a.m. Pacific daylight time in the morning of.... Oh, someone is in the corner. What is he doing in the corner, Mr. Speaker?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, horrible.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to cover four aspects of this bill before the minister wraps up debate. Earlier today when talking on the hoist motion, I went into some quite specific detail regarding the telephone service in the far north — NorthwesTel. Since it was very sticky today on what we could say and not say during the hoist motion, I will put a little bit more aspect on the telephone charges.

In the explanatory note of the Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1983, the purpose of the bill is to increase the general rate of tax from 6 to 7 percent — that's a 17 percent increase on the sales tax itself. I went into some detail this afternoon concerning its drastic effect upon the tourist industry in the far north — the great white north — during this recession and particularly coming at the time of year it does, in winter, when business is at its lowest because of the tourist trade coming out of the north, and staying out until the next year.

The next issue is to remove the tax rates on new passenger cars and replace them with a single 7 percent. Some of my colleagues canvassed that issue in detail. It's difficult to say much on this, because most residents living in the far north rarely ever buy new passenger cars. The roads are so terrible that the cars would be destroyed. So you usually go on a pickup truck, and there's been a high sales tax on that for years.

The next aspect of the explanatory note is to impose a 7 percent rate on the purchase of a prepared meal for consumption on the premises where it's sold. We went into some detail today concerning the three cafes in the far north. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) felt there were greasy spoons because he owned one at one time up there. We tried to explain to him that since he's been out of the restaurant business, the entrepreneurs of the cafes have turned those greasy spoons into delicacies. It's one of the few places where you can go and get a mooseburger for under seven bucks. If you get something extra with the mooseburger it's over $7 and tax is coming onto it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What about bear stew?

[ Page 2430 ]

MR. PASSARELL: If the minister would like some bear stew, I would have to tell the new Minister of Environment about it before he cooks it. Some of it has trichinosis. You have to cook the bear.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Trichinosis — is that what happens when you pull the trigger and it hits your nose?

MR. PASSARELL: No. Trichinosis, Mr. Minister of Forests, is when you play with dolls and you end up sitting in the corner with your Teddy bear,

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm not afraid of bears.

MR. PASSARELL: No, you're not afraid of bears. I know you're not, living out in Brentwood Bay. They've taken all the bears out of Brentwood Bay.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wouldn't be too sure of that.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, I'm sure the Minister of Forests is more of an expert on bears in Brentwood Bay than I would be.

The last aspect I would like to discuss is the imposition of the 7 percent tax rate on long-distance telephone charges. I went into some detail concerning CN telephone and the B.C. Tel system and how that discriminates against the small business entrepreneur in the far northwest using long-distance telephone calling since the majority of his business telephone calls are to the south.

Those were the four aspects I wanted to canvass this evening, and it is now 2:11 a.m., Pacific daylight time. I will try to keep my remarks under five minutes, in keeping with the decision of the Whips this evening. It appears that the Minister of Forests is ready to go home. I'm sure you like it there. It's one of the few places in the world where you can sit in the corner and nobody knows you're there. With that, Mr. Speaker, it has been a slice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair would like to commend you on your brevity. The Chair now recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance to close debate on Bill 15.

[2:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will need 40 to 45 minutes to close the debate.

One of our colleagues on this side of the House spoke earlier this week with respect to the exemptions. He is in the House now: the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser). I think that when one steps back and views this particular bill in anything approaching an objective manner, one can still be very pleased with the scope and the extent of the exemptions which exist in the province of British Columbia, specifically designed over the years to assist individuals in a variety of activities, e.g., agriculture and fishing, and to ensure that for those in the lower income brackets — notwithstanding the many statements that have been made about the rather admitted regressivity of the sales tax — many essential purchases are not taxable. The list really extends not to dozens or scores or hundreds but literally to thousands of items. There are other jurisdictions in North America in which one goes to a grocery store, supermarket or corner store and, if it's a $30 purchase of food, or a $20 or a $90 purchase of food, it is taxable That is not the case in British Columbia. In the time that I have had the responsibility for this particular portfolio, I have moved to extend the exemptions, as an example, with respect to some patent medicines; notwithstanding the term, which can be viewed derogatorily in some instances, it nonetheless covers a category that is important to many people who live here. So the exemptions are significant, and they remain so, notwithstanding the fact that we had to move away from two exemptions which had been enjoyed for quite some time. I speak of the tax on long-distance telephone calls, whether originating in the province or not, and the tax on restaurant meals.

I attempted to indicate on other occasions the very careful decision which went into arriving at that threshold level of $7. I am surprised, frankly, that some members opposite, in the course of their participation in the debate, have been critical of that, because as I think was mentioned in the budget speech, one of the principal motivating factors in determining that threshold — and I did examine $5 and $6 and settled on $7 — was that there are those who for a variety of reasons must be absent from their home and must turn to a food outlet for breakfast or lunch or a light meal at some time of the day or another. Therefore I think the $7 number is not regressive. In fact, I would have hoped that that part would have been welcomed by some opposite. One member opposite quoted at length from reaction which was issued by the Restaurant Association within a matter of hours and days of the introduction of the budget on July 7. Since that time, most restaurant operators have become accustomed to collecting the tax, and while they may not have been thrilled with it — and I did not expect them to be happy with the introduction of that tax — most are functioning quite effectively. I had more than one meeting with Mr. Bellamy. The first meeting was fairly heated, but in the course of the next two or three meetings, and during telephone conversations particularly — I don't want to mislead the House — I think he and his membership gradually came to understand the necessity of assessing that particular tax.

I don't want to take too long, seriously. But the point was made by some of the opponents to this bill that these restaurant operators have been put to a great deal of inconvenience in collecting the tax. I think logic would suggest, and the facts would support, the contention that most of those restaurants which charge $7 or more for a meal are already registered with the consumer taxation branch of the Ministry of Finance — not totally, but a very large majority — by reason of dispensing liquor. That was another factor which was taken into account. I don't think I would want to be party to a decision to lower that threshold to zero, 50 cents or $1. The Ontario experience of 1982, and the reports which were available in the weeks following, refute the wisdom of that: the nuisance of having a cup of coffee and a grilled cheese sandwich and finding that you are paying tax — indeed, of having a cup of coffee and paying tax. I considered that very briefly, very early on in this process and dismissed it.

The tax on long-distance telephone calls was another decision not taken lightly. However, it should be observed that this government, not very many years ago, removed the tax from the unit which one has in one's home: the residential service. I consider that to be the essential aspect of telephone service. It seemed to me unfair to tax the fact that the service was in the dwelling of the elderly person who was alone, or those who no longer consider a telephone as something approaching a luxury but rather a necessity. That's why that

[ Page 2431 ]

was removed some time ago. There is in terms of the individual — not in terms of businesses, I admit, but in terms of the individual — some option with respect to the number of long-distance calls and the length and frequency of such calls. Therefore there is also in that respect an element of choice, as there is in the case of restaurant meals.

I would have preferred to make a longer response in closing second reading, Mr. Speaker, but because of the hour, perhaps that opportunity will present itself in committee stage. If I may just in these last few moments, I would indicate again that it is important, when examining the sales tax in British Columbia, to examine that which applies in other provinces of this country. One can be critical of the fact that there is a tax at all. I wonder, rhetorically, how long it will be before we see a sales tax in Alberta. That's not a prediction; it is simply a question. But when one looks across the board at a tax rate in Ontario of 7 percent, in Quebec of 9 percent — including food — in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island of 10 percent, and Newfoundland, 12 percent, I think we have held this to the lowest possible increase in these very difficult times for British Columbia.

I therefore now move second reading of Bill 15.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 6

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

Bill 15, Social Service Tax 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. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 2:28 a.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

9 The Hon. W. S. Ritchie to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 9) intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1983 to amend as follows:

SECTION 6.1. by adding the following section:

"6.1 Section 809 (3) is repealed."

SECTION 6.2, by adding the following section:

"6.2 Section 814 (3) is amended by striking out everything after 'under section 720'."