[ Page 7049 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 7049

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 44). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7049

Ms. Brown –– 7049

Mr. Gabelmann –– 7050

Mr. Howard –– 7051

Mr. Cocke –– 7052

Mrs. Dailly –– 7052

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7053

Municipal Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 62). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 7054

Mr. Blencoe –– 7055

Mr. Cocke –– 7057

Mr. Skelly –– 7058

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1985

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon Mr. Pelton tabled the "Annual Report to the Governments of the United States and Canada — Columbia River Treaty, Permanent Engineering Board."

Hon. Mr. Schroeder tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Milk Board for the year ended December 31, 1984.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, these proposed amendments to the Vital Statistics Act are intended to increase the consistency with vital statistic practices in other jurisdictions, to remove some anachronisms in meeting many of the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in other areas to increase the convenience of various procedures for the public.

I would like to run over the various points which are dealt with in the bill. One of the basic activities of the branch is registration of births, which also includes registration of stillbirths. The definition of a stillbirth is to be changed to remain consistent with other countries and other provinces.

The choice of a surname for a child has become a matter of some controversy in recent years. Not that many years back it was taken for granted that a child would take the father's surname, but there has been an increased demand for other options. Amendments to the act would provide an option for a married couple to give their child the mother's surname, which at present is not available in B.C.

At the request of both married parents, the child would be able to take the surname of the mother alone. Making the choice of either parent's surname possible will avoid any possibility of discrimination consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I'll give some technical detail to help members understand what the amendments actually do. In cases where a child is born to an unmarried mother or to a married woman whose husband is not the father, the child's birth registration would use the mother's surname. However, by request of the mother and a man acknowledging himself to be the father, the child could be registered in the surname of the father alone. Another change would allow a married woman to file a statutory declaration at any time stating that her husband is not the father of her child, and the birth registration could be amended accordingly. It provides a simplified and less costly procedure than is currently required to achieve the same thing.

One section would amend the provisions for exchanging adoption information internationally. The act at the present time requires the director of vital statistics to exchange information with other countries regardless of the political situation in any of these countries if an adoption involves a person born outside Canada. The policy could result in the misuse of B.C. adoption information in countries which we, perhaps, believe do not retain such information in a secure manner. The amendment would provide the director with authority to refuse to exchange certain information if he felt it would not be treated confidentially and securely.

Another section would permit the registration of births and deaths that occur on ships and aircraft whose first stop afterwards is in British Columbia. Presently this is only permitted if the ship is registered in B.C., which is rarely the case. This again would be far more convenient for those requirements.

Another change in the Vital Statistics Act: the act does not allow a notation of a change of name to be entered on the birth registration of a married, widowed or divorced woman. There is no logical reason for this restriction, and it's simply being eliminated.

Appointing officials who are empowered to carry out vital statistics functions in the province has been somewhat cumbersome. Current provisions automatically confer the position of either district registrar or deputy district registrar upon all the holders of certain specified positions, including government agents and sub-agents and their deputies, and even the defunct positions of Indian superintendent and assistant superintendent under the federal act. Current practice of the vital statistics division is to contract with government agents to perform the functions of district registrars. Section 26 has become redundant; it's being repealed.

Mr. Speaker, most of the amendments are technical in nature. The vital statistics division of the Ministry of Health is one which is seldom in the public eye, but does affect all of our citizens at some time or other. I believe the changes we are recommending to the House will assist the director and staff and others to go about their job in a manner that would greater serve the people.

Those are basically the highlights of it. During committee there perhaps may be some technical questions that we can respond to.

I move second reading.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm really not the lead-off speaker in this. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), who is specifically interested, will be here in a few minutes, so I'm just going to use the opportunity to make a couple of comments on this piece of legislation.

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of any one person having the right to accept or reject the name chosen by one or both parents for their child. We have not been convinced, by anything the minister has said, that this is necessary. In closing the debate, or in dealing with it section by section, maybe the minister could give us a more detailed explanation of why he has given one person the right to decide whether a name is acceptable or not.

This seems to be unwarranted interference, really, in a very private area of a family's rights and life. Who are we to say that the name chosen for a child is not an appropriate one? What right does an individual have to decide that a child shouldn't have a specific name, either because he doesn't like it or thinks it will offend some member of society or some group in our community? Perhaps there is a more basic reason why this right has been given to this particular person — the director, registrar, or whatever his title is. Maybe, in closing the debate, the minister could explain that to us, but we are opposed to that particular section, Mr. Speaker. I realize that in second reading we do not deal section by

[ Page 7050 ]

section, so I'm just commenting on it in an overall way while my colleague from Burnaby North gets her notes together and will come in to deal with it. The other thing is....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I haven't got the right to make that decision.

The other question has to do with hyphenated names. Apparently the director has indicated that he is not willing to accept hyphenated names, and again I am wondering whether the minister would explain why the reluctance to accept hyphenated names. It's accepted in other parts of the world, it's accepted in other parts of North America, and there doesn't seem to be any reason why it should not be accepted in British Columbia. Certainly, in many instances where both people involved would like to use both the mother's name and the father's name in the surname of the child, this should be permitted, that the hyphenated name should be used. So maybe in closing debate the minister might explain the reluctance on the part of the government to accept hyphenated names.

[10:15]

The third point that I would like to ask the minister about in second reading is why it is that a married woman who gives birth to a child still needs to have the permission of her spouse in order to use her surname as the child's surname. This seems to me to be an outmoded kind of right which we're still hanging on to. It doesn't say anywhere in the act that a married man has to have the permission of his wife to use his surname as the surname of the child, yet the act still gives the husband the right of veto for the woman to use her surname as the surname for the child.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, the husband still has the right of veto, so maybe in making notes the minister could explain why that is.

Those are the three questions which I would like to ask at this time. My colleagues are ready to continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair would have to observe that some of the questions that we are canvassing in what is generally described as second reading could possibly be more appropriately designated for third reading.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Nonetheless, that's very possible.

MR. GABELMANN: Just a few brief comments. My first one is that when we do get to committee stage, Mr. Speaker, I think we should spend some considerable time on section 3(6) –– I trust the minister will be bringing in amendments prior to committee stage to ensure that that section is in line with the Charter of Rights. Clearly it's discriminatory in favour of men over women. I think one could, without stretching it too much, argue that one of the principles of the bill is the question of equality in determining names for children under the law of the province. In that particular section equality is denied: the male has far more power than the female in respect of the name a child might receive. So in that respect I don't want to make the argument, because I'm certain the minister will bring in amendments to rectify that problem prior to committee stage; if he doesn't, then a serious debate will no doubt ensue at that time.

I want to make one other comment, and that really is very much on the principle of this bill. This is intervention by the state in a way that I think is totally inappropriate in a free society. What the bill allows is for a bureaucrat to determine whether or not parents have chosen correct names for their children. It's inappropriate. It's inappropriate in any society, and most particularly inappropriate in our kind of society.

Mr. Speaker, government members frequently talk about our society having too much intervention by the state. They talk constantly about us socialists as people who want the state to intervene in every aspect of people's lives. Of course the facts are different, and here is the perfect illustration of the difference. It is Social Credit that wants to intervene in family life in this province, in a way that I find totally and absolutely intolerable.

Mr. Speaker, it may be that the person in charge of this particular legislation doesn't like certain names. He may say, for example, to a family that the name Wilbur or the name Jeremiah or the name Frank is inappropriate because it's not a good name. He may say that the name Sunshine is not a good name. Why would we give that kind of power to a bureaucrat? Isn't the right of parents paramount in this situation? If a child is unhappy with his or her name, at some appropriate time in their life they can have that name changed simply enough or use a different name, as many people do. But to give an unelected person — or to give anyone, for that matter, elected or not, but particularly to give a bureaucrat — the power to say that the name chosen is not allowable is an intrusion into the rights of individuals that should not be allowed in a free society.

Let me say further that if the person responsible for this legislation, in the bureaucratic sense, is quoted correctly as saying that he does not favour hyphenated surnames, then we're going even further in intruding on the rights of families. What is wrong with hyphenated surnames? It's a grand tradition in Anglo-Saxon history. Half the names in England are hyphenated.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: We don't have titles. Let me just think about it in British Columbia. We had a chairman of Hydro who had a hyphenated last name. So what's wrong with having a name like David Cass-Beggs, to pick one example out of British Columbia history?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I recognize that the minister isn't serious in that response. I won't take him on on that.

The implications of that kind of thinking lead to a society where computers are more important than people's rights, because it may be difficult to program a computer if the last names are complicated. Therefore, to make it easier for the computer, we're going to have a simple system. Before long we'll assign everybody a number and they can have a nickname, as their first name and a number as their last name. Then the computers will have no trouble at all.

There are some things happening in our society in that respect that are not good. A predilection on the part of the government or its employees to deny the right of parents who

[ Page 7051 ]

have different last names to give their children both of those last names is an intrusion that I'm not prepared to accept.

The argument will be: what happens several generations down the road when the last names become so long that they become impossible to handle? It won't happen. Common sense will dictate that that will not happen. People, in the final analysis, should be trusted. They should be trusted with their children's first names and with their children's second names. The state has no role to play.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I also want to express my thoughts about this. I'm given to wondering why the government wants to stick its long beak into people's own private affairs. It's not only a question of the director of vital statistics, in my view, although he has some responsibility under this to deny or accept given names that parents seek to provide their children with; but it's also the minister who is involved in it, because if whatever decision the director makes is not acceptable to the parents or parent, then they can come to the minister and say: "Look, this is the wrong decision." I think it's an unwarranted intrusion into the private affairs of families in this province of British Columbia to give people the authority to say: "You can or cannot provide your child with the name that you want to provide your child with. It's our determination, somewhere in the secret bowels of vital statistics here in Victoria or in the minister's office, to determine what the name will be, or more particularly, what it won't be and what is not acceptable."

One might be able to rationalize the argument or contention that if a given name can cause a mistake or confusion — as is proposed in the bill — it shouldn't be available. But there are hundreds and thousands of people in this province whose first name is Walter — their given name. Now does that cause confusion?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Name names.

MR. HOWARD: Name names? Not in this chamber. But does that cause confusion, or could that cause a mistake? I mean, has anybody ever sent anybody by the name of Walter a bill for something that they didn't purchase? Or has anybody by the name of Walter been alleged to have done something improper and been the wrong person? I don't know. Maybe. The same with Jim; another very common name. Thousands of people undoubtedly have it. Some people with the name of Jim are so upset about it that they prefer to be called James. But that's their choice, and it should be their choice. It shouldn't be the choice of the director or the minister to make that decision. I find it highly objectionable to have this kind of intrusion into that question of what people's rights are.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but we have a province — indeed, a nation, but here in this province particularly — with a multiplicity of national, linguistic and cultural inheritances within our family structures. We have a multiplicity of families the parents of which come from different cultures. They have different rationales for providing particular names for their children, some of them of long-standing cultural and family history. And those names are not now to be available to those parents except subject to the whims of the director of vital statistics and/or the minister.

A number of native Indian people, wishing to maintain their cultural ties and their recognition of their past, are using their own family and tribal names — names which are, in terms of understanding the import of them, incomprehensible to most other people in society. A name that a native Indian person will have themselves or give to their child has a cultural value that means something to that family and to that tribe. It doesn't mean anything to anybody else. So here a native person could say: "We have a child born, and we've registered the child in this name." His name comes to the director or the minister; on what grounds are they going to decide whether that name could cause mistake or confusion, or whether that name would be an embarrassment to the child or another person?

Worse still, the most objectionable feature of this long beak of government sticking its nose into people's private matters is that the name may be rejected — and I need to quote this segment only to draw attention to what I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker — by the director "on any other ground" other than mistake or confusion or embarrassment to the child or another person. One could argue that you might have some rationale for those grounds of objection, but he can also reject it on any other ground if he finds it objectionable. What is this, the prejudiced position of the minister or the director that is going to prevail? In the final stroke of it, if the director considers that a name is objectionable for any other reason — maybe he's a bit bucolic some morning and makes that decision — and the parent then says, "No, I don't like that," and he goes to the minister and the minister says, "Too bad, I don't like the name either," then the person, whose name might be Jim — the child — has to have his parents apply to the supreme court with all the inconveniences and difficulties and costs visited upon the parents for them to do what is their natural right — to give a name to their child.

[10:30]

We had a similar provision, Mr. Speaker, in another bill passed earlier in this session — I believe it was an amendment to the Credit Union Act — in which certain information could be withheld or denied members of the credit union, or something to that effect, if there was objection on any other grounds. We argued that at the time, and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) stood in the House and said: "Yes, that is an improper request — to deny information on some vague thing called 'any other reason or any other grounds."' And they withdrew the amendment. I submit that that's the course of action that should be followed here.

We had another bill earlier this session as well, Mr. Speaker, in which the government sought to sanction criminal activities of bribery by saying that it was perfectly legitimate within the law. We raised an objection that it was government sticking its nose into the affairs of happenings and events in this province and seeking to give authenticity to the criminal activities of bribery or fraud or conspiracy — to bid on timber sales. That was withdrawn after we raised legitimate objections to it.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I submit that the same thing prevails here. It's government seeking to override the wishes of ordinary citizens in this province, in their ordinary natural desire to say that their child should have the name that the parents of that child want that child to have. They should have the right to do that without interference or intrusion.

The government has done lots of things in its arrogance in the last few years and has engaged in riding roughshod over the rights of people steadily and regularly, especially since

[ Page 7052 ]

1983, and here is another example of it. Maybe the minister made a mistake. Maybe the minister didn't know that this was in the bill, although I doubt that very much because that's one minister that knows everything that's in every bill. But it's something that may have escaped the sharp attention of people who want to do things in a decent and a reasonable way. I find that as long as that section as proposed stands as it is, there's no way that I can support it, and a great many of my colleagues feel the same way too. It's the long arm of the state doing an injustice to parents and citizens in this province.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I think we're probably discussing this bill in the wrong portfolio. I once held that portfolio, and it strikes me that.... The department of vital statistics is a legalistic department.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I know. It's a legalistic department. It was set up to begin with to record deaths and births, but now there is a lot more to it than that. I think it should be moved to the Attorney-General's ministry with the overseeing under the rule of law as opposed to the way it's working now.

I can recall getting woken up in the middle of the night by somebody who had forgotten to take out a marriage licence and was getting married the next morning, and the only person who could waive the three-day waiting period was the minister or the person he or she had deputized to do that. Frankly, I think it should be moved. The Ministry of Health is a very heavy ministry, and I frankly don't think that the Minister of Health or the Ministry of Health need the kind of arguments that come up around this particular legalistic end of things.

I really think that the government should move it. I can remember having missed a cabinet meeting or two sometime in the years gone by when the cemeteries were moved over to the Department of Health. Then it took me about nine months to get it moved to Consumer and Corporate Affairs, you know. But of all places to have that responsibility — under the Ministry of Health! I feel that the responsibility for this kind of thing should be moved over to the Ministry of Attorney-General.

Having said that, I listened to my colleagues worrying themselves around this particular bill, saying that the state should not interfere in the giving of a name. The argument that some of my colleagues are using is that the state has no right to interfere in that particular respect. I'll go along with my colleagues vis-à-vis the hyphenated stuff and so on. For that matter, I have friends right now that have recently had a baby, and they have decided, because they can by law hold their own names in their marriage — she has one surname, he has another — that they wanted that child to have both names as a surname. They had to wind up having the child named with three Christian names, including the mother's as a Christian name.

I don't see why. In almost every other jurisdiction in this country — as a matter of fact, I think every other jurisdiction — the child has the right to assume both those names as a surname. I know you can complicate things. If you really reason it out, you can say: "Well, okay, we'll move it back to the grandparents," and before long you'll have about 14. As a matter of fact, I know we have a very famous lady in New Westminster, who doesn't live there any longer, with the name of Cave-Brown-Cave, with two hyphens.

Anyway, I think that that's a moot point. I'm not, really concerned about that. I think the people should be permitted that latitude. Our director, who has the responsibility for this act, has indicated that he is not in favour of a hyphenated name. Whether that reflects the minister's opinion or not, I am not sure.'But I don't think that he should involve himself there.

Where I do depart slightly from my colleagues is in some of the fantastic names that I have heard children called. My colleagues say that that's the right of a parent, and they say that if the right of the parent is moved over to the state, that's maybe not a good idea. I don't particularly agree with that, because I have seen some of those names. While the person who has been given that name can apply to change it at the age of majority, meanwhile they have carried that name through the most sensitive period of their lives.

I'm not going to name some of the names that I have seen, but I'll tell you that some of them are pretty heavy-duty. That's where I have a tendency to feel that if a name can be put forward as being absolutely ridiculous, and if that name can attract the kind of criticism of that child in its tender years — and fun-making, as children are very rough on one another — then I think that I don't want to see that psychological damage done. So I think maybe not the director; maybe there should be some sort of a committee or whatever, but I think that there are some that are that ridiculous. On that basis I depart somewhat.

But as far as the rest of it is concerned, my two points are this: that with hyphenated names, I see absolutely nothing wrong with giving the latitude to a family to decide that their child should be represented by both sides of the family. Number two — and I'm being harassed by one of my colleagues behind me — I believe that this whole area of vital statistics should be transferred to the Attorney-General, who has very little to do in any event; maybe this will add a little bit of responsibility to that ministry. But no, seriously, I think it should be moved. I just see absolutely no reason why it's in the Ministry of Health.

MRS. DAILLY: I've seen the anguish on the minister's face; I want to tell him that it's going to be very short. This is just part of a windup. The minister, I know, has heard the arguments, so I won't repeat them, except I ask you not to pay too much attention to one of the arguments of the last speaker. However....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, that's why I ask you not to pay attention to this particular one.

Actually, the official opposition's majority stance on this bill is that the state should keep out of the naming of a child. The director under this bill has too much power, and we would ask the minister — without my going into all the other arguments; you heard them — to give time to consider making a basic change, and that change is simply that the surname of the child should be the surname requested by the mother and her husband. That's all; it's simple. Why bother with all this other stuff and all this complication involving the state in the naming of a child? It seems to us the height of statism. So I'm going to ask the minister to give himself time to give consideration to our arguments. I'm really sincere about this. I think the minister must have had representations

[ Page 7053 ]

from people, as we have had, over this matter. I would, therefore, move adjournment of this debate.

[10:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 16

NAYS — 25

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Those who are vitally interested in this are most welcome to stay.

There are two or three points, Mr. Speaker, that seem to bother some members, and with the exception of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), I think they perhaps are missing the point of what we're attempting to do with this legislation. The question of registering a name.... That is what the division is responsible for: not the choosing of a name, but the registration of the name. We have had applications over the years where parents wish to name a child with words that are not traditionally understood or accepted as a name: words, numbers, descriptions, statements, political, religious and otherwise. The concern we have is that a statement rather than a name....

I could give examples of what people have requested. Most of them have been of a religious nature with a very strong statement. Some requests have been what I think most people would consider to be a racist statement, and to have a child carry around that type of name — so-called — I think would in many ways make his life miserable. Members have spoken about the rights of parents to do these things. I think that the child has a right as well. I think the child has a right not to be harassed throughout the early years of life because the parents at some moment in time decided they wanted to issue a statement by way of naming the child.

You can argue or you can offer an opinion as to how far the state or the government should go in interfering with the freedom of choice of people, but I think all of our statutes do that to some degree. There are requirements by society of people to perform certain activities, including names and so on, in a method that is understood to be acceptable to society. I have confidence that the director is a reasonable man and would only refuse to register a name if indeed it was likely to cause embarrassment to that child or another person, or, as outlined, would be objectionable for any other reason.

Mr. Chairman, we have had a number of applications which have caused some concern, because the child himself must carry that name around for many years before he can legally change it. I think we have to take....

As an example, one person wished to name his child "Christ Died For Our Sins." That was to be the name of the child.

MS. BROWN: Call him Sin for short.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Call him which? Call him Qantas for short.

Others — and I know it sounds strange — want to give a child a number. They want to call their child "28" or something. I don't really understand that. Others have made applications where they wanted to make a different type of statement.

Mr. Speaker, my last comment on that: we also have some people who like to change their names quite frequently, and like to change the names of the children quite frequently, depending on what they're into at that time. We feel that that's improper with respect to the child. It's tough enough for a youngster to get through society, and I don't think we should encourage people to make it that much more difficult for them.

So that's why we're doing it. There is no intention to deny a person the opportunity of naming their child with what society considers to be a name. But some of the others are perhaps going a little too far.

With respect to the hyphenated name question — and it's one that comes up frequently — the province has never registered hyphenated names that originate here. We register hyphenated names if the person is already hyphenated and comes to B.C. We have tried to discourage the use of hyphenated names; also the registration of such modifications to a name as Junior, Senior, I, II, III and so on. What we've tried to do is say: Look, why don't we just name the person? Give them a name, and if you want to add "U" to the end of it and call yourself that, fine. Or Senior, Junior, son of so and so, or whatever it might be. You can do that. It's a matter of registering it. You can call yourself whatever you want as long as you are not attempting to defraud, but it's a matter of registering the name. We have said we don't want to register those names.

MR. HANSON: What would you do with "McTeer-Clark?"

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What would I do with them? Well, I was telling them the other day at the airport....

But it is a serious problem to try to keep it reasonable when it's being dealt with by the registrar. The hyphenated name will not go away. I'm sure it's going to be a controversy again, and more people will be asking that we permit it. I don't know why people want hyphenated names, but that's their business. In some countries it's very common. Other countries have different customs with respect to names. We have a custom. It may not satisfy all, but that's the way it is at the moment. It's the way it always has been, and I have not made or recommended the amendments to change it.

There was another point....

Interjections.

[ Page 7054 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, yes — with respect to the permission of the male spouse if the mother of a child wishes to name the child with her name, provided she has a different name. At the present time it's automatic that the child of a married woman is registered in the father's name. What we're saying is that if the two of them wish to register the child in the mother's name, then fine, they can. But we have to start somewhere. It would be an intolerable situation if the mother wanted the child to be named her name, and the father wanted the child to be named his name. Then we would have no name. Someone has to register the child in a name, and if they can't agree, then the law says it's the father's name. But if they agree that it should be the mother's name, then it's the mother's name. We have to start somewhere. Otherwise we have no name to be registered.

This is fun, isn't it? It is not an attempt to discriminate; it's an attempt to provide an opportunity. I think that makes sense, you know.

I think basically those were the three main issues. I agree with the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that government should not intervene in the lives of citizens unless it seems to have a very good and legitimate reason. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) suggests that vital statistics go to the Attorney-General's ministry. I would suggest that perhaps this time the member for New Westminster has a good idea. I hope I'm not quoted.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 44, Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 62.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to add my personal welcome to my new colleague, the member for Atlin, who I am sure is going to feel very much at home in this party, which is truly the grassroots party.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The process used to develop this piece of legislation was one which took into consideration all parties involved in the administration of the bill, and also those who could be affected by it. I consider the bill to be legislation for the legislated rather than the legislators. It's a bill designed to assist people, which I believe all legislation should be.

[11:00]

Bill 62 is designed to streamline the community planning process. It is designed to regulate land use controls, especially in the rural areas, to facilitate faster and more flexible responses to development proposals, and to provide greater certainty for land investors and local residents.

Mr. Speaker, the major highlights of Bill 62 are the introduction of rural land use bylaws, which combine the basic features of community plans with limited zoning and subdivision regulations all in one simplified document, enabling rural residents to petition for deregulation of complex community plans and zoning controls; the introduction of a revised development permit system requiring upfront specifications of the type of requirements to be placed on development projects and the justification for development permit areas to be stated clearly in community plans. There is greater flexibility in the way that parkland dedication requirements are met, including cash-in-lieu-of options.

Bill 62 eliminates double-charging by municipalities in requiring developers to construct outside services or dedicate parkland, and then imposing a development cost charge bylaw on them. It also provides for late-comer agreements, to enable the costs of extending trunk services to be recovered by both local governments and a subdivider; ensures that land already zoned and subdivided which may be subject to natural hazards will be developed only when engineering specifications can be met; and provides for municipal procedural manuals to enable the builders and subdividers to more readily understand the development-approval process. And finally, it ensures that intensive agriculture can be maintained as a productive commercial operation clearly separated from nearby residential areas.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by indicating the type of support that this legislation has received by way of letters written to my office. I have a letter here from the Union of B.C. Municipalities fully supporting the legislation; a letter from the Planning Institute of British Columbia; a letter from the Urban Development Institute, the Pacific region, again supporting the legislation; a letter from the B.C. Real Estate Association, again supporting the legislation; a letter from the professional engineers supportive of the legislation; a letter from the Canadian Home Builders' Association of British Columbia supporting the legislation; and a letter from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture supporting the legislation.

I have a letter here from the Cariboo Regional District supporting the legislation; a letter from the office of the mayor of White Rock supporting the legislation; from the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen supporting the legislation; a letter from the Corporation of the District of Central Saanich; a letter from the city of Trail supporting the legislation; a letter from the Regional District of East Kootenay supporting the legislation; and finally a letter from the Thompson-Nicola Regional District. Mr. Speaker, these are written in support of the legislation, but there were many others who in a verbal way have expressed their support.

In moving second reading of this bill, I wanted it clearly read into the record that, indeed, because of the exercise used in producing this legislation, which I call legislation for the legislated, not for the legislators.... It's people legislation, but it has received tremendous support — you might say unanimous support — throughout this province from those who will have to administer it and those who will be affected by it. But, Mr. Speaker, most important of all — and certainly most important to me — is the fact that the legislation will result in removing many obstacles and delays which have been costly, costs which are not absorbed by the development industry but which rather are passed on to the consumer. Whether they are buying a home, renting a home or purchasing goods or services in the community, this legislation is designed to cut through a lot of that red tape, remove a lot of unnecessary obstacles, streamline and indeed deliver the services and the goods, the homes, etc., to the consumer at the least cost. With that, I am very pleased indeed to move second reading.

[ Page 7055 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I want to take a little bit of time this morning, perhaps not too much time, to give our thoughts on this legislation and the process, and to voice the concerns about this planning document that are still with us. It's our feeling that although the process has been somewhat improved in terms of how this government and this minister have made decisions for local government, we still have a document before us that is really a grab-bag of technical amendments. It is really not a concise, detailed strategy for planning in the province of British Columbia.

The minister indicates that people have written letters saying: "We see this legislation and we thank you for the consultation." But if we really get down to the bottom of it, we find that they would have much preferred a different style of legislation, a different approach. Unfortunately, from the point of view on this side of the House, we have a group of amendments that are suddenly before us which are going to come into committee. We have no idea whether indeed we will get them or not. They are put before us — we know that. But we would have much preferred — given about four or five pages of amendments that are really a band-aid, ad hoc approach to planning in the province of British Columbia — that you withdraw the legislation and bring it in in a very concise, precise way, particularly in the area of regional planning. I'll get on to that in a little bit.

The major concern that we still have today is that there is no ability to plan cooperatively in a regional sense, particularly in contiguous metropolitan areas. If this minister wants to create jobs, regional planning, if it is done properly, is a major stimulus to economic development. Unless we have that cooperation in major areas where there are contiguous municipalities — where they have to cooperate and talk together and lay out a strategy in a number of areas for the future — you're going to get continuing balkanization and bickering and no agreement on strategy.

We happen to believe that planning is a very important component of economic development. Unfortunately, this piece of legislation, perhaps in a more subtle way than we originally saw in other pieces of legislation that have been before this House and have been pulled back, is still a move to erode the traditional autonomy of local government. The best planning is done by local government making decisions for itself without the provincial government setting up incredible bureaucracies and sets of rules and regulations that interfere with that process. Once again we see a piece of legislation, although much improved — and I think that's because of our voice on this side and that of the UBCM saying local government must have the ability to govern itself.... This bill is still the provincial government making decisions in critical areas for local government, and we cannot support that. Local government must have the autonomy and the flexibility to make decisions for itself, particularly in rural areas. We see this government once again, as it has done in the past in the last few years — as in Bill 9.... We saw the Islands Trust legislation in the other half of this session take away the power of local government. Once again, in a very subtle way, this piece of legislation is going to erode the autonomy of local government.

This bill should not be before us in this form, with five pages of amendments which are technical amendments. They're not long-term objectives for planning in the province of British Columbia; they are technical amendments that make it a hodgepodge approach to planning. It should be pulled back, and the Planning Institute of B.C. and the UBCM should be allowed to really give what they want in terms of planning. They want regional planning back in the province of British Columbia, and they're not getting it here in this piece of legislation.

There are a number of components in this legislation that I want to go over that I think are still of concern. One is the whole question of development permits. We are very much in favour of development. We are very much in favour of job creation, and I'll get to that point in a minute. This minister has dumped all over a major job creation program. He turned down the infrastructure program that every province except Alberta and British Columbia is supporting. He turned it down, and he's turned down thousands of jobs, and he says this legislation is to create jobs, and this minister has already turned down thousands of jobs in infrastructure and rebuilding in the province of British Columbia.

We're in favour of development, but we're in favour....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All members will be allowed an opportunity to address the bill if they wish. The second member for Victoria continues.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the people who are shouting and complaining in this Legislature know that every province in Canada except Alberta and British Columbia — and this minister — have endorsed the infrastructure rebuilding program.

This minister has turned down the prospect of 33-cent dollars to rebuild British Columbia. That's what we should be supporting. That's what we should be planning for. That's what should be in this legislation: rebuilding British Columbia. Jobs now, jobs for the future, not some grab-bag technical amendments that once again, in a subtle way, erode the power of local government.

[11:15]

They talk that they want development. Endorse the infrastructure program. Endorse the finest mayor that Vancouver has seen in a long time in his work in terms of trying to rebuild Vancouver in British Columbia in infrastructure rebuilding. Let's plan for that. They say they're in favour of development, Mr. Speaker. Let me give you the details on what infrastructure rebuilding could do in British Columbia now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. First of all, I'll ask all hon. members not to interject or interrupt when another hon. member is taking his place. Secondly, I will ask the second member for Victoria to relate his remarks to the bill before us, Bill 62, and not discuss other areas that would be outside this legislation that we have.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, we're talking about planning. This minister has tried to say that this bill is to improve the development process and therefore create jobs. What I am saying is that this minister should be planning for the rebuilding of municipalities. That's what he should be doing, and he is ignoring that. We have the opportunity to create 4,500 person-years of direct employment annually with municipal infrastructure, and another 9,000 spinoff jobs. That's what we should be planning for in the province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 7056 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member get back to Bill 62. He's talking about a program that was put forward by a committee headed by Mayor Mike Harcourt. It has absolutely no bearing on this legislation, and he should get back on track immediately. Otherwise, anything else he has to say will go down the gutter along with that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order has been made. Thank you, Mr. Minister. The second member for Victoria and all members who wish to participate in this debate are reminded that we are on Bill 62, and we must discuss the principle of this bill and not areas or facets that would be outside of the scope of this bill. To Bill 62, please.

MR. BLENCOE: I am talking to the concept of regional planning, and in regional planning all municipalities could cooperate in an economic sense in a major job creation program to create jobs. But without regional planning, without cooperation, we're not going to have that kind of incentive, that kind of cooperation. What I am suggesting is that this minister should be paying attention to planning jobs and letting municipalities get ahead to provide jobs in the province. That's what we should be doing.

Without regional planning, which this bill once again does not address, we are not going to be able to do serious economic planning in British Columbia. Regional planning allows local governments to cooperate on such things as commercial investment and community development corporations — if we had the legislation — job creation, cooperative enterprises, housing redevelopment and industrial redevelopment. Mr. Speaker, with that kind of economic initiative, you need cooperation, particularly in urban areas and metropolitan areas that are contiguous to each other.

We don't have this in this piece of legislation. We still have the old Bill 9 mentality, which eliminated that cooperative framework for economic development in the province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if we do not have that item that you are referring to in this bill, then I fail to see how we could discuss it during debate of this bill. Concern about the administration of the ministry might be better handled in estimates, but not during debate of this bill. Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, if we can't talk about regional planning in a planning document that is supposed to be a forthright and wholesome piece of legislation for local government, I would suggest that we're in real trouble. That's the nuts and bolts — in our estimation — of planning in the province of British Columbia: planning for jobs. That's what regional planning did: it allowed economic development on a regional basis for cooperation to get local municipalities together to plan for jobs. This government, once again, is spurning that particular concept. Without regional planning there is no incentive for the Capital Regional District, for instance, or the Greater Vancouver Regional District to function as brokers between councils that are just smokestack-chasing. We know what's happened in the United States because there hasn't been a cooperative framework between urban areas. They all go around in a willy-nilly fashion, chasing smokestacks. Town after town and city after city get left out.

Without a cooperative framework we cannot get jobs in the province of British Columbia. That's the point I'm trying to make. Regional planning has to happen. Cooperation, I say, makes it happen. Regional planning was a major component in developing cooperation between municipalities. Without that we're still going to have this balkanization, this grab-bag approach to development. In this bill there is no.... In a contiguous area one municipality does not have to consult with another municipality on anything, virtually, certainly in the planning realm. And that is fruitless.

We need strong economic planning. We need development strategies for economic planning in regional areas. Those regional planning departments were able to provide that and bring municipalities together to provide that strategy. Without that happening, we're going to lose investment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are dealing with Bill 62, which, although lengthy, is specific and does not deal with the issue that you're discussing now. Further, you are reflecting on a previous vote of this session. Would you please confine your remarks to Bill 62.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the exact section, but there is a section here which refers to municipalities having to talk to each other. What I am suggesting is that if you have proper regional planning you can get that kind of cooperation. We've got to have that if we're going to provide jobs in the province of British Columbia. Without regional planning there is absolutely no incentive to get an economic strategy going in these regions.

What are some of the other concerns we have? The whole development permit question. Development permits are being hurt in this piece of legislation; they're being curtailed significantly. Municipalities use permits to provide flexibility in zoning and bylaw development. They are particularly useful in urban areas for commercial and residential areas. They control the integration of projects and the overall design objectives of the community. And they help develop high design standards, which, I might add for the government, are attractive to investors. They want to come to a community that is well developed, well planned and well designed. I believe the development permit process should not be touched at all. It should be allowed to remain, and that flexible component to planning should be allowed to remain intact. It has worked well. There have been very few abuses. Unfortunately I think that what this minister is trying to do is to ensure that the developers have virtually all the rules in their favour and the communities and local government to have very few rules in their favour.

Development permits have allowed local government to ensure developments are actually built according to what the developer presents at a public hearing. I can assure you that one of the frustrations in local government is that you have a proposal before you that when it actually gets constructed is not what you thought it was going to be at all. Development permits control that. Local government has used those in a very innovative way, and I think in a very fair way. But the frustration has been, as I said in the past, that we have had projects promised, but when it comes down to it we don't have that happen.

The third area of concern, Mr. Speaker, is the whole government role in planning, and the minister's role in rural planning. The minister will have a very effective say in electoral areas as to whether there should be planning at all,

[ Page 7057 ]

whether it will be in the form of an official community plan, or a rural land-use bylaw. And there are no criteria to guide the minister. What it is, once again, is interference by senior government in local autonomy, local decision-making and local planning. All the evidence in all jurisdictions, particularly progressive jurisdictions, is that you don't interfere in the local planning process if that community wishes to plan for itself. They have elected officials who are capable of planning for themselves, and we should allow them to continue with that.

This, Mr. Speaker, is one of the more insidious areas of the legislation. It is a continuation of the centralization of power by this government — taking away the traditions of local government. We saw it in the last part of this session — the power grab with the Islands Trust — and we're continuing to see the erosion of local government by this government. We have to speak out against that. We have to say we support local decision-making, local planning processes and procedures, allowing them to lay the strategies in their areas and regions for economic development and job creation.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what Partners in Enterprise is all about.

MR. BLENCOE: I've heard a lot about Partners in Enterprise, Mr. Speaker. We've seen it on television — a great waste of taxpayers' money on television. But we certainly haven't seen many new jobs or new industries moving into town.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Bill 62. And please don't interrupt the member.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The second member for Victoria continues on Bill 62.

MR. BLENCOE: Three areas that indicate that we still have concerns about this legislation are lack of regional planning, the impact on the development process, and the continuing erosion of local planning, particularly in rural areas. We believe this legislation should not be before us in this form. We believe there should be a solid planning document that....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition rises on a point of order.

MR. SKELLY: Would Mr. Speaker advise whether there is a quorum in the House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well made. Is there a practice recommendation? I will ring the division bells and summon members.

MR. SKELLY: I counted the faces.

AN HON. MEMBER: Count them again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No discussion during a quorum count.

A quorum has been reached. The quorum is satisfied, thank you. The second member for Victoria continues on Bill 62.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, it's our belief.... I've already indicated that this bill should have been withdrawn and should come back as an intact package. It should come back with the real concerns of local government in terms of the proper scope of planning, in terms of allowing them to plan economically. That particular component is missing in this legislation. We cannot support this legislation as it is today.

We gave this government the opportunity with Partners in Enterprise. We supported partnership in enterprise, and what has happened to that? It's died on the television ads. If we're going to have recovery in this province, local government must be given the flexibility, the regional planning capabilities to pull themselves together to develop those jobs.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is that what you did when you were on Victoria council — encourage jobs?

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, here we go!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the various groups that the minister mentions have said, "Well, we're not going to get any more out of this government." They're not going to get any more changes. They know that this government won't really come forth with a serious planning document for recovery in British Columbia. We would like to see this minister come forward with ideas for job creation. We'd like to see him planning for infrastructure rebuilding. We don't want to see a sudden document that is just a grab-bag of all sorts of amendments and technical amendments. It doesn't fulfil the full scope of planning that is necessary in the province, and the major aspect missing is the regional planning component.

[11:30]

We would urge this government not to introduce this legislation as it is. Take it back, put the amendments into the legislation if they want; better still, come up with a piece of legislation that people can be excited about. I can tell you now that the people responsible for planning in their municipalities, particularly the economic planning, are not really happy. They would like a precise, concise document. This doesn't do the job for them. Mr. Speaker, we will not be supporting this piece of legislation.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns with respect to Bill 62. There are aspects of it that I think are necessary and good. One is the temporary zoning aspect. A problem with the temporary zoning thing was that they brought it in too late. The city of New Westminster went after the minister, for some time, talking in terms of some temporary zoning that was necessary for the Expo proposition and so on. The minister was kind enough to write a note after they brought in the bill, saying: "Accept it as being proclaimed." It hasn't even been discussed; it hasn't even been debated in the Legislature, but accept it as being.... And most of them did. But the problem was that certain entrepreneurs

[ Page 7058 ]

would not accept that as the kind of assurance that was necessary to motivate them to put forward the investment that they had planned. So it came too late from that standpoint. It came late because of the fact that rather than include that aspect in a statute law amendment act, they wanted to put it all together under this Municipal Amendment Act, Bill 62. As far as I'm concerned, there were jobs lost and also a good opportunity to get something going.

I also worry, having sat through the debates that centred around the original Land Commission Act. That act was opposed vociferously by the Socreds of the day, and many of them are still represented in this House. The minister putting forward this bill has also been heard in opposition to the agricultural land protection that has occurred and, for the most part, has continued throughout the last ten years of Socred government. I certainly worry when we know the bias of some of those members and their feeling toward the protection of agricultural land and their feeling of great support of the developer, no matter what the developer wants to do. So I have major concerns.

The minister put forward this bill and then went around and indicated to certain municipalities, certain cities and areas in this province, that there should be support for these amendments. I think that's a pretty good idea, but I would like to have seen it approached earlier, and I would like to have seen the kind of input before the fact as opposed to after the fact.

Going out and telling people "We have a fait accompli here; what do you think about it?" is very much like all this "partners in enterprise" and partners this, partners that. The lesser partner feels that they had better not make too many waves, by virtue of the fact that they could come off even worse. This government, regardless of where you sit in this province, is perceived as arrogant and is perceived as a government that wants its way and will get its way, through hell and high water. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm not at all surprised that the minister got some support out there. I have, however, spoken to municipal officials and elected members who have said that there is plenty wanting here and had some concerns about this whole question of ministerial discretion around matters of planning.

We had that first move towards major centralization by a former Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is no longer part of the Legislature — he spends his time viewing the political process and talking to Peter Pollen, out there in Surrey. He brought in an act that terrified people. To some extent we're looking at a similar piece of legislation here, from the standpoint of the minister being the top decision-maker in the province. Let the municipality step out of line and they can be confronted with this piece of legislation.

It has, as I said, some good points. I am pleased about the fact that we finally are going to give the opportunity for temporary zoning.

Interjections.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: The minister told me we were getting it; then he brings in the bill, and we go home. No proclamation, not even a debate. Nothing until now.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: It wasn't needed then.

Mr. Speaker, there is something to be said for some aspects of this bill. I'm particularly pleased with temporary zoning. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not pleased with the fact that the minister has the kind of discretion that he has. I worry, particularly with that minister in this particular portfolio. He has indicated time and time again that he wants to be the head honcho, the real boss of all planning and zoning in this province. I don't feel that that minister warrants the kind of support that he would like. We've often said in this House that a minister is trying to be a czar. That's one of the problems with....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is having another one of his fits.

Mr. Speaker, I have every intention of asking the minister to put forward some good reasons why we should support this bill. The member for Victoria indicated enough to me about the lack of real planning at this particular level, the provincial level. That worries me. To date the minister hasn't given us any good reason to support a bill that once again increases his power over the municipalities and districts of this province, enabling, in some cases, some little bit of assistance. For my money, with a bill as comprehensive as this, at a time when the province is in such trouble, he has to give us some pretty spectacular reasons for supporting this particular bill.

MR. SKELLY: In part, we are concerned about the process through which this bill came to the Legislature to be debated today. The minister brought in a bill, and there was some serious negative reaction to this bill. To give the minister some credit, he went through a process of discussion with a number of the people involved who initially reacted negatively to this bill. As a result, a whole series of detailed amendments have come down — detailed amendments that we've only had the opportunity to see in the last day or so.

The consequence is that we're dealing with an unamended bill in the House, a bill in principle that doesn't have amendments, and the minister expects us to go on trust as to whether he is going to carry through those amendments or not. We don't know that for sure.

A much better process would have been to withdraw the bill and rewrite it so that we would know in principle what we are dealing with in the Legislature. We had a case in the House yesterday where the minister said that he has already spent $260 million of a $375 million cost on a highway project, and now he's coming to the Legislature asking to borrow that money. Well, I suggest to you that that's a backward process, and the process that the minister is using here today is also a backward process.

[11:45]

The minister should have started the process of consultation with municipalities, developer organizations, UDI and all of those organizations. He should have started the process first by going out to the people involved in the development industry, going out to local governments and finding out what the concerns were and then bringing in a comprehensive piece of legislation. The government does this all the time. They bring in the legislation, they hit people with a baseball bat, and then they respond to it by making amendments. The result is a crazy quilt of legislation that doesn't really make too much sense when it's all put together

[ Page 7059 ]

with the original legislation and the amendments. That's why it is so difficult to deal with a bill like this in the Legislature. It appears a crazy quilt with the initial bill and the amendments, and it's very difficult for us to deal responsibly with legislation like this in this House.

That's a problem with the process. In addition, the minister in introducing the bill, Mr. Speaker, indicated that this bill was going to create additional employment. By changing the legislation, he was going to create additional employment in the province of British Columbia. Well, we've heard that one before too, Mr. Speaker. The simple fact is that in the last four years with all of these employment encouraging policies of the provincial government, we've lost 70,000 jobs in the province of British Columbia. With all of the legislation they've brought in with respect to special zones and changing the Labour Code and reducing the burden of government on the people, we have lost 70,000 jobs in British Columbia.

The minister is saying that this is going to encourage employment. We can't take the minister's word on this one either, Mr. Speaker. A total of 70,000 jobs have been lost over the last four years, and 192,000 people are unemployed in British Columbia. The minister says that this bill is going to create more jobs. I want to know what kind of economic studies the minister has done to determine the employment impact of this bill and the economic impact of this bill. Why weren't those studies tabled in this Legislature so that we would know what information the minister has with respect to the employment and the economic impacts of this bill. As far as we're concerned, if this bill is like all of the other pieces of legislation that they said would encourage employment in British Columbia, it's going to fail as miserably as all the rest. That's why we're concerned about it.

We've seen no hard information from this minister that assures us that there is going to be any positive employment and economic benefit resulting from this legislation. But we do congratulate the minister for doing a little better than other ministers have done in this regard. After hammering the general public, local governments and the development industry with this bill, at least he has accepted some of their criticisms and comments and incorporated those in the amendment.

We're concerned about the political process involved in planning and zoning in the province. I've been advised by a number of people throughout the province that before approving regional district zoning amendments — those amendments that have to come down here to Victoria for approval — the minister sends them out to either the local Social Credit MLA or the local Social Credit executive to ask their opinion on zoning amendments that have already been passed by the regional district. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who currently lives in Oak Bay, applauds. I think he's recognizing the fact that that does happen, that the minister sends regional district zoning decisions that are sent to Victoria for approval out to regional Social Credit executive members or the Social Credit MLA for political approval.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

MRS. JOHNSTON: For public input.

MR. SKELLY: For political input — the member for Surrey acknowledges that. And the member for Omineca acknowledges that. Now what kind of respect for local government is that, when an individual Social Credit MLA who no longer lives in the constituency and doesn't really know what is happening in the north is given the power to approve regional district zoning bylaws that are referred to him by the minister?

That's one of the concerns we have about this minister and his new-found respect for local government and for....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: The members for Surrey and Omineca have acknowledged that the minister refers regional district zoning bylaws that have already been passed at the local level to local Social Credit MLAs and....

MR. REID: This Surrey MLA says that's not true.

MR. SKELLY: Well, maybe he refers it to one Surrey MLA. The member for Omineca acknowledged that he receives regional district zoning bylaws that have to be approved by the minister, and he gives the final political stamp of approval. If that's the case, what's the use of all this legislation, because the minister is going to bypass the decisions of the local government, he is going to consult with the local Social Credit executive or member of the Legislature, and it's the political approval process that counts here.

How do we know that a developer who may be, for example — and we don't have too many examples of this left — a Social Credit member...? In seeking to overturn a regional district decision with respect to a rezoning application, might he not approach the MLA and, in exchange for his continued support, ask that MLA to overturn a decision by a democratically elected local government? I think there's a tremendous danger....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'm so flummoxed by these remarks that are coming across the floor.... I'm so angry, and I don't want to lose control....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: He's going to move to Oak Bay too, and we won't have a single member from the north left in this Legislature.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I think the member for Omineca needs help.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We will continue with orderly debate.

In view of the fact that the Chair has a couple of small rulings to bring down, this may be an appropriate time, hon. member, to....

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

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) asked leave to move

[ Page 7060 ]

adjournment of the House under provisions of standing order 35, requesting that representations be made to the government of Canada in the case of the imprisonment of a Canadian citizen in Costa Rica and subsequent order for his extradition to Guatemala. Sir Erskine May — sixteenth edition, page 373 — states that a motion for adjournment must involve the administrative responsibility of the government. Accordingly, the member, if he so desires, must bring the matter forward on notice, as the Chair is clearly precluded from accepting the member's application under standing order 35.

Also, hon. members, yesterday the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked leave to move adjournment of the House under provisions of standing order 35, and stated that the matter concerned the unemployment crisis in British Columbia. I must find, in accordance with many previous rulings from the Chair, that standing order 35 is not the proper vehicle to embark upon discussions of unemployment. I refer hon. members to volume 2, page 69, of Speakers' Decisions; page 285 of the Journals of the House for 1974; pages 364-7 of the seventeenth edition of Sir Erskine May; and an examination of the Journals of the House will disclose that numerous similar applications have consistently been disallowed for not being in conformity with the requirements of standing order 35.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.