[ Page 7145 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statements

1986 B.C. Ferries Fares. Hon. A. Fraser –– 7145

Mr. Lockstead

Merger of financial institutions. Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7146

Mr. Lauk

Oral Questions

Outflow of workers from B.C. Mr. Skelly –– 7147

Ombudsman documents. Mr. Lea –– 7147

Mr. Howard

Municipal Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 62). Hon. Mr. Ritchie.

Committee stage –– 7148

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mr. Michael

Hon. Mr. Pelton

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Rose

Mr. Davis

Securities Act (Bill 37). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Committee stage –– 7160

Mr. Ree

Mr. Veitch

Mr. Lauk

Mr. R. Fraser

Mrs. Johnston

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Mowat

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Howard

Appendix –– 7170

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we're very honoured in having in our galleries today His Excellency Roger Denorme, the ambassador of Belgium, on a formal visit to Canada's evergreen playground. Accompanying him is Mr. Jean Lecomte, who is the consul-general of Belgium in Vancouver. We indeed regret, gentlemen, that we're imposing Ottawa weather upon you, but we bid you, notwithstanding that, the warmest of welcomes.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, visiting British Columbia today is a goodwill delegation from Suzhou in China: Mr. Zhou Dayan, deputy mayor of Suzhou; Mr. Lin Hua, vice-chairman of the standing committee of Suzhou Municipal People's Congress; Zhou Sangyi, vice-chairman of the Suzhou municipal council of China's People's Political Consultative Conference; Li Yaonan, deputy secretary-general of the Suzhou municipal people's government; and Guan Ruihua, deputy section chief of the foreign affairs office of the Suzhou municipal people's government. Accompanying the delegation, of course, is Murray Glazier, alderman from the twin city of Victoria. Welcome to British Columbia.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I see in the gallery two recently re-elected aldermen for the city of Victoria, Geoff Young and Murray Glazier. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them today.

Ministerial Statement

1986 B.C. FERRIES FARES

HON. A. FRASER: As all British Columbians know, next year we'll host the world and millions of its people at Expo 86 as we celebrate man's finest achievements in the field of transportation and communications. Expo will be a magnificent world's fair, and it will provide a tremendous boost for our tourism and hospitality industry. Its long-term effect as the catalyst of our government's strategy for renewal — a strategy based on the concept of partnership — will be to increase investment and economic activity across our province.

The success of that strategy — and it's already at work — will stem in large part from the fact that our government has made sure that we have a first-class transportation infrastructure in place. British Columbia today enjoys a system of highways, local airports and ports that is second to none. We're well along in construction of the Coquihalla Highway; the Annacis bridge, that magnificent feat of engineering and construction, is close to completion; in a matter of days our new advanced rapid transit system will be up and running, serving thousands of commuters. All of these transportation-oriented projects created thousands of jobs and generated millions of dollars in economic activity at a time when these things were most needed in our province. They represent the kind of public sector investments that we had to make in order to equip our province to meet the new challenges that face us in a new and more competitive world.

Our transportation infrastructure has many elements; included, as I said, are highways, ports and a network of municipal airports developed successfully under our provincial air transport assistance program. Another important component, one that has served our province and the people of British Columbia in fine fashion for many years, is B.C. Ferries. As the largest ferry fleet in the world, it is an integral link in our transportation chain, serving the B.C. coastal region, the Queen Charlottes, Vancouver Island and the mainland. In terms of service and value for dollar, you can't find a better bargain anywhere. The present fare structure, for example, between Vancouver Island and the mainland stands at $19 for an auto and its driver, and $4 for each passenger or a walk-on. In contrast, the fare from Sidney to Anacortes, on the Washington state ferry system, is $24.35 for a car and its driver, and $5.65 for a passenger.

With Expo 86 on the horizon, the Ferry Corporation is gearing up for a major increase in both domestic and visitor traffic as a result of the fair and the very aggressive marketing programs of the Ministry of Tourism. Today, Mr. Speaker, I have some good news for all those people who will sail on the ferry system in 1986 — I am pleased to announce that fares on the B.C. Ferries will not increase for 1986, and it's certainly good news for British Columbians and visitors and tourists alike. I'm delighted to be able to make this announcement, and also to say that the Ferry Corporation will continue to recognize British Columbia's senior citizens by offering free travel Monday through Thursday on all its southern routes.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: By the way, Mr. Minister, they send their regards from Bella Bella — and the subsidy that they didn't get for their airport.... I thank the minister. Well, I'm not sure....

I listened intently to his announcement, and he didn't say anything that we haven't already read in the paper. I'll just go through this very quickly. The minister mentioned the theme of Expo. We on this side of the House hope that Expo is a complete success, and that that particular fair will not drain the provincial coffers too much. I guess we won't get the bills until after Expo is over and until after the next provincial election.

Certainly I welcome the minister once again telling this House that his many, many projects include job creation for thousands of British Columbians and people from other provinces in Canada and all over the United States. However, I would much prefer to have seen all of those jobs go to British Columbians.

While we're discussing highways, I would as well like to remind the minister that there are many parts of this province where highway projects are sorely needed. I can think of areas in my riding, but right now I'm speaking on behalf of the opposition for the whole province.

Those jobs in highway construction provide local work opportunities for our local contractors, and I would hope that instead of looking at megaprojects that usually involve huge overruns, such as the Coquihalla Highway, the minister would start looking at the roads and highways and byways on a community-by-community basis. I know that we'll go through this in some detail during the budget debate next spring.

Last but not least, the minister has once again announced to this House that there would be no ferry fare increases, because of the $12 million surplus. But, Mr. Speaker, I must remind the members that there have been fare increases on

[ Page 7146 ]

that ferry system every year since 1977, I believe –– 1976, I think the minister said. Furthermore, the scheduling has been reduced this winter. I understand that there are nine vessels currently tied up, not being used. I will welcome the minister's announcement when he tells us that there will be increased scheduling during Expo, which will help us quite a bit.

[2:15]

I want to remind the minister that the subsidy to the B.C. Ferry Corporation has been reduced quite severely over the last three years, from $54 million to about $40 million at the present time. I know I am going on here a bit, but this is quite important, I think. The ministry has increased the fleet by 12 additional saltwater vessels, which are going to require an increased subsidy. The city of Prince Rupert has requested better service from the lower mainland, Tsawwassen to Prince Rupert. People on Vancouver Island, specifically my colleague here, have requested reduced fares to Vancouver Island. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, reduced fares for all of our people on the coast.

So there is a lot of work to do, and while I welcome the minister's announcement, I want to tell him we are by no means happy with his performance over the last year particularly.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to introduce today somebody who is well known in this chamber and also in the province, Mr. John Fraser, the MP for Vancouver South, who is here today sitting on the floor. He has many friends in this chamber. He is a man who has served his country with distinction, a man who has served also on the Trilateral Commission, a member of the lzaak Walton League, an internationally known angler and environmentalist: my friend John Fraser.

MR. ROSE: I might also request leave of the House...

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: ...to welcome my old friend and colleague John Fraser to this House: the member for Vancouver South, elected I believe for the first time in 1972. We had a very warm and close personal relationship. We've always, I hope, mutually admired each other's positions, although we didn't always agree. I hope that Mr. Fraser doesn't suffer too much of a culture shock at first entering this chamber. I'd like to welcome him over here, if he'd care to come. But I wish him all the best for the renewal of the Conservative Party in British Columbia.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition were not here, I would ask for leave to welcome the member for Vancouver South too.

MR. REYNOLDS: I ask leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I won't welcome John Fraser, because unlike my colleague down here who was in the House with John, I agreed with everything he did. But I have another introduction I would like to make, Mr. Speaker: a gentleman who is the son of my former neighbours in Delta, Peter and Kate Rodenkirchen, a gentleman who is now a constituent of mine in West Vancouver, a very successful businessman in British Columbia, Manfred Rodenkirchen. He is in the gallery.

Ministerial Statement

MERGER OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, this morning Security Pacific Corp. and the Morguard Group Ltd. of Toronto announced that an agreement has been reached under which Security Pacific Bank Canada, headquartered in Toronto, will be merged with Morguard Bank of Canada, a commercial bank headquartered in Vancouver. The successor bank will be named Security Pacific Bank Canada and will be a wholly-owned unit of Security Pacific. The head office of the merged bank will be in Vancouver, British Columbia, and Mr. John Pierce, president and chief executive officer of Morguard, will continue in his capacity as president and chief executive officer of the new bank.

Security Pacific Bank Canada and Morguard Bank of Canada, with combined assets of $500 million Canadian, are both Canadian schedule B banks formed in 1981 and 1982 respectively. This merged bank will have a combined staff of about 75 employees, and branches in Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal. Headquartering this new merged bank in Vancouver is a positive step. It's an indication of job creation, new jobs coming onstream. It is this new bank showing confidence in the B.C. economy, and an indication of our efforts as a government to make every effort possible to ensure that Vancouver becomes a major financial community in western Canada.

MR. LAUK: Only in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have the temerity to stand in the House and say that a bank merger shows confidence in the economy. The system of banks and credit unions in western Canada is trying to survive in an economy that is on its knees, particularly in British Columbia through the programs of this government. Mergers are for survival. They're not a demonstration of confidence. They want to survive.

This government is hard pressed to point out the policies it has implemented in the last five to six years which support the western system of banks in Canada — a system that emerged, I might say, because the former Premier of this province, W.A.C. Bennett, and other business people in western Canada, particularly in British Columbia, were sick and tired of the dictatorial tyranny of the eastern chartered banks. Eastern chartered banks have done more — before this government came to power — to cripple the economy of British Columbia than any other single financial structure of Canada. What's taking place now is a concerted attack on the part of the chartered banks, which use the federal government and the Bank of Canada as their handmaidens, and can rattle their chains and force the mergers and closures of banks in western Canada. For the minister to have the temerity to stand up and say this is a demonstration of confidence.... No other minister in any other legislature in this country would

[ Page 7147 ]

dare to say that. He hopes his back-benchers will believe him; we don't.

Oral Questions

OUTFLOW OF WORKERS FROM B.C.

MR. SKELLY: I have a question to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. In the last four quarters there has been a net population outflow from the province of British Columbia which is the highest and most persistent in the province's history. In the third quarter of 1985, the population outflow has reached 2,046 persons. The second quarter of 1985 had an outflow of 2,292, and the first quarter had an outflow of 1,557. In the last quarter of 1984 there was an outflow of 554 persons. There is a growing outflow of population from the province of British Columbia. Will the minister tell us what plans he has developed to stem the population outflow from the province in terms of job creation and attracting industry to the province of British Columbia, so that the sons and daughters of British Columbians can live and work in the province?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we began the program of economic renewal on March 14 of this year with the budget which was introduced to this House and which contained a number of incentives to ensure that new business comes to British Columbia and that businesses which are already in British Columbia have the opportunity to grow, expand and develop new business in our province. Tax adjustments and reductions in the budget will amount to $1 billion over three years, all of which will go to the business community — small business, primarily — which will be the engine which drives the economic growth of this province. In addition to that, this Legislature approved the establishment of the office of the commissioner of critical industries, which has had success now on three major occasions: the reopening of two major copper mines in British Columbia; the reopening, under employee ownership, of Victoria Plywood; the recent approval by the employees of the reopening under employee ownership of Sooke Forest Products; and also Lamford in New Westminster.

We've seen the opening of a new copper mine in North Island, a major new deposit, the first new copper mine that has opened. We're seeing all of the indicators — retail sales, housing sales, automobile sales, housing starts — on the increase. There are more people working in British Columbia now than there have been in many years, since probably 1981 or so.

Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate is still unacceptably high. But the programs and goals of this province and of this government will see that improve dramatically over the next few months.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, in the last month 20,000 additional people became unemployed in the province of British Columbia, as a result of this very policy that the minister was talking about. In addition, since the budget came down, 5,000 people have left the province, looking for opportunities elsewhere in Canada or elsewhere in the world.

My question is: in specific terms, what plans does that minister have to deal with the problem that has made British Columbia the embarrassment in this country, the sick province of Canada, a have-not province? What specific plans does this minister have to deal with the problems that are driving British Columbians away from this province, and driving British Columbians out of their jobs?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There's only one real embarrassment that I can think of, and that's the performance of the Leader of the Opposition, who continues. day by day, to attempt to destroy the confidence of British Columbia. But he's being unsuccessful, and he'll continue to be unsuccessful.

Mr. Speaker, I've mentioned the programs that are in place. I'll be happy to have my ministry send down briefing notes on all of the programs which are in place, including the venture capital corporation program, which by the end of March will have $150 million of new investment in small business in British Columbia, the special enterprise zone legislation, and the critical commissioner's legislation. I'll put a package together for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, and I'll make sure you have it in your office.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell me what statements like this, by a senior economist with Employment and Immigration Canada, do for the confidence of British Columbians and the confidence that we enjoy elsewhere in the country? "Realistically, when we are answering the question, 'Where are the jobs?', a one-word answer is Ontario. That's what people in British Columbia and Employment and Immigration Canada are telling sons and daughters of British Columbians who are being forced to leave the province to get jobs.

Mr. Speaker, my question to this minister is: if Ontario can do it, if Manitoba can do it, if other provinces in Canada can do it, why has this minister reduced British Columbia to a have-not province?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if British Columbia is a have-not province, I would be pleased if the Leader of the Opposition would send a letter to his counterpart in Manitoba, the Premier of Manitoba, and advise him that, since Manitoba is the bright spot of Canada, perhaps it's time we stopped sending equalization payments there.

OMBUDSMAN DOCUMENTS

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. Yesterday in question period, in answering a question asked on a previous day.... I quote from the Hansard Blues:

I'm able to report to the House that correspondence and documents went missing from the office of the Ombudsman when Mr. Friedmann left. A month ago, in early October, the acting ombudsman's office made a request to Mr. Friedmann for the return of these documents. That request was not successful; the documents were not recovered from Mr. Friedmann. A demand was then made upon him by registered mail, which was not successfully served upon him, and formal demands have been made upon him within the past couple of days by counsel that the acting ombudsman has retained to recover those documents.

My question to the Attorney-General is that if what he said yesterday is true — that Mr. Friedmann on leaving office took confidential documents and documents that rightly belong in the ombudsman's office — then why, instead of asking the acting ombudsman to act, is the Attorney-General not acting? Because this clearly comes under the Criminal Code of Canada.

[ Page 7148 ]

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker, I've had legal advice that, under the Criminal Code of Canada, section 296, the breach of trust section — called theft by conversion — would be the proper Criminal Code section to lay charges under. I'm asking the Attorney-General, as chief law enforcement officer, why, when it clearly falls under the Criminal Code, does he leave this up to the acting ombudsman? I'm sure the Attorney-General agrees that justice delayed is justice denied, that Mr. Friedmann should not have this dark cloud over him and that he should have his day in court to clear himself or to be found guilty, whichever is the case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member may be seeking legal opinion, but the Attorney-General is certainly qualified to judge that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would call to order the international banking expert over there who is heckling me. I'm not one of those who ascribes criminal activities to persons who are alleged to have removed documents. I did not purport to have made a police investigation into the matter of the former ombudsman's removal of documents. The ombudsman's office is staffed independent of me and my office, and the ombudsman, under his act, is responsible to this chamber and enforces his own act and engages his own counsel. I don't step in unless I receive from the acting ombudsman a complaint of criminal activity, or some person appears before a justice and swears out an information. None of those things have happened. I see no reason, for the moment, to have a criminal investigation. I understand that the present acting ombudsman has retained counsel and that steps are being taken to recover these documents. So I appreciate the concern for justice that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has expressed in this chamber, but I'm quite content that the acting ombudsman has the matter very much in hand.

MR. LEA: If there was a bank embezzlement, would you leave it up to the bank manager? I mean, you cannot leave a citizen out there with this dark cloud over his head. You can't make statements in this House that Mr. Friedmann took documents from that office, and then leave it dangling with the acting ombudsman. This is clearly a job for the Attorney-General. Either lay charges under the Criminal Code, or get up in this House and say that none of it is true. You can't have it both ways. And I'd like to know why, if Mr. Friedmann took those documents, it does not fall under the Criminal Code of Canada, section 296, Theft by Conversion — which means that when the ombudsman took those papers he had the authority to do it. It's when he converted them to his own use that it falls under the Criminal Code, and if that happened, then charges should be laid. You can't hide behind the skirts of the acting ombudsman.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon. members, questions should be brief and precise, and they should also be questions.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I don't know from whom that member obtains his interesting legal advice. It's very imaginative and intuitive indeed; but if every removal is to be said to be a breach of trust, if every taking of documents is said to be a conversion, if every removal is said to be a break-in, then the criminal law is going to be invoked at the whim of any critic. In order to have a case under the criminal law, you have to prove that a taking is without any colour of right, and you have to do so beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't swoop in and use the criminal law for what may be a matter of less culpability. But the matter came to my attention, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, as a result of a request that was made by the NDP member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I made an inquiry, but not an investigation. I would hope that the member is not urging me to invoke the criminal law every time there is a complaint or an inquiry.

MR. HOWARD: A few days ago the Attorney-General said that his deputy had diligently searched the records of his ministry and those of the ombudsman's office as well. Could the Attorney-General tell us whether that search of the records of the ombudsman's office was done with the agreement of the acting ombudsman?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, the Deputy Attorney-General caused a search to be made. When I received his report, I understood that he had gone there himself, but he did not. Through officials of the ombudsman's office, at his request, that search was made. So in that respect, I correct any misapprehension that the member was under. But my deputy did not actually physically go in and look at files in the ombudsman's office. I think probably that was more appropriate conduct for him.

MR. HOWARD: I see. Then what the Attorney-General told the House the other day is not a true statement, and I am glad he has corrected that. But even so, if as he says people in the ombudsman's office made those records available for his deputy to search, what does that mean of the oath of office of the acting ombudsman and people in the ombudsman's office that all documentation brought to the attention of the ombudsman is confidential and not to be revealed to anybody? Did they not violate that oath by making that information available to the deputy?

HON. MR. SMITH: The question is not only nitpicking and irrelevant, but the asker of that question obviously believes he's in some marvellous pursuit of some important fact for this chamber. I can tell him that the Deputy Attorney-General, when investigating — as he was — a claim made by the former ombudsman of criminal activity, a break-in, had a duty and an obligation to find out what was in the files to support that. He did that in a sensitive way by requesting cooperation from the ombudsman's office to make that search, and that was done.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 62; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 through 7 inclusive approved.

[ Page 7149 ]

On section 8.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With leave of the House, the Chair, in dealing with section 8, will call each proposed section of the Municipal Act by the number listed under section 8.

Leave granted.

On proposed new section 943.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Proposed new section 943 as amended approved.

Proposed new section 944 approved.

On proposed new section 945.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: Actually, I wanted to talk on proposed section 945. Do we do the amendment and then get back to section 945?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I suggest you do the amendment; then you can....

MR. MITCHELL: Do it as amended?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you wish.

MR. MITCHELL: All right.

Amendment approved.

On proposed new section 945 as amended.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to ask the minister a few questions on community plans. I know he's very familiar with the one I'm going to bring up; I've brought it up here on many other occasions. That's the community plan of Sooke. That particular community plan has gone through numerous public hearings. It's gone through the various stages within the CRD. It has been central to two regional directors who have campaigned for or against that particular community plan. The community plan, as supported by the majority of the voters of that community and adopted, has been well discussed. It has been endorsed by the Capital Regional District, but the minister continues to refuse to sign that particular piece of legislation.

It's very nice to have, in the statutes of our province, certain procedures under the Municipal Act. It is very nice to have, enshrined and passed by this Legislature, certain procedures. But when those procedures that are endorsed by the community — democratically in two elections — continually are frustrated by the minister, I think that the legislation that is on our books is not being lived up to. I too, maybe like the minister, share some disagreement with that particular community plan, but the community plan is the wishes of the local community. All I can say is that if we are going to allow communities to make decisions, then we also should give them support and not continual frustration. I feel that the minister is listening to a minority or a person who is continually defeated when he campaigns on it. I don't like to get onto the personalities. I feel that if we do have a procedure that is on the books, we don't use the power of the minister to frustrate the particular piece of legislation, so he can get his personal views through with the idea that maybe somewhere along the line he'll change the legislation so he can get his own way one way or another.

My question is: when a community plan is well debated within the community, does go through all the legal hurdles, will the minister have the decency to sign it and put it into legislation?

[2:45]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, that member should recognize that one of the more important functions at this moment, of course, concerns job creation. That plan was turned back because it didn't give recognition or did not provide sufficient property for industrial or commercial development as we deem the community required. It went back to have that reconsidered. The director for the area has agreed to locate and identify on the plan sufficient industrial land for development and job creation in that community.

Since that time, there has been a study into the possibility of incorporation. As yet, I have not heard back from the community in respect to what they want they want to do with the plan. I don't believe that I've heard anything from them for approximately 8 or 12 months.

The answer to your question is that we must concern ourselves with the industrial and commercial future of our community, and the plan did not take that into consideration.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm absolutely shocked when I hear a minister of the Crown stand up and give the garbage that he just gave. The worst part about it is that he is my buddy MLA. What he's saying to this House — and it will be recorded in Hansard — is that the community, in their plan, hasn't provided sufficient industrial property. There is industrial property in the Sooke area, within that community plan, that is lying vacant.

I say it again and I say this very plainly: if the community decides that they wish to preserve waterfront land for residential, then they have the right to do it. Any modem community.... They build industrial parks away from environmentally sensitive areas, and they build a proper industrial park and provide the job opportunities that this area needs.

Maybe 100 years ago when industry was serviced by sailing boats, then you used waterfront property. But this is 1985. I quite believe that if you look at the Oak Bay community plan, you'll find very little industrial property along the waterfront. For the minister to say to the community, "You have to put industrial property in Cooper Cove, in a residential area, or I'm not going to sign your plan," is ludicrous.

This goes on and on. The minister uses this garbage that jobs are not being provided because there's insufficient industrial land. When every piece of industrial land that is

[ Page 7150 ]

presently zoned and available is full, and industry is working, then I would say that he may have some basis for his statement. But that is not the fact in Sooke, and I imagine that if he is doing it in Sooke or doing it in my riding, he is doing the same thing in other parts of this province.

In that particular area the waterfront property should be preserved for residential use. No freighter is going to land on those beaches; there are no places for landing goods or for industry. They are going to bring it in by truck — and he knows it. The only use of that land is to build a building on it, and it will be served by the highway.

We should have some proper, planned industrial parks, which I have called for in this House and which there have been studies on. The previous minister of industrial development, after his study, said there was no need for additional industrial land or industrial parks — which I disagree with. I say there is a need, but they should be placed in a less environmentally sensitive area; they should be placed in an area away from the waterfront.

The present plan has been adopted by the community, after many meetings and debates and studies, and they want to preserve the waterfront for residential use. Right or wrong — I don't care what the minister thinks — that is their decision. They have complied with every section of the Municipal Act, and still that community plan sits on the desk of the minister. He keeps saying they didn't provide enough land for industry. I say that when the land that is there is full, there is other land that should become industrial land, but I stress again that it should not be the Cooper Cove area — until such time as maybe Sooke Forest have some additional need for it. At the present time there is no need for it.

There is nothing on the books.... The only chance.... There are a few people who own undeveloped land. They may be able to flip it with new zoning. They are the only people who are going to gain by it. The community is not going to gain. Cooper Cove is still the entrance to Sooke. Until the minister, my buddy MLA, comes out and looks at it, and remembers that.... When we toured it with Bill Vander Zalm, the present minister of municipalities gave those living in the community the same assurance that Bill Vander Zalm gave: that he would preserve Cooper Cove for residential use; he wouldn't allow it to become industrial. And now, as a kind of smokescreen, he's saying that we're not providing enough land for jobs. It's wrong.

I ask the minister to sign that plan quickly. Then you can hold your head up, and you're going to be my buddy MLA — at least you did something. Instead of frustrating the people out there, do something positive.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the only fuss we're hearing about the Sooke plan now is from that member. I know Cooper Cove and all of that area very well, as a buddy MLA. Maybe the reason why we're not hearing very much is that the buddy MLA is communicating constantly with those constituents. But I will be pleased to let them know that you are still around and interested.

Proposed new section 945 as amended approved.

On proposed new section 946.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The amendment on the order paper is under this section. [See appendix.]

Amendment to proposed new section 946 approved.

Proposed new section 946 as amended approved.

On proposed new section 947.

Amendment to proposed new section 947 approved. [See appendix.]

On proposed new section 947 as amended.

MR. BLENCOE: I have already said most of what we want to say about the concept of this procedure that the minister is introducing. We, and I particularly, feel very strongly that we still don't have a very sensible approach to regional planning in the province of British Columbia. The other day the minister took a very personal view of how we approach this issue. He talked about planners, in their professional duties, frustrating the opportunities for municipalities to participate in regional planning, to be able to make decisions for a region and plan its overall future objectives.

Mr. Chairman, we have to once again reiterate that we feel that in a progressive society, particularly in urban societies, where you have municipalities in very close proximity to each other, you need regional planning; you need a process whereby those municipalities have, to some degree, some responsibility to cooperate in a regional plan. It's our belief that the constant....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could.... I know this is not a very important issue for some, but to us this is an important issue.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the member is debating last year's legislation. He's not on Bill 62; he's talking about a regional plan that was removed with Bill 9. This is Bill 62, not Bill 9.

MR. BLENCOE: And that, Mr. Chairman, is what I'm saying: that omitted from this legislation is the regional planning concept. We have here that municipalities may refer certain things to other municipalities, but there is not in law or in legislation or in a planning document any obligation on the part of those municipalities to try to cooperate in a regional concept. We continue to have the balkanization that we have today in many jurisdictions, again particularly in urban areas, and we feel that it is very important, particularly in areas like the Capital Regional District and the Greater Vancouver Regional District, that there be a planning overview of the needs of those regions for long-term objectives and long-term direction, particularly in economic development. What we have and what we will continue to have by regions and municipalities in those regions is a fighting among themselves for industrial development: smokestack chasing, rather than coming together in a regional concept to try to agree on what kind of regional development in industry might be established in those regions.

[ Page 7151 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that we are not dealing with regional plans as such, community plans, and the omission of something from a section that is not relevant to this Section 1s not debatable in committee stage. We're dealing with the specific section, and not second reading debate.

MR. BLENCOE: Without referring, then, to the term regional planning, it's our position that any planning in the province of British Columbia must promote cooperation between contiguous municipalities to ensure that economic development is encouraged; that those municipalities in a region cooperate in the area of trying to create jobs, and that they come together in a planning function that has an overview of their needs. Without mentioning the other past legislation, it's our view that this bill falls short of that concept.

Now this minister has gone on philosophical bents against planners and what they do to development, etc. I'm not going to repeat his arguments; we've heard them. He has a blind spot when it comes to planners and the whole process. Now he's having to backtrack a little bit — we know that — and he's talking about the idea of computer planning or some variation of some theme, because he recognizes that with what he did to planning in the province of British Columbia last year and again in this bill, we don't have before us a solid planning document that's comprehensive, that isn't a grab-bag of technical amendments. Look before us: how has this come into this Legislature? Look at the amendment procedure, and it's all over the map. We need to look at the whole process of how we establish planning policies and legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. The Chair is having some difficulty relating your comments to the procedure of adoption by a council of a community plan. The section deals with the actual passage procedure, once a plan has been placed before council.

[3:00]

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you. I recognize you're pointing out the relevancy, and all I am suggesting is that in this legislation (a) the process has been, to say the least, not the best, and (b) in this particular section we continue to avoid the question of regional planning, regional overview, with the objective of establishing cooperation between contiguous municipalities. It is an issue, and it is something we will continue to speak on, despite this minister's having a blind spot in terms of what planners can do on a regional basis and what municipalities can do in a cooperative framework. To say and suggest here that they may wish to refer their plan to another municipality does not ensure that those municipalities establish an overall plan for developing their region. We need planning legislation that ensures that that sort of things happens.

Proposed new section 947 as amended approved.

On proposed new section 948.

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

Amendment approved.

Proposed new section 948 as amended approved.

Proposed new section 949 approved.

On proposed new section 950.

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

Amendment approved.

Proposed new section 950 as amended approved.

On proposed new section 951.

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

Amendment approved.

Proposed new section 951 as amended approved.

Proposed new sections 952 to 954 inclusive approved.

On proposed new section 955.

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

Amendment approved.

On proposed new section 955 as amended.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, just a very short note on subsection (8) of the advisory planning commission component of this legislation. I wonder if the minister could give us his reasons for not allowing elected officials to sit on the advisory planning commission and vote.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, it's just plain common sense why not. If a council is going to appoint a committee to advise them, how on earth can they avoid any problems of conflict if they're going to then come back and advise themselves? An advisory committee is intended to advise the council. If you're going to have council members or even staff members serve on that advisory committee, then I would say there's conflict. The change still allows for those people to attend the meetings for resource purposes, but, Mr. Chairman, it's just plain common sense: if you're going to appoint an advisory committee, they should be purely that, and not be influenced by the people whom they are supposed to advise.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister is aware of the internal workings of many municipalities and how their committees and commissions work. Is the minister aware that there are many...?

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Will you just let me continue, please? Is the minister aware that there are many committees and commissions in local government where elected officials do sit and they do vote? One of the reasons they do is to have continuity and contact with the community. Also, is the minister so concerned that one or two aldermen or a mayor

[ Page 7152 ]

sitting on an advisory planning commission could outswing the votes of eight to ten others? What's he so worried about? I suspect, Mr. Minister, that you don't understand the workings of local government.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We forgive him. He is young yet; he knows not what he does. He's still learning, and someday he will see the light. But I'd say you're improving a wee bit.

Mr. Chairman, I guess, unlike that member there, I'm motivated greatly by the people at large — the public, the people to whom we are responsible — not by a few elected people only, or by a special committee only, but by the people at large. If I see a possibility of conflict that affects a constituent — an individual out there — where they feel that there has been an injustice, because the decision that is being made affecting them is made by a council that was advised by a committee that some of those council members sit on, then that is totally unfair and should not have been happening. Therefore, to the member again, it is just plain common sense.

Yes, I understand the workings of such committees, but I understand more the needs of the people at large out there that are being regulated.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think it's most interesting that this government minister would dictate to local governments who they can put on....

AN HON. MEMBER: No, we're not dictators.

MR. BLENCOE: Let me finish; then you can respond.

That you would indicate who cannot be on a particular appointed advisory planning commission at a local council because you perceive there might be some conflict of interest.... So you set up in this legislation the rules that those people, because they might be in conflict, cannot vote. I expect then, Mr. Minister, that you will be recommending to cabinet that in this Legislature the provincial members of the government should not sit on such committees as Public Accounts, because the very thing you're advocating for local government and dictating to local government.... You are being totally hypocritical, because here in this Legislature you dominate the most important committee of this chamber, the Public Accounts Committee, and I would suggest if there was ever a conflict in the province of British Columbia, it's that one. Yet here you are pontificating and preaching to local government that you want to protect them from conflicts of interest. That's absolute sheer hypocrisy, Mr. Minister. You sit on Public Accounts, you try to thwart the opposition in its job in Public Accounts, and now you're going to tell local governments where there might be a little conflict: "You can't sit and vote on the advisory planning commission." Hypocrisy. Apply those same rules in this Legislature and I might even support you, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member has exposed his weaknesses — that is, his lack of knowledge of the system. The Public Accounts Committee is not an advisory committee. There is quite a difference. That's just like saying I will just advise myself. Why appoint a committee in the first place? There is a distinct difference between that standing committee, the Public Accounts Committee, and an advisory committee. Also, as to your comment in respect to who may be appointed to that committee, that is entirely up to council. All we're saying is that we will not permit, under this legislation, members themselves or staff to sit on the advisory committee to advise themselves, because that would be conflict.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can't just let this go by. This, in a way, is very symbolic of this government's attitude to local government. Those people are elected to local government. Those people are accountable at the polls for their decisions, and if they so desire to have somebody from council — with the community they serve, in terms of the appointees — sitting on the advisory planning commission and participating with their.... You see, what you are doing, Mr. Minister, is saying that the elected person in some way is different from the community person. In terms of living in that community and making decisions for that community, I suggest there are a number of elected officials who see themselves as being very equal. I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that you get your hands off local government, and stop dictating to them what they can do or cannot do. Let that local council make the decision, and if the community doesn't like what happens or what the decision is, then you know what the result is — as you will know what the next result is of the next election in the province of British Columbia. They'll kick them out, and quite rightfully so, if they don't like their decisions. But hands off, and stop dictating. In the last two or three years, under your administration of municipal affairs, we've seen a constant encroachment on local autonomy and local decision-making. We cannot stand for it. It's time you laid your hands off and let local government make the decisions for themselves.

This, in many aspects, may be a small component of this section, but it is very symbolic. It's symbolic of a government that continues to say it knows better than local government, that it knows better than those people elected by the people in those communities to make the decisions. It's time this government let local government govern itself. Hands off, and let them make the decisions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Just a comment. I can't ignore it. The member for Victoria has made a suggestion which should be well reported across Canada. He wants to amend Canada's constitution. He wants to provide municipalities with legislative authority. He said: "Let municipalities govern themselves. The province should have nothing to do with it; hands off municipalities. Let municipalities govern themselves." Perhaps the member isn't aware that they do not have any such authority. Municipalities are created by provinces. They are subject to, of all things, the Municipal Act.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, thank you for telling me.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I didn't think you knew. The Municipal Act is an instrument of this Legislative Assembly. The municipality is there because the provincial government didn't have its hands off; it created them. The member for Victoria thinks that municipalities are creatures of government that simply occurred and now that they're there should govern themselves. He says: "Don't tell them what to do." Well, if we were to repeal the Municipal Act, what would your municipality do? It would have no authority to function. The municipalities require the Legislative Assembly and the province to advise them how to perform. Municipalities can

[ Page 7153 ]

pass bylaws, but they don't have any statutory authority to do as you would have them do. You've suggested the province should keep hands off municipalities; they should be permitted to govern themselves. That's an interesting concept, and I suppose that at some point, somewhere in history, that did occur, when cities were states, or city-states. That's not the situation in our country or our province.

[3:15]

The subsection of 955, as amended, to me makes uncommonly good sense. If you are to appoint someone to advise you as a council, you do not put your own council members on that advisory committee. It makes uncommonly good sense. That's why the member for Victoria doesn't understand it at all. If a council member could be appointed to such a committee, without prohibition, the entire committee could be made up of council members. That would be possible, if it were not prohibited. That would be consistent with that member's attitude about government. That is, have the little group be in control at all stages. Have the council members be responsible not only for the decisions but for the advising. Don't let citizens have an opportunity of offering such advice. Keep it within the little group.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Victoria may have the floor when the Minister of Health is finished, if he has anything to say. But in the meantime, if the member would refrain from discussion across the floor.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I would commend to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that he take most seriously the suggestion made by the member for Victoria that we look in the future towards some form of self-governing municipalities in British Columbia. It could be a most interesting exercise to see if indeed there is a place for self-governing cities or municipalities within B.C. The member may have stumbled on a good idea, although of course he wouldn't recognize it.

Proposed new section 955 as amended approved.

Proposed new sections 956 to 964 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 965 on the order paper in my name.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, I believe the orders say there is an amendment, a new section 964.1 — on page 17 of the orders.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I move that amendment in my name.

Proposed new amended sections 964.1 and 965 approved. [See appendix.]

On proposed new section 966.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, in looking over this section 966, there is reference to signs being placed throughout the municipality, and it goes on to say that local government has the express authority to regulate signs, including prohibiting signs.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Now under section 966, I am wondering what the restrictions are. It is not quite clear in the section. What are the restrictions on signs located on property that is individually owned? I am thinking as an example of a drive-in restaurant. You make reference here that the legislation allows an individual landowner to locate a sign on a parcel if the sign relates to the use of that parcel. Is the person who owns the drive-in restaurant free to put up any size of sign he wants? Can he locate it as close to the edge of the property as he wants? Can he put it on top of the building if he wants? Can it be any size or colour that he chooses? Or are those types of questions left entirely with the municipality? I am not quite clear on the intent of that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, no, the owner is not free to put up any size or colour in any location. It is governed by local and municipal bylaw. Each municipality, of course, has its own regulations in that regard.

MR. MICHAEL: But the municipality, I take it, cannot prevent an owner from putting up a sign on his property that identifies the use of the parcel in question. They can't refuse, but they can restrict. They can make the size as small as they may wish to, and the setbacks, and all those kinds of things.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: There is nothing to say they can't have a sign. The bylaw merely regulates the size and, of course, the location of the sign. But there is nothing in here that says they cannot have a sign, as long as it's within the regulations as specified in the bylaw.

HON. MR. PELTON: Another question to the minister, Mr. Chairman. When they speak of different classes of highways under the first part of 966, is there any conflict at all within that? I was of the understanding that on a highway which comes under the control of the provincial government, the signs are regulated by the provincial government. Is there any conflict in there?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, we're dealing here only with municipal highways, not provincial government highways.

Proposed new sections 966 and 967 approved.

On proposed new section 968.

MR. R. FRASER: I'd like to ask the minister some questions about 968, the floodplain elevations. As the members know — and as everybody in the province is aware — we have had some flooding problems in British Columbia. Pemberton Valley is one. Floods have come not only once, but twice in a very short period of time, and enormous amounts of damage have been done, not only to the homes and property of the people there but also to the land — when rivers go on the rampage and rains start to fall, and natural hazards occur.

I would like the minister to assure me and the House, if he will, that between himself, local governments and the Ministry of Environment there's absolute control over the building and development on floodplain sites, so that we can protect the taxpayers from flood damages and things like that, and

[ Page 7154 ]

protect the residents from facing these unfortunate natural occurrences.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, they have to comply with the municipal bylaw or by order of the Ministry of Environment, and of course this would be indicated on their community plan. But yes, they would have to comply with that before they could get a building permit.

MR. R. FRASER: Was that 'either/or', or was the Minister of Environment — the province — responsible for the final decision?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The regulations are usually spelled out by Environment, and in many cases the local government may, in their bylaws, utilize those. However, the regulations as spelled out by Environment will appear on a community plan. So I think the answer here is that the bylaw would be complementary to the regulations as spelled out by Environment.

Proposed new sections 968 to 973 inclusive approved.

On proposed new section 974.

MR. BLENCOE: Re the temporary zoning, I presume there are no public hearings with temporary zonings?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You're not allowing any public hearings. Perhaps you could give some reasons why there would be no opportunity if an issue becomes controversial.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The community or settlement plan usually goes to public hearing, and that's where these things are all dealt with. If there's going to be a temporary permanent zone in the community it will show up on the plan, so why go to the expense and frustration of repeating the exercise? It is not necessary here.

MR. BLENCOE: My colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has already indicated that we think it's a good idea to have temporary zoning. I've known of situations where it was useful. But I am concerned that without an opportunity for some kind of public response to the local government's flexibility in temporary zoning, it may be subject to abuse. I'm wondering if the minister has any thoughts on the potential for abuse, and if perhaps somewhere there should be the ability of the public to have a say about temporary zoning if it becomes an issue.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, I don't think there'll be any abuse. I have full trust in the ability and integrity of our locally elected people to make sure it's not abused.

Proposed new section 974 approved.

On proposed new section 975.

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

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to ask the minister what he is doing in the amendments. I just want the minister to earn his high salary today and explain to this House exactly what is intended in the amendments on development permits.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The amendment to 975, like all amendments in this bill, is the result of the openness of this government in developing this particular piece of legislation. Not only did we allow from July to September for all municipalities, regional districts and anyone else affected by this legislation to come forward with any proposals that would improve on the bill; we then went to the UBCM convention in September, and I stood before all of the electoral area directors and answered all their questions and received some good suggestions. I believe the following day we did the same thing with all municipal people. This is one of the sections that come under scrutiny, and as a result of our discussions we came up with an amendment which we feel improves on it.

[3:30]

Development permits are not something that we wanted to do away with at all. The development permit concept is good for the municipality, for the people of the municipality and also for the developer. So there is no intention of doing away with them. However, there was a need to put an end to some abuses that were taking place that ultimately were bringing about some unnecessary costs on the taxpayer of the province, or should I say the home-buyer or renter.

So what the amendment does here is allow a development permit to apply to areas that go beyond the original suggestion of heritage areas, hazardous areas and so forth. We have now agreed that with this the community plan will show just where a development permit area is and what regulations go along with the development permit, which gives some certainty and continuity to the whole business of developing a community. It does away with such things as developers moving into a community not knowing that they would have to have a development permit until after they got started, and then when they are well into investment and construction, not knowing exactly what is going to be asked of them next. So what we are really saying here is that before you go into a community, you will know precisely whether or not you must have a development permit, and you will know precisely what is expected of you as a result of that development permit.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you for the explanation, Mr. Minister. Excellent.

One of the useful things about development permits currently is that councils who are concerned about design and having the best-looking communities in the province.... Then consequently when you have good-looking communities and good urban design, of course you continue to attract investments and people come to that community. It's an attractive situation.

Is it your intent in this section to limit the concept of development permit in terms of not allowing a council to control urban design? That is one of the more useful things that development permits have been used for, particularly in areas that are very conscious about urban design. Anything that erodes that in terms of flexibility, I think, is a detriment. Perhaps the minister could comment upon development permits and urban design control.

[ Page 7155 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the council may decide to put whatever they wish in as regulation requirements, whether it is style of building, height of building, location of building, awnings, colour of building. They can put in whatever they like, but they must put it up front. They cannot have a developer running back and forth constantly being told no, you have to change this or you have to do that. They will know up front.

So the answer is that there is no limit, but it must be identified in the plan so that the investors and developers know ahead of time what they are facing.

MR. BLENCOE: I am pleased to hear that. The minister tends to take the side of the developer. I like to see us take the sides of all those involved in this process: the developer, the community, everybody. I don't think it is one side against the other. I am pleased that the minister is still saying that the council in its wisdom can say to a developer that there are certain things they require.

One of the frustrations that has happened in public hearing processes over developments is that the council and the community have seen a project, the design looks terrific in the public hearing process, but when it finally gets built or is in the community, it looks nothing like what was presented to the council or to the community in the public hearing process.

I think we've always got to make sure that balance is there and that honesty component with that community in terms of what the developer is going to build. I am pleased to hear that that aspect will remain.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, there was never any question about honesty here, but rather certainty. There was never any question about whose side I am on; I am on the side of the people. If that member would use....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aren't they people?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, in his terms, they're not people.

Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned about the consumer at large. If I refer to developers, I'm referring to people who have a part to play in developing our communities. If we're going to have some elected body, for whatever reason, getting in the way and causing delays, etc., and making unnecessary demands, then it's the consumer out there who pays the bill.

Let there be no question in your mind, Mr. Member — through you, Mr. Chairman — that I'm on the side of the people. I'm not questioning the honesty of anyone here; I'm just calling for some accountability, for some certainty and for an opportunity for people to know beforehand what they're getting into. I think that that is something that is long overdue.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has made a very important statement. He's in favour of the developer. He's in favour of everybody, he says. Of course, I think we all are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Except you.

MR. BLENCOE: Hey, it's Christmas coming. Come on, be nice.

Mr. Minister has said that he wants processes that aid the development industry because they create jobs. The one thing the development industry needs, Mr. Chairman, is rules that are clearly understood. Again, I go back to the concept that when the developer approaches a region, and he's got a number of municipalities, and there's no overall kind of planning approach and rules, that developer and that investor gets a hodgepodge of rules, conflicting approaches to investment and development and conflicting approaches to zoning and regional planning.

The minister has fallen right into the very thing that I'm trying to talk about. Unless, in a region, we have some uniformity in approach to development and industry and job creation, which a regional planning approach can help with, we're not going to get the thing that the minister has just said he's in favour of. The minister has just admitted that he wants that; yet he won't introduce a planning component that will help the province of British Columbia and those regions to do that. The minister finally had to admit it today.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, when we get into regulations and permits and overall planning.... The area that I come from, of course, is the lower mainland of British Columbia, called Vancouver, or part thereof, and it's been my experience there that the development permit application process has been extraordinarily difficult, and when it always seems so easy to charge the developer or the builder — and developing and profit and working and all those things were such bad words a little while ago — what we fail to remember a lot of the time is that the ultimate consumer is the man who pays the bill.

In the city of Vancouver, where the planning department has had free rein for years, where everybody who has tried to build accommodation for all income groups has had an extraordinarily difficult time getting permits, where they have spent literally thousands and thousands of dollars on designs — all of which is paid for by the ultimate consumer — there has been, in my view, a terrible misuse of power by the city officials in Vancouver. They have taken people over and over the coals, to the point where people in the construction and related industries are afraid to even talk to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're just about as bad as Victoria.

MR. R. FRASER: They may be as bad as Victoria. We talk about design; everybody's interested in urban design. I can remember, Mr. Chairman, when the black tower in Vancouver was being built, and everybody said how terrible the black tower was. It strikes me that it's an advantage to have buildings with different shapes and different colours; why should we have them all the same? It's my view, along with the minister and most of my colleagues here who have any understanding of how people get accommodation and how they get office space, that different tastes apply to different people. We should have the right, as citizens, to choose whether we live in a building that is one colour or another. I mean, it's unbelievable.

That's why the development purpose process is so important, and that's why I'm so pleased to hear the minister say that, in fact, the rules are going to be clear. If they are clear, the ultimate user will win. That's the consumer, that's the

[ Page 7156 ]

voter, and that's the citizen who is paying us to do the job right. That's what we're doing, and that's why a clear and a definite process is so important and why I support it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

MR. ROSE: Now wait a minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. The member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry that you have sort of lost your sight in your left eye. Your right eye seems to be perfect, 20/20.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has two right eyes.

MR. ROSE: Without abusing the Chair, it might have two right wings as well, but I haven't searched it; my arm's length relationship with the Chair doesn't permit that.

I would just like to agree with the member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser), not on some of the things he said but on some of the others. Any of us who has ever been involved in any kind of subdivision or development knows the myriad of regulations and delays that you get stuck into. I don't think anybody here, provided the public interest is protected, would say anything against speeding up the process. I think the endless duplications and the delay and the expense required by all these things are a burden to many people. No, I don't agree that all developers, or all subdividers, are nefarious knaves — being one myself, on occasion; I'd be hard pressed to punish myself too long on that subject.

In a recent very simple kind of subdivision we found: firstly, there was a faulty survey, so we had to have that all done over again; secondly, we found that you had to have an engineered water system for $4,000. Anybody who ran a backhoe could have designed that damn thing, blindfolded, for half the money. So we were forced into this kind of expense that almost discourages people from developing. Of course, who is the ultimate beneficiary of all this added expense? The purchaser. So anything we can do in that regard — again, protecting the public interest — I think should be encouraged.

I don't know that we shouldn't have buildings in keeping with the general condition or tone of the neighbourhood. Maybe a black tower isn't appropriate in some places. Maybe a big Greek Parthenon residence is not appropriate on Granville Street, and you do need set-back provisions, and you do need a number of these other things.

For instance, I was required to have a completely up-to-highway standards, dead-end road of 400 feet — ridiculous! — ending in the ocean. That's where some of the cars will end up that speed down it on Saturday night. They are ridiculous standards for flumes and drainage — and to protect whose interests? Well, the Ministry of Highways, mainly. Delay after delay for approval. Waiting two or three years. These horror stories are not uncommon.

I think that any of us who have had anything to do with either development or developers, or anything to do with municipal government, know that there must be some way of streamlining this thing, not just so the rip-off artist can come in — even if it is the provincial government up on Riverview Heights charging $60,000 a lot — but the ordinary citizen, who might be able to provide, in our urban centres, reasonable lot and land prices that don't price houses ultimately.... It's not because housing costs have gone up themselves; it's land costs that have gone up. One of the main reasons that land costs have gone up is that we haven't released enough of it so we can kill and destroy the manufactured shortage...but because of excessive regulations. If there's something in this legislation — and I'll be guided by my very knowledgeable and learned colleague.... Anything we can do to assist the average citizen in providing him with a dwelling at a reasonable cost, then I'm for it.

[3:45]

MR. R. FRASER: I agree with many things that my colleague across the floor said. But with respect to professional involvement, which he spoke of briefly, the House should be reminded — and everybody should know — that the reason that professional involvement is required is that they have knowledge that the general public does not possess; that is why you have them. I would not like to say that all of my engineering colleagues are perfect, or that every doctor is perfect, or that every lawyer is wonderful, but in the main, and by a very wide margin, you'll find that professional people don't cost you money; they save you money, because they know what they're doing, or they're supposed to know what they're doing. When it comes to....

I agree with you, my friend, when you talk about the city requiring the streets that are built. It's unbelievable. In front of my little office, which carries such heavy vehicles as half tons and automobiles — and even my old car doesn't need that big a road — the pavement on that little side street in front of my office....

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Actually it's more fun when the little people are....

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: It's not a bad old car for the road.

The street in front of my office, Mr. Chairman, is about nine inches thick of asphalt paving. It is totally unrealistic; a big cost to all the landlords. And then when it comes to billing and the city doing things, you won't believe the things the city will do. You look out the window, and between the new curb and the old sidewalk there's a little strip about a foot and half wide and twenty feet long, and they say to the owner of the building that they will fill it in for $118. I'm paying for that through my taxes, because five people were working out there for a day and a half to put in a yard of concrete, which costs $118 — or very nearly that much. It's unbelievable, the waste of money, when we get involved with that. But engineers and architects and lawyers and other professional people are supposed to save you money, and that is the point I wanted to make with my colleague — and my learned friend.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: I want to assure my honourable colleague that I had no intention of defaming his colleagues in the engineering field. I know he's an engineer himself, and I know that profession performs with the highest integrity. I feel, though, that they do have a monopoly on certain acts and

[ Page 7157 ]

services. Maybe they should, but as long as you have a monopoly, then I think you people in private enterprise probably have about as much competition as we have among the oil companies, or among the various medical or dental fees.

Just because you hire somebody who is a professional doesn't mean that you necessarily get the most efficient and economical job done promptly. I realize there's a need to employ more of them. Fifty percent of the engineers in this province are unemployed now. They've gone away because B.C. Hydro has fired a lot of them. They need work, and nobody disputes that or minimizes it; but sometimes you do have a monopoly. I'll tell you a little story about the monopoly that I heard about and encountered one time. I'm indebted to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who told me a little bit about the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) a little while ago. I'm quite sure he wouldn't mind if I revealed this. He said that a directive went out that the civil servants under his branch were counsellors; they were there to assist people.

Once upon a time I had to probate a will belonging to my own father. I did this because I felt that anything a lawyer could do, I should be able to do on my own behalf. Do you know, when I went to the Court of Registry, I felt they were there to protect the lawyers. First of all, I couldn't get the forms I needed. I had to get them from a lawyer, a good friend and my predecessor in this House. Then I went back about 16 times to get the documents finally correct, because the Court of Registry would not assist me.

So what I am saying is that civil servants.... Sure, you've got to have rules, but public servants I think are there to assist the general public, whether it's providing expertise in engineering or law or whatever. Whatever we pay those people as public servants, as citizens we should receive a benefit from them. I wasn't maligning the engineers or any other particular group of professionals; I once had aspirations to be a professional myself. Some people say, "Well, I'm sorry you didn't succeed," but nevertheless....

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't say that.

MR. ROSE: No, I know you didn't. You didn't even think it. Both myself and the minister of external trade belong to the same kind of fraternity, believing in gray power.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of comments. The member for Coquitlam-Moody referred to the difficulty citizens sometimes have in certain areas of government. I would recommend to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) that if you have the opportunity, or if your officials would like to see how it can be done, visit the offices in Richmond and speak to the director of licences and permits, Mr. Bob Switzer.

Upon taking on the task of being responsible for that area, Mr. Switzer decided — and his staff concurred — that their role would be to act as consultants for the people who make application. The staff's entire purpose is to see that the person is successful in getting their project completed, consistent with all the rules and regulations. Rather than going to a counter and not being told what's wrong with your application, they act in a consultative role. They will sit down with you and explain where your application may be at fault, and assist you in correcting it, rather than referring you back and forth like a yo-yo. So I would recommend to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that if you'd like to see how it can be done, take a short trip over to sun valley in Richmond and they'll show you.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted with those words of wisdom. It tells me that our program of new directions for municipalities is really catching on. The thrust of this legislation and this ministry is to change from being regulators to being facilitators. I'm delighted that indeed it is catching on. Yes, Richmond is a classic example of that, and a municipality that we will all benefit from. So I appreciate those comments.

MR. R. FRASER: Just one thing back to my colleague across the table there: monopoly means there is only one, and there are thousands of engineers, meaning there is no monopoly on engineering services. So that's not a problem.

Secondly, you quoted large numbers of engineers being unemployed, like 50 percent, which is wrong. There is a large amount of unemployment in engineering, some 10 percent to 15 percent, which is high. But one of the beauties of being in engineering, and the difference between Quebec and B.C. Hydro, which I'll tell you about.... It's very important. You can travel, you are mobile, and you can work overseas, so when the work is here, you can stay here; when the work is elsewhere, you can go elsewhere. You can always come back. That's the beauty of the whole thing.

Now when it comes to what the governments did in Quebec and B.C. years ago with Hydro and with their engineering firms, Quebec contracted out almost all of the engineering work in that province, and B.C. had an in-house circumstance. The end result is that the B.C. firms are considerably smaller than the Quebec firms, even from a relative population point of view. Those engineering firms now in the province of Quebec who were built up on government projects as outside consultants, contracting outside, are now working all over the world and bringing lots of money back into Canada. I would like to think we will do that here.

Beyond that, I was very pleased to hear that the municipality of Richmond is doing the very thing that people in the municipality should do: help the consumer. It strikes me as phenomenal sometimes. I heard one of our Vancouver civil servants in the planning department get up and say: "We turn things down because we are working for the people." Well, I don't agree with that. They're not working for the people; they're working for themselves. They have a job in City Hall, and their job is to help people who make applications to build things and create things and build housing if necessary, or whatever they are building. I am really pleased to hear that Richmond is doing so well with that.

Proposed new section 975 as amended approved.

On proposed new section 976.

HON. MR. PELTON: If I may, I would just like to make a comment on this particular section. I begin by saying that I certainly have no objections to intensive agricultural permits, but I would just like to get it in the record that it does state in here that intensive agriculture involves a commercial enterprise or an institution who may want to raise poultry, livestock or fur-bearing animals, etc.

Farther along it says that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will set the regulations. I would like to speak just on behalf of part of my riding where there is a great deal of

[ Page 7158 ]

agricultural land, and where the agriculture and the urban land.... There are a lot of areas where it comes together. I would just suggest to the minister, appreciating the fact that his ministry wouldn't be directly involved in this, that it would probably be efficacious if the municipalities could consult with the Ministry of Agriculture when the regulations are being drawn up as to the setbacks and various other items which will apply to these intensive agricultural areas.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, in response to my colleague's comments, the regulations will be developed by the green zone committee in conjunction with the municipalities, so we will have full participation in the development of those.

Proposed new section 976 approved.

On proposed new section 977.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I have certainly enjoyed listening to some of the discussion today regarding developers. I suppose before I ask my question of the minister relating to section 977, I would just like to make one comment to my colleague the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser), who made a remark in passing that these red-tape entanglements and extra costs are passed on to the consumer. Mr. Chairman, this is not always the case. It is a myth that is in the minds of many who are acting in the regulatory field that, well, you don't have to worry about these extra costs. You don't have to worry about this requirement of having to build this road up 18 inches or make it to these particular standards. You just pass it on to the consumer. That's not a fact at all. It is passed on to the consumer if the market will bear the cost, but many times, particularly over the last few years, let me tell you that developers in the province of British Columbia have not been able to pass these on to the consumer and have indeed had to swallow the costs themselves and have indeed encountered very substantial losses in the development field....

[4:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Section 977 relates to the cutting of trees, and possibly the member would confine his remarks to that aspect.

MR. MICHAEL: I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you brought that to my attention, because I was just leading into that particular area of discussion. I think those who are concerned about red tape and bureaucracy had better have a very close look at 977, Mr. Chairman. I would ask the minister to comment and perhaps assure the House that this will not be used in a manner that is going to load a lot of extra costs on someone wishing to develop.

I read this 977, and I see the heading "Tree cutting permits." It goes on in subsection (3) to say: "The bylaw may allow the local government, at its discretion, to require an applicant to provide at his expense" — this could be the developer's expense — "a report certified by a qualified person...." Now I'd have to ask you first of all, Mr. Minister: who is a qualified person? Let's suppose you are sitting in Paxton Valley, Myrtle Valley or the north shore of the Shuswap, and you are out to do some development, and you go to the approving officer, and he says: "Well, you've got a few trees here, and we've got a line around it saying that this could conceivably perhaps cause a landslip problem. You're going to have to bring in a certification from a qualified person."

It goes on to say: agreed upon by both parties." The rub right there immediately is that the inspector says you're going to have to get a report from an engineer. What type of engineer would be involved in something like this?

AN HON. MEMBER: A geological engineer.

MR. MICHAEL: "Well," the developer says, "a geological engineer, Mr. Inspector. I'm sorry, but there's not one within 350 miles of here. You'd have to go down to the lower mainland to bring one up."

"Well, that's too bad, but that's what the regulations say. It says right here: '....a qualified person agreed upon by both parties.' I'm one of the parties, and I'm insisting it be a geotechnical engineer."

To me, Mr. Minister, surely common sense should prevail in whether a person cuts a tree down or not on his own property. I think we're entering into an area here of bureaucratic red tape that could be very costly to people wanting to do some development. It's not only the cost of bringing the geotechnical engineer up from the lower mainland, probably.... What's a reasonable rate for engineers — $150 a day, $500 a day, $800 a day? Then there's the travel back and forth. Along with that, once you hire the engineer, he goes back to his office and now he's got to write a report. Of course, there's the delay of him arriving in the community to do the study; then after he does the study he has to go back and write the report. I can see this could cause delays of several weeks and people wanting to get on and do something.

I'd like to hear the comments of the minister as to what kind of obstacles we're putting in the way of people wanting to get something done in the way of development or whatever. It appears to me that this is just another roadblock, red tape that I don't think is necessary to be written into the legislation.

I will admit, Mr. Minister, as with many items of legislation along these lines, that there is the magic element of righteousness. Well, there could be a tree by a creek that if you cut it down it might erode, and on and on it goes. That's what I see in legislation from all ministries, not just yours, and not only in provincial government but indeed at the federal level as well. There's that element of righteousness: it might happen. I'd like to hear the comments of the minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: When you read this section, it says that the bylaw "may," so there's no commitment there that they must, just that they "may....at its discretion." So that softens it somewhat. We have had a number of areas where there has been indiscriminate cutting that has created flooding problems, and that's the reason for this.

As far as the qualified person is concerned, it doesn't say that they have to be a licensed engineer or whatever. You could have a qualified logger locally who would be just as capable of providing a report in this circumstance. Of course, along with this legislation will come a committee which we plan to appoint that will be monitoring the move over to the new regulations under Bill 62, so that if indeed there is an area that proves to be a hardship in any way, shape or form, they will identify it and we will deal with it.

[ Page 7159 ]

1 think that the member should feel quite relaxed that indeed the use of "may" or "at its discretion" does not bind the council. Also, by simply saying "qualified person" you are not bound to a high-priced engineer or whatever from 200 or 300 miles away. There could be a highly qualified logger right in the area. I'm sure that there is enough common sense in our council chambers in the outlying areas in particular to deal with this in a very commonsense way. But I would want to assure the member that if indeed it does prove to be a problem as he has described, then this committee will identify it, and we will deal with it.

Proposed new sections 977 and 978 approved.

On proposed new section 979.

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

Amendment approved.

Proposed new section 979 as amended approved.

Proposed new sections 980 and 981 approved.

On proposed new section 982.

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

Amendment approved.

Proposed new section 982 as amended approved.

On proposed new section 983.

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

Amendment approved.

Proposed new section 983 as amended approved.

Proposed new sections 984 through 990 inclusive approved.

On proposed new section 991.

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

Amendment approved.

Proposed new section 991 as amended approved.

Proposed new sections 992 and 993 approved.

On proposed new section 994.

MR. DAVIS: My impression is that local government includes the Islands Trust and includes areas within the Greater Vancouver Regional District such as Bowen Island, which would then come under this legislation. I'd like to know from the minister whether that's true or not.

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: Yes.

Subdivisions — let's say on Bowen Island as an example of Islands Trust territory — often require that a roadway be driven through the parcel to be divided, and traditionally Highways has insisted on a 66-foot swath — perhaps now it's 20 metres. In some instances that considerable width doesn't make sense. Perhaps this roadway is going to serve a single resident. I'm really inquiring to see whether section 994 modifies the requirement by Highways or indeed displaces the requirement in Highways legislation and sets out itself what the requirement is. I see that this roadway could be 20 metres in width or it could be some lesser amount. There is a suggestion that it could be as little as 8 metres in width. Is this to be the governing legislation for subdivision in an area such as Bowen Island?

I'm thinking also of a requirement around the Gulf Islands and Bowen Island, where every 500 metres there has to be access to the water. The access by definition previously was a 66-foot-wide swath, even if it was down over a vertical cliff to a depth of several hundred feet to the water. Nevertheless there could be no lesser amount of land taken from what could be a highly desirable development.

Does this clause allow for roadways, pathways, whatever, of lesser dimension than 66 feet or 20 metres — say as little as 8 metres in situations such as Bowen Island?

Proposed new sections 994 through 996 inclusive approved.

On proposed new section 997.

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

Amendment approved.

Proposed new section 997 as amended approved.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

[ Page 7160 ]

Bill 62, Municipal Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

[4:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

SECURITIES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 37; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 55 inclusive approved.

On section 56.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 56 as amended approved.

Sections 57 to 131 inclusive approved.

On section 132.

MR. REE: Although I shall be voting for this section 132, I would like the minister or his staff to really take a second and hard look at this and possibly bring back some changes in the next session of this House.

Section 132 prohibits any person involved with being investigated or called as a witness for any investigation, or involved in any investigation in any way, shape or form, from communicating that fact or the nature of the investigation to anybody else in the world except with the consent of the commission — or to his lawyer, his counsel. He cannot even go home and tell his wife that he is being subject to an investigation. If he did, he would be committing an offence. This is not new to this Securities Act. This has been in place in the previous Securities Act that is being repealed. It has been in place in other Securities Acts prior to that. It came out of Ontario with the Ontario Securities Act, which was picked up holus-bolus by this Legislature in 1967 and applied in British Columbia.

I think this section is terribly onerous for anybody. I don't think it has any common sense to it, and I would certainly recommend the minister and his staff to study this and have this section amended, with common sense applied and in the appropriate aspects of the law.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the comments made by the member. The intent is that where persons are giving evidence before the commission, dealing with the security, the evidence is to the commission, and is confidential. It can be discussed with the legal counsel for the witness. But the concern is that a situation doesn't develop where the witness then goes out and discusses his point of view, the evidence, etc., with another person — and mainly have repetitious evidence coming before the commission.

In saying that, I can appreciate what the member is talking about. It seems to me that we could look at that, in the future, to see whether it is too onerous. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if the member, being a lawyer, would like to give some thought to an amendment there, I'd certainly be prepared to look at it and possibly consider an amendment at a later date.

MR. REE: I appreciate the minister's comments, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate that the intent is there to facilitate an investigation. But I have a great deal of difficulty in understanding why the Securities Commission should have extra power, over and above any other authority in an investigation, to prohibit people from talking to others. I would suggest that the Securities Commission authority with respect to its investigation should be similar to that of other investigative bodies. An actual amendment to that section could be quite simple: to have the section deleted.

MR. VEITCH: I'd like a little definition of the term "counsel." I note that the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who is a lawyer.... He may not be my counsel; I wouldn't think he would be. He would counsel people on these sorts of things. I might also receive counsel from the hon. minister himself; it might be good or bad counsel. But to the best of my knowledge, he is not a member of the bar; he's a member of another profession. Do we not receive counsel from many people? We are assuming that this is a lawyer; this may not be a lawyer. The hon. first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) is an engineer; he may give me counsel on some aspects of this — and be good counsel, if it had to do with an engineering situation. What is a counsel? Does it have to be a lawyer?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member, no, it doesn't necessarily have to be a lawyer. In most cases, I would think, it would be a lawyer, because you are dealing with evidence going before the commission. However, it could be an accountant or an engineer: a person giving counsel. There is no definition as to what "counsel" implies in this legislation.

MR. VEITCH: Would this not partly defeat the intent of this section? Could I not receive counsel from a myriad of people — an engineer, a doctor, a lawyer, an Indian chief, whomsoever? Could the information not be spread inadvertently, information that you obviously don't want to have spread, to protect persons or corporations or individuals? Ought we not to amend this and include the definition of "counsel"?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the assumption, of course, is that he can disclose it to his counsel, whoever that counsel may be. We will assume that the counsel would not then go and discuss it throughout the community. The counsel there refers to giving him guidance as to his position, his evidence, etc., before the commission, and it doesn't deal with the fact of what qualifications the counsel has. But I would suggest that the evidence before the commission is confidential. We would hope that the discussion of the person with his counsel, whoever that might be, would not be an open invitation to announce it to the world.

MR. VEITCH: If I as an accountant am counsel in this particular situation, may I not seek counsel from someone

[ Page 7161 ]

else, in order that I make a proper decision? Would we not, then...?

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: Not the second member for Vancouver Centre. Counsel most other places; not there.

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: Yes, I wouldn't accept counsel on banks, necessarily, from that member.

Would this not at least mitigate the effect of this section and what you're trying to achieve, Mr. Minister?

MR. LAUK: I would like to answer the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch), seeing the minister doesn't seem disposed to do so. An allegation of wrongdoing under these sections does not mean guilt. It's an allegation — and an investigation. It is not practical, during an investigation, to have a person or corporation who is being investigated be represented by anybody other than a lawyer....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: No, I'm serious about it. You've got to listen.

...because the question of privilege and non-disclosure between a lawyer and his client is stringent on lawyers. It is practically non-existent with other professional groups. The penalty for disclosure by a member of the bar is disbarment. That's why these matters can be disclosed to either the accused or his counsel — meaning a lawyer....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, he's wrong. You'd be doing a disservice to those under investigation to allow disclosure to anybody other than a counsel. He's probably not wrong, if I know.... But it seems to me the practice should be.... It's not required statutorily. Clearly, if I want to appoint my Aunt Minnie as my counsel, and she has got proper instructions in writing or otherwise, then that information will be disclosed. But it shouldn't be, because the strength of nondisclosure is in the solicitor-client relationship.

Section 132 approved.

Sections 133 to 137 inclusive approved.

On section 138.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 138 as amended approved.

Sections 139 through 143 inclusive approved.

On section 144.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, of great past concern to investors on the Vancouver Stock Exchange has been the lack of governance by the stock exchange of its members with respect to information to potential investors. In many cases cease-trading orders have not been fast enough to prevent the loss of investors' investments due to clear, deliberate misinformation. I'm not sure that the section even comes close to resolving that problem. I'll give you an example. On a Wednesday a company which has a share listed on the stock exchange may issue through its officers a press release designed to mislead the public. It is not technically a fraud under the criminal provisions of our law, but it is deliberately designed to mislead the public. There are a few cases being investigated by the stock exchange, but they're well after the fact. I want assurances that these things are being monitored sufficiently to cease trade immediately upon the issue of a press release. As a matter of fact.... I'll wait until the ministers have stopped conferring.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, could we have order, please?

MR. LAUK: The more appropriate measure would be that the commission or superintendent, or their officers, preread or vet press releases and information emanating from the company before they are released to the investing public. In that way the commission can get the jump on the.... It makes no sense to try to save the horses when the door is closed, as they say. The point is that when this information reaches the public, everybody has made his investment, and then three days later there's a cease-trading order and an investigation — it's too late then. The pre-vetting of press releases and information together under section 144 for a cease-trading order.... If the information is not cleared, you could allow the information to go out with this cease-trading order — give them an alternative. But prevent the innocent investing public from getting hammered, as they are altogether too frequently in VSE stocks.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, section 144 is basically the same as the previous legislation, and as the member knows, the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the superintendent don't pre-vet news releases. It's an almost impossible task. Unfortunately, the member was not here when we passed section 73. I don't want to review that section — it has been passed — but that does address the concern that the member has. It's the halt-trading orders section, and it deals with where the superintendent or the commission consider there is unexplained or unusual fluctuation of volume of trading, where becoming aware of information, they can bring in a halt-trading order. I think that if the member takes the time to read that section, he will find that it does address his concern under section 144.

MR. LAUK: I was aware of section 73, and the debate that I'm undertaking at this time is totally out of order under under section 144. There's no need for the minister to bring that to the attention of the committee. Everybody's well aware of that. I want to repeat that neither section 73 nor section 144 solves the problem that I'm getting at, and I wonder what steps the government has in mind to solve that problem.

[ Page 7162 ]

There's no sense halting trading after the suspicious information has been released to the public. By then, a market.... Somebody could lose his life's savings within 20 minutes — and everybody knows it — based on that false information. He's never going to get it back. What's wrong with a pre-vetting system of information requiring undertakings by the company to stand behind the information being released?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is quite aware that we cannot pre-vet all news releases of any company that wishes to put them out. I think that besides section 73, which deals with unusual fluctuation or information, we can put in a cease-trading order.

MR. LAUK: It's too late.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, it catches it far quicker than usual, because that section is unique in Canada. I don't believe other jurisdictions have it. The other deterrent, Mr. Member, with regard to misleading information, of course, is the penalties that we've increased substantially under this act, so that if somebody does abuse the privilege and abuse the act with regard to a misleading press release, then they're subject to some of the far stiffer penalties that we've put in this new legislation.

MR. R. FRASER: There was a comment made by a member opposite, Mr. Chairman, about protecting the public, and I think that that's a useful thing to do. I think we want to do as much in that regard as we possibly can, because we don't want people losing money on paper companies of any kind. It strikes me from time to time, though, that because we put in all the rules and all the regulations, the documentation coming out on all stock now is so voluminous that it isn't read. I wonder if it wouldn't be more harmful to have too much information than less.

I know they all get sent out, and everybody gets it, and there you are, but who reads it? Are they really being protected by all these massive rules and regulations that we insist on people putting forward?

Section 144 approved.

On section 138.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, on section 138 there were two amendments. I will consider that the first one was passed, and I will ask the minister if he will move the second amendment standing under his name on the order paper to section 138.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I thought, in moving the amendments in section 138, that I covered both of them, but if not, I'll move the second amendment standing under my name on the order paper to section 138. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 138 as amended approved.

Sections 145 to 153 inclusive approved.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

On section 154.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, a question to the minister. The commission or the superintendent may impose any conditions it or he consider necessary. Could we have a "for instance" of any conditions?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Surrey has stumped my staff, but I think it's fair to say that a "for instance" may well be where the superintendent or the commission are concerned with the decision he's making. In just responding to the applicant he wants to clarify something or put a — as it says here — condition on it. If the member would give us a moment, I'll try and get an exact "for instance" for you from my staff.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: A very simple one has now been brought to my attention. The superintendent or commission may well say: "I will not renew this man's licence until he goes back and re-takes the securities course." That would be a condition on the decision.

Sections 154 through 158 inclusive approved.

On section 159.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I move the amendments standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendments approved.

On section 159 as amended.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, this is a very comprehensive piece of legislation. It affects investors and would-be investors, both at home and abroad, who would invest in our province. I guess, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister what the attitude of his staff is going to be when they start preparing the regulations under this act, because this is really where the whole meat of the act is going to be.

[4:45]

This country has been blessed with regulations before. We had an act called the Foreign Investment Review Act, which was supported by the NDP in Ottawa, who didn't want any investment in this province. The attitude of the staff when preparing these comprehensive regulations is going to have a major effect on the amount of investment that we're going to get in this province, because....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I hear a lot of yakking over there from the socialists, Mr. Chairman. I wish you'd draw them to order, because they wouldn't.... If they were government, certainly the regulations under this act would make them so onerous that nobody would.... Well, no one would come here to invest anyway, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister to explain to me what the attitude of his staff is going to be with regard to

[ Page 7163 ]

drawing up these regulations. There are regulations regarding the listing and trading of securities and the records. That alone can be quite onerous and involve a lot of unnecessary detail in hiring a battery of lawyers and a battery of accountants to do a very simple operation. That is one of the detriments that we have in the small business industry not only in Canada but in this province as well — the regulations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yack, yack.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I hear the ombudsman's friend over there making noises that sound to me like a goofy bird. But that's not unusual from the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams).

There are regulations regarding the trading of securities other than on a stock exchange that are recognized by the commission. So, Mr. Minister, maybe you would give me some guidance as to where you think you're going to be going in setting out these regulations.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I guess it's fair to say that this is one of the most important sections of the act. It deals with the setting up of regulations. The act, for the member's benefit, has not been revised fully since 1967.

The regulations, as we all know, allow for flexibility. As opposed to putting sections in the act dealing with all these things, we have placed them in the regulations so that there is that flexibility to change with the times.

With regard to staff, I can tell the minister that the staff, in drawing up these regulations, first of all is in consultation and has been in consultation with the industry to ensure that while we provide protection to the investor by placing these regulations in place, we do maintain a reasonable level of regulation or legislative authority over the investment community. I think it is fair to say that we have almost complete, if not complete, cooperation and agreement from the industry on the type of legislation we have drafted. The regulation section is one that they do not have any difficulty with.

As I said earlier, it gives us the flexibility, the ability, to amend with the times, as the investment community may come to us and say, "We think you should have some further regulation," or, "Some of this regulation is onerous, and we'd like you to amend it." We'll have that ability to amend without bringing back an amendment to the legislation, Mr. Chairman. Our concern, as I said before, is the protection of the investor: giving them reasonable protection in the marketplace, while at the same time not making the task too onerous on those who wish to raise moneys or funds on the capital market.

After the regulations have been completed, drafted, they will of course move forward to cabinet for final approval prior to coming into force.

One last thing. Up until this legislation, we have had a fair amount of policy determinations made by the superintendent. In some areas we felt that rather than have policy by the superintendent, it was better for the investor and for those people who work and deal in the money markets to have the regulations — the rules, if you will — set out in regulation rather than just in policy decisions by the superintendent.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the minister has said, that the regulations, being 40 in number, certainly have the meat of the bill, which I support.

1 am wondering if I could ask the minister, because of the need for the protection of the public, if we could get some details on regulation (4) so that it would be read into the record: "...requiring the commission to publish a periodical containing specific information filed with the commission." What will this document contain, and who will be eligible to receive the document? Will it be something that they will have to write in for, or what kind of a document can we look for in the way of information that it will contain for the protection of the public?

HON. MR. HEWITT: It is a report, Mr. Chairman, which will set out in detail all the activities of the commission dealing with prospectuses, dealing with financing. It is a public document, so people who may wish to be informed as to the activity of the commission, what has gone before it, will be able to obtain a copy and be updated as to what has taken place in the past. I believe it goes out on a weekly basis at the present time from the superintendent's office. It deals with such things as I mentioned: prospectuses, financing, insider trading, etc.

MR. MOWAT: What kind of detail would it go into as far as the prospectus is concerned? Will it just be a brief overview? It won't go into details of every prospectus. I think the obvious work would be tremendous for the number of prospectuses that the commission has to look at each week.

HON. MR. HEWITT: At present, the weekly report we put out.... The one that would be put out by the commission is one that would deal with prospectuses in two or three sentences. For your information, we review about 900 prospectuses in a year, so it is just a matter for public information who has filed with the commission. Should they wish to get further detail, of course they would get that on their own.

MR. R. FRASER: I would like to ask the minister how these regulations fit in with the regulations across the country, because my experience with these regulations is pretty limited, but friends of mine who have tried to get things through the commission seem to have more luck in one province than another. I wondered if our regulations are more strict or other regulations are easier to get by and whether it's a rather more national document than we might have otherwise suspected.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We have, Mr. Chairman, in this bill, under the regulations section, section 159, moved a fair amount of material that used to be in legislation into the regulations in order to provide us with the ability to amend the regulations from time to time at the request of the investment community. That provides us with that flexibility that I mentioned earlier. Also the regulations are considerably uniform, I believe, with Ontario, which really is the leader in the securities legislation field, and in updating this act we have basically used their legislation as a model.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad that the minister agrees with me that this is really the meat of this bill. What really concerns me is that we're talking about regulations, but we're talking about 42 different sections of regulations — not one, not three or four, but 42 different sections of regulations. I'm afraid that there are going to be so many regulations that a person wishing to invest in the province and create jobs

[ Page 7164 ]

would just throw up his hands because there were too many onerous regulations.

It also concerns me when the minister says that our act is going to be the same as the Ontario act, or very close to it. Now I recognize that historically the Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange have been the models for securities throughout the world. I realize that they have some very severe penalties for anybody who tries to mislead or abuse in the selling of securities. I think the New York Stock Exchange is probably the most important one in the world in terms of leading the world in who can do what. When the financial centre of the United States had a tendency to move to California, the California rules were set up and modelled after the New York Stock Exchange, but California, recognizing it was in a growing area and recognizing the need for venture capital in the western United States to develop industries that were mature and secure in the eastern part of the United States, was a little more lenient in setting out their regulations. It concerns me because, whether you like it or not, western Canada and many parts of British Columbia are still undeveloped, and we need a lot of that risk capital to go in there. And it is risky capital. You can't tell me that when people go up into the north and discover gold mines or copper mines or various things and then want venture capital.... Sure, the people who are going to invest in them are going to take a risk; that's part of the game. But if we're going to raise that risk capital, and if we're going to create those....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Will you be quiet while I'm talking, please, Mr. Leader of the Diminishing Opposition, the leader of one who supported FIRA in Ottawa? The socialist support of FIRA did this country more damage than we'll ever estimate by driving away investment, by keeping investment out of Canada and by creating an image in the international marketplace that Canada indeed did not want investment. It's going to take years and years and probably more than Expo to get rid of that image that was built up by socialists in Ottawa that Canada indeed did not want investment.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned. I want to relay my concerns to the minister. Will we still, in British Columbia, be able to raise that risk capital for the oil wells and the gas wells in the great Peace River country that the NDP drove out of this province? We wouldn't need any regulations if they were still government, because they drove the petroleum industry out of the province. Now it's back, and there are going to be some smaller companies which are going to form and which will want to develop their own little gas company or their own little oil company and because of deregulation will be able to sell that gas, to find a customer in the States. It's deregulated, so there's going to be....

[5:00]

It's a great deal. But let's not kill it. Let's not kill what the great Minister of Energy has done, both here and in Ottawa, and through the Western Accord. Let's not kill that entrepreneurship that they have built up by having so many regulations under this act and in this section that indeed you would preclude them even coming forward and wanting to form a company. Give that opportunity for other British Columbians who would take that risk to invest. Mr. Speaker, when you say that it's going to be like Ontario, that gives me a great deal of concern, because we need here in the west and in Vancouver — which is fast becoming the financial centre of western Canada and probably someday of all of Canada, as we leap forward into the age of the Pacific Rim — that financial centre here, and we need a stock exchange that can bring in those entrepreneurs and can raise that risk capital and give the opportunity to British Columbia and to other western Canadians and even those from Oregon and Washington and as far away as California who want to come here and invest in our gas fields, oil fields, minerals and lumber industry. We want to give them the opportunity to come here, and we don't want to make these rules so onerous that we put them off. I would like the minister to....

MR. BLENCOE: You're a sad case.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, Mr. Chairman, there is that member for Victoria. He's never been off the Island, doesn't know what makes the province tick, wouldn't know a gas well if he fell over one, never worked and done an honest day's work in his life; been in politics, lived off the fat of the lamb all his life, lives here in lotus Victoria land. I bet this is the first time he's ever seen snow. There he is, sitting over there, living in the lap of luxury, trying to dictate what should happen in this great province.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Member from Victoria, that you get off your high horse and go out and work a little bit. Go talk to the miners, go talk to the roughnecks, go talk to the loggers. Go talk to those loggers up there on Lyell Island that are trying to make a living; find out what makes this province tick before you start standing in your pompous, soft-assed chair over there, dictating what should be going on in this province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, back to the subject. I would like the minister to assure me that the regulations that he and his staff.... They are very competent staff. I have a great deal of respect for them. They've done a good job in drawing up this legislation. It's a good act. But let us not kill the intent here through the regulation. We've got to have regulations, Mr. minister, that will sponsor and intrigue those investors, those entrepreneurs from the rest of Canada, to come here and to invest. If they see a bunch of onerous regulations, it will kill that spirit.

What the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has done in the deregulation of that great industry, now prime and ripe for entrepreneurs to come in, for little companies to form.... We don't want to preclude that. We want them to come. Because it's going to take years for us to build up what the NDP killed when they drove the industry out. We need to entice with easy regulations; we need to bring them back so that they will come back and invest.

The socialists drove the industry out; they not only did it once, they did it twice. You know, when they were government in 1972 the Minister of Energy at that time drove the petroleum industry out of the province. We come back and, through deregulation and enticement we get the petroleum industry going again in the great Peace River country for the good of all western Canada and for the good of all Canada, and then what happens? Through regulation and through an act called the national energy act in Ottawa, the industry was driven out of the province again. I want to tell you, you couldn't be on the roads leading out of British Columbia because you'd be run over by oil rigs heading for the States.

[ Page 7165 ]

Now we've changed the act, we've deregulated and the opportunity for these small companies to invest in a rig or part of a rig, to get a company, to get their own industry going.... After all, that's what built this country. It wasn't the Essos and the Shells; it was the small entrepreneurs who have brought about the greatest discovery of minerals and gas and oil in western Canada. It wasn't the big boys.

Who discovered the Grizzly Valley when the NDP said there was no gas in the Grizzly Valley? It was discovered by an entrepreneur. And, yes, I know something about the stock market and the securities interest, because I was accused once of being involved in the Grizzly Valley affair, when the NDP said there was no gas down there. "Don't ever build a pipeline into the Grizzly Valley, because there's no gas down there." So it's all right now, Mr. Chairman, and I want the minister to assure me...

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you were around then.

...that the regulations that he's going to set up under this act are going to allow those small companies.... I don't want them to have to hire a battery of lawyers, accountants, investment counsellors and consultants to form a little company so that a group of them can get together, put their money in the risk area.... There's nothing more risky than drilling for oil and gas. You know, you spend a lot of money before you know what's there or what isn't there.

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, I don't want to interfere with the member in full flight, but I think he is becoming tedious and repetitious. Maybe if he could get off auto-pilot and start dealing with the issues....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition should recognize someone being tedious and repetitious, because he invented it. He has been tedious and repetitious ever since he came into this Legislature. He is still tedious and repetitious. I'll tell you, if we need anything in British Columbia, it's a good Leader of the Opposition. We need a good opposition, and we haven't got it.

I'd like to ask the minister again to take my point and assure me, sir, that we're not going to have entrepreneurs stymied by these regulations, but indeed able to come in and invest in this great province of ours.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want to inform my friend here that these regulations are the envy of Canada, that even Ontario is looking at our regulations to see what a great job we've done in British Columbia to encourage entrepreneurship in this great province.

Mr. Chairman, these regulations will provide opportunities for new companies to be established in British Columbia. These regulations will encourage new development to come to British Columbia. These regulations will encourage investors young and old, large and small, male and female to participate in the capital markets of British Columbia to ensure that our province grows, our economy expands and jobs are created in British Columbia for British Columbians.

These are very modern, very effective regulations. The sections we're dealing with here have been vetted with the industry and have been looked at by accountants — and, I must say, also by lawyers, which may give you some concern. But they have been looked at very closely, and the regulations provide, as I mentioned earlier, flexibility to respond to the ups and swings and downs of the marketplace to ensure that investors do invest in British Columbia, and to ensure that the rules of the game are fair for all — fair to the entrepreneur who wants to start that new business, open that new mine or drill that new well, and at the same time equally fair to that British Columbian who wants to invest in British Columbia to see us grow and expand our economy. The regulations are balanced between the entrepreneur, to allow him to raise capital and get on with the job of creating jobs in this province, expanding our economy, and the investor, large or small, who has a reasonable understanding of the risk capital market and is prepared to take a risk, but at least is satisfied that the rules of the game are fair to him as well.

I think that you will see Ontario look again and again at these regulations and say what a great job my staff and other people who worked on this bill have done — it has taken a few years to come to this stage in this House — and say that it is an excellent bill, one that does allow entrepreneurship to expand and flourish in British Columbia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned at the remarks emanating from the opposition benches, because I know they are not interested in investment, and I know they are not interested in investors. But we on this side of the House happen to be. We are interested in job creation. They have some airy-fairy plan that they have never laid out before anybody yet that's going to solve all the problems of the world. We're looking here at regulations that will mean a lot of investment in this province, regulations that will indeed create jobs. It is of a great deal of concern to us that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's the little man from Victoria again — yack, yack, yack. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, he won't be around very long. When Peter Pollen gets after him, he'll be long gone. He'll be a one-time marvel — here today and gone tomorrow — because he has been riding on Peter's coat-tails all along. Peter brought him to power, Peter pampered him while he was in there, and as a matter of fact he acts somewhat like Peter too. I've probably known Peter longer than any other person in British Columbia, so I am well qualified to make that statement.

However, back to the act, Mr. Chairman. I am now concerned that maybe you're going to be too loose.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't want some sharpie going around talking about an oil well up in the Peace River country, and selling some dear little lady who has saved all her life, and has got a little bit put away, some shares that aren't worth a hoot. We've got to have regulations, Mr. Minister, that preclude this from happening.

Now, it may seem funny to you over there, but when I first came west I was boarding with a dear soul in Calgary. A dear soul she was, a lovely lady. I was home one night when this sharpie came along and talked this dear landlord of mine,

[ Page 7166 ]

who was a lovely lady, into buying some shares in X company. She suggested that I buy some shares in X company as well. That was the second time in my life I got taken. I phoned up the Calgary Stock Exchange and I said: "You know, we should get rid of guys like this."

We must, Mr. Chairman, in formulating these regulations, ensure that we eliminate those sharpies — the crooks, the gangsters. We don't want them in British Columbia, and we certainly don't want them milking the dear old ladies, and young entrepreneurs as well; young entrepreneurs who are trying to save a little money in their back pocket so they can start a business some day, and some sharpie comes along and sells them some shares in a worthless gold mine, or an oil well that's got no oil, a gas well that's got no gas, a timber stand that's got no timber. We don't want that.

So when you're drafting the regulations, Mr. Minister, you must make sure that they're drafted in such a way that we preclude those sharpies. We've got to have reporting; we've got to check them out somehow; we've got to make sure that.... Are you going to have somebody go up and look at the mine? Are you going to have somebody look at the assays? Are you going to have somebody look at the geology of the area in which the well is going to be drilled? Are you going to have somebody check and see if they've really got a sales contract to sell this gas? We've got to protect those people. We don't want to be too loose.

[5:15]

On the other hand, we don't want to be too harsh. We've got to have a balance here. We want the people to come and invest. We want the people who have the ability to put these deals together to come, and yet we don't want some sharpies in here who are going to give the stock exchange and British Columbia a bad name. We've got to have regulations that indeed can preclude that, because if the stock exchange gets a bad name, then the people won't come and list their shares on it. You have an awesome responsibility, Mr. Minister, and I'm glad. I hope you have some staff to check: when you find you've made a mistake, or when you find a loophole or something that isn't tight enough, you move immediately to bring those regulations back to cabinet, and we move immediately — special cabinet meeting if necessary — to plug those holes.

If we get a reputation for moving swiftly, then we'll build up that reputation and people will come. But if people come with complaints, Mr. Chairman, and nothing happens, and the hole gets bigger and bigger, then people who have complaints will say it's no use going to the minister because he doesn't want to plug the hole. The hole will get bigger, the reputation will get worse, the investment will go away, the jobs will disappear, and there will be no oil wells drilled, no minerals found, no investment in the forest industry.

So you have a tremendous responsibility, and I want you to assure me again that you're really going to pay attention to this and make sure that when there is something wrong, you move swiftly. I have great confidence in you and in the civil service of this province. I think they're fantastic civil servants. You would never hear me condemning the civil service. I think they're great people, and I really appreciate the people who brought up this act. But you know, we're all human. We must be ready to respond.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, I appreciate my colleague's remarks, and we do have to keep everything in balance. That's why that section on regulations is so important. I want to tell him, however, that we were as concerned as he was about the dear little old lady he used to board with. I would refer him to section 34 of the act, which indicates that no person shall attend at any residence or telephone from within the province for the purpose of trading in a security. So now that little lady is protected, and no longer will you have to be concerned about somebody knocking on her door and offering her shares in some oil well in northern British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that you recognize something that's going on here.

Look, we've got a section that provides for the government to make regulations under this section. It's clear that the government members don't have any legislative program whatsoever, any program designed to deal with unemployment in this province; otherwise, Mr. Chairman, they wouldn't be filibustering their own legislation in a shameful fashion, as they are doing in this Legislature right now.

Mr. Chairman, the people of this province, if they had seen that member's performance here today, would be ashamed of that particular member. That member, Mr. Chairman, is the person in this government who is appointed to put the best possible foot forward in this province, and what he's doing is turning this Legislature into a sham and an insult against the people of British Columbia.

MRS. JOHNSTON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask you to bring that member to order. He's not speaking to the bill at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think.... The Leader of the Opposition continues on a point of order.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that you're allowing me the same leniency that you've allowed government members, who are now expressing a little bit of concern that this whole debate is becoming silly; it's bringing this Legislature into disrepute. If the government supports its legislation, then have the government vote on it, and let's see if they do support it. But let's not turn the Legislature into a sham, as the government has been doing...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. SKELLY: ...for the past several minutes. Let's treat this institution and the process with the respect that it deserves.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, you called me to order on what...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I thought I saw you sit down.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't feel that you had heard me. You kept talking when I was calling you to order, and then

[ Page 7167 ]

you sat, and I felt that you had not heard. Now, if the member....

MR. SKELLY: I asked you, Mr. Chairman, on what point you called me to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was interested in having the Leader of the Opposition direct his comments to section 159 as amended, dealing with the regulations or the specifics. In committee, we are in general specifics of a section. The member wishes to continue?

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, maybe what the Chairman is saying has some relevancy, but I wish the Chairman — this Chairman particularly, you to whom I am looking — would pay the same kind of attention to the government members. You let them get away with murderous debate, you let them make a joke out of this Legislature, you let the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) treat this Legislature like it's a vaudeville show, nowhere near in order, and then when some relevant points are made....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member please take his seat.

MR. HOWARD: I'll gladly take my seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That was not a valid point of order.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking before the point of order.... You had identified me before the point of order was called.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may continue.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was talking about the Foreign Investment Review Agency under this section. The member was talking about job creation under this section — something we haven't seen in British Columbia for a long time. I would expect, Mr. Chairman, that you would allow members on this side of the House the same leniency in dealing with these issues, under this section, that you allowed to the member from South Peace River. If the minister can talk about foreign investment review agencies under this section, and if the minister can ventilate a lot of hot air under this section, then at least some people in this House should be able to deal with the concerns that people have in this province about the lack of job creation and the loss of 70,000 jobs in this province over the last four years. Tens of thousands of people in British Columbia have gone on welfare, have lost all they ever worked for during their working lives, as a result of the policies of that government and regulations that have been brought down by that government. If that member should be allowed to speak with some leniency, then the Chairman should apply the same criteria to the speeches of other members.

My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that this member has made a joke out of this section. This member has made a joke out of this Legislature, and this member is treating this Legislature with disrespect. The taxpayers of this province are paying tens of thousands of dollars of their hard-earned tax money to keep this place going every single day, and they're expecting some leadership to be demonstrated by those ministers, by the members of the government. They're expecting some leadership for the money that they're spending on this institution, and what do they get? They get the kinds of speeches that this member has made in the Legislature today.

It's an insult to this section, an insult to this legislation, an insult to this House, an insult to the process and an insult to the taxpayers of the province. Mr. Chairman, I think we can all be ashamed of what this government is doing in this House today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in listening to the debate of the Leader of the Opposition, let me say that the minister was responding to my colleague the Minister of International Trade and Investment. Although his remarks may have been colourful at times and given us a little humour, he was concerned about two things. Two things stood out in his debate that I never heard from the Leader of the Opposition.

One was investment in British Columbia. He told the members of this House that we had to be concerned about raising money, about creating jobs, about investment in British Columbia. I compliment him for his enthusiasm in his presentation.

He also stood up a second time and said to me, as I responded to him: "Mr. Minister, also recognize the concern" that he had and I have about the investors in this province, that there are fair rules to the game in the risk capital market, and he expressed himself very well. He may have caused a few moments of humour in this House, but his message was loud and clear: investment in British Columbia and protection to the investor.

I compliment him on his presentation, and I think the Leader of the Opposition is way off base, because I never heard one thing about this legislation, about this section, in his comments, just an attack on the Minister of International Trade and Investment.

MR. HOWARD: Earlier it was said that perhaps the Minister of International Trade and Investment was tedious and repetitious. I think that is probably correct. I found it tedious. I found his comments repetitious. I found them humorous. I found them laughable. He reminds me of an aged vaudevillian who seems to have forgotten some of the lines — just a joke in himself.

Admittedly that minister, when he is in full flight by his own self-fired gas system, is difficult to understand, because froth overshadows whatever sense there may be in the basis of his remarks, if there is any.

I want to deal, though, in a substantive way with some of the false accusations that he levelled against the New Democratic Party. He said with respect to FIRA, the Foreign Investment Review Agency, that the NDP did not want investment in this country. That is a false statement. That is not only a false statement, but now that the minister applauds it, he is indicating that it is a lie as well, what he just said. That is a false statement.

What we wanted to do with respect to FIRA is ensure that rational investment took place in British Columbia and in Canada. We're not like the Minister of International Trade and Investment, who would welcome Mafia money into British Columbia to make sure that the Mafia owns things in

[ Page 7168 ]

this province. Because that is exactly what he is doing. He'd rub his hands in glee when that took place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[5:30]

MR. HOWARD: He rubbed his hands in glee, that same minister, over the fact that in the last few months 5,000 people have left British Columbia because they can't find work here — driven out of this province by the likes of that minister and the likes of the other ministers over there who haven't done a single solitary thing to promote employment or to create jobs in this province. We've got an agenda that is a bare plate — nothing on it for job creation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Five thousand people....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: There have been a number of times when the Chair has called the member for Skeena to order, and the member continues to speak. When the member for Skeena stands on a point of order, he is recognized. Likewise, the member for Surrey has risen in her place, and the Chair has the courtesy to ask her if she is rising on a point of order. When the member for Skeena is asked to come to order, it would be appreciated by all members in this House if he would.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I am asking you to please call the member to order. None of his comments related to section 159 of Bill 37. Could we please stick with that?

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

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I realize it's hard to keep the House in order, but possibly it's because we're starting to take ourselves seriously instead of the job. I think that always causes this. If we're going to take ourselves seriously and not the job, then we're going to be in real trouble.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: And the member for Skeena was just commenting upon statements that the Minister of International Trade and Investment made, which presumably, Mr. Chairman, were in order when he made them; otherwise the Chair would have called him to order. It was he who raised FIRA, not I. It was the Minister of International Trade and Investment who also levelled the accusation that we in the NDP are not interested in investment, nor in investors. That is an inaccurate statement, and the minister knows it.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I tell my friend opposite from Lands, Parks and Housing....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We go by your actions, not your words.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: It's a good thing we don't have to judge you by your actions.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) please come to order. The member for Skeena has the floor on section 159 as amended.

MR. HOWARD: The accusation that we are not interested in investors or in investment is a wrong accusation. It's falsely based. It's far from the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's true.

MR. HOWARD: Now the other fellow over there is saying it's true. It's an accusation that is wrongly based, if you wanted to be nit-pickingly wordy about it, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). If you'd pay as much attention, Mr. Minister of Health, to creating jobs in this province as you do about little picky words, we'd be a damned sight better off. If this government would pay attention to the creation of jobs, there wouldn't be 5,000 people lost out of this province in the last few months. You've driven them out with your stupid policies about the economy.

Here we have.... Look at the order paper — not a thing on it with respect to employment, except the bill that was introduced the other day that sought to amend the Forest Act, which will reduce jobs in the forest industry. That will stand as the hallmark of this government's activity — that they're out to cut jobs out of the forest industry and anywhere else they can, because they're blind in their attitude about what is necessary to get younger Canadians, younger British Columbians, back to work here.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that the NDP doesn't want to debate this particular section of this important piece of legislation. The minister is quite correct: this is the meat of this particular bill, the regulation section and the section that pertains to that....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the members kindly let the member for Burnaby-Willingdon speak.

MR. VEITCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for protecting me.

Mr. Chairman, this piece of legislation, this section and the regulations that flow from this section, will determine whether or not capital does or does not come into this province. That's what it's all about. That's why it's important that we take time in this House, on both sides of this House, to debate this very important section of this most important statute.

MR. SKELLY: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[ Page 7169 ]

MR. VEITCH: I'm not ashamed of myself, hon. member. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. By the time you get through, hon. member, you'll be there by yourself anyway, so don't worry about it.

MR. SKELLY: You're an insult to this Legislature.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that member to withdraw that statement. I ask him to withdraw that statement immediately — that the Leader of the Opposition withdraw immediately.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, would you kindly withdraw that remark, please.

MR. SKELLY: That he should be ashamed of himself or....

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the remark was that he was an insult to the Legislature.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, I wouldn't have said such a thing, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw that unconditionally.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's withdrawn.

MR. SKELLY: He's an insult to the taxpayers of this province.

MR. VEITCH: I'd like to point out through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, once the Leader of the Opposition quits yacking....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if all members would mind giving the member for Burnaby-Willingdon a chance to take his place in the House.

MR. VEITCH: I'd like to point out to the minister that this is an important piece of legislation and also that this is not Ontario.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all the members kindly give the member for Burnaby-Willingdon a chance to take his place on the floor. Would the member please proceed.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all members, including the ministers, kindly give the member for Burnaby-Willingdon a chance to speak.

MR. VEITCH: It's important to realize that the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and indeed the securities business in this province, has been recognized for its flexibility. It's important that we remain flexible.

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: We wouldn't have to worry about the stock exchange. If that bunch were in power, they would regulate us to death just the same as they did to the mining industry when they were in power before.

MR. REID: They won't even invest in their own friends.

MR. VEITCH: They won't invest because they don't have anything to invest, and they don't know anybody who would invest.

I also am interested in what the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Veitch) loosely described as "sharpies." I'd like to make sure that the legislation does cover that sort of situation. I'm interested in subsection (9), governing trust arrangements. Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister: would this cover the problems that happened in Victoria Mortgage, where a former member of this House — you'll remember, I believe, the second member for Vancouver South at one point in time — mentioned that she had lost a lot of her money? I'm wondering if this is intended to cover that sort of instance.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, this would cover moneys held in trust with regard to people dealing as clients on the stock market. It doesn't deal with Victoria Mortgage — that particular instance.

Sections 159 to 181 inclusive approved.

On section 182.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 182 as amended approved.

Section 183 approved.

On section 184.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 184 as amended approved.

On section 185.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 185 as amended approved.

Sections 186 and 187 approved.

On section 188.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

[ Page 7170 ]

Section 188 as amended approved.

On section 189.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 189 as amended approved.

Sections 190 to 198 inclusive approved.

On section 199.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 199 as amended approved.

Sections 200 to 213 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 37, Securities Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 5:43 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

BILL 37

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 37) intituled Securities Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 56 (3),

(a) by deleting "by an exchange issuer," and substituting "of an exchange issuer,", and

(b) by deleting "by the exchange issuer" and substituting "from the exchange issuer".

SECTION 138 (1), by deleting everything after "in the case of an individual," and substituting "either to a fine of not more than $100 000 or to imprisonment for not more than 5 years less one day."

SECTION 138 (3), by deleting everything after "also commits an offence and is liable" and substituting "either to a fine of not more than $100 000 or to imprisonment for not more than 5 years less one day."

SECTION 159 (1), in paragraph 6 by adding the following:

(i. 1) the duration of registration, and permitting the commission to determine the duration of registration and to determine different periods of duration of registration for different categories of registrants, .

SECTION 159 (1), by deleting paragraph (13) and substituting the following:

(13) respecting offering memoranda, including requiring that contractual fights of action be included in them, and respecting statements of material facts, .

SECTION 182, by deleting the proposed section 30 and substituting the following:

Order of revocation

     30. (1) Where the commission considers it to be in the public interest, it may make an order, subject to any terms it considers necessary,

(a) revoking recognition of a commodity exchange, or

[ Page 7171 ]

(b) revoking acceptance of the form of a commodity contract, for a specified period of time.

(2) The commission shall not revoke recognition of a commodity exchange situated in the Province or acceptance of the form of a commodity contract without a hearing.

(3) Where the commission considers that the length of time required to hold a hearing under subsection (2) could be prejudicial to the public interest, it may make a temporary order, without a hearing, to have effect for no longer than 15 days from the date it is made.

(4) Where the commission considers it necessary and in the public interest, it may, without a hearing, extend a temporary order until the hearing required under this section is held and a decision is rendered.

SECTION 184, by deleting the proposed section 30.2 (4) and substituting the following:

(4) A copy of every order made under this section shall be served on every person who is directly affected by it.

SECTION 185.1, by adding the following section:

185.1 Section 31 (1) is amended by striking out "in the prescribed form" and substituting "in a form approved by the superintendent".

SECTION 188,

(a) by adding "and" at the end of paragraph (b), and

(b) by deleting paragraphs (c) and (d) and substituting the following:

(c) by striking out "to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both." and substituting "either to a fine of not more than $100 000 or to imprisonment for not more than 5 years less one day."

SECTION 189, by deleting section 189 and substituting the following:

189. Section 47 (3) is amended by striking out "to a fine of not more than $10,000, or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year or to both." and substituting 11 either to a fine of not more than $100 000 or to imprisonment for not more than 5 years less one day."

SECTION 199, by deleting "section 32 (a) or (b)" and substituting "section 31 (2) (2), (3) or (4)".

BILL 62

The Hon. W. S. Ritchie to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 62) intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1985 to amend as follows:

SECTION 8, in the proposed section 943 by renumbering it as section 943 (1) and by adding the following subsection:

(2) A local government shall not

(a) adopt a community plan, a bylaw or a rural land use bylaw, or

(b) issue a permit under this Part or Part 21 that would have the effect of restricting any forestry management activity relating to the production and harvesting of timber on any land that is

(c) classified as tree farm land under section 24 of the Assessment Act, or

(d) located within a licence area under the Forest Act, so long as the land continues only to be used for that purpose.

SECTION 8, in the proposed section 945 (4) by deleting everything after "Heritage Conservation Act," and substituting the following:

[ Page 7172 ]

(d) revitalization of an area in which a commercial use is permitted, if the area has been designated for that purpose by the minister, or

(e) establishment of objectives and the provision of guidelines for the form and character of commercial, industrial or multi-family residential development, and the plan shall, with respect to those areas,

(f) describe the special conditions or objectives that justify the designation, and

(g) specify guidelines respecting the manner by which the

     (i) conditions will be alleviated,

    (ii) revitalization will occur, and

   (iii) objectives of the guidelines referred to in paragraph (e) will be achieved.

SECTION 8, by deleting the proposed section 946 and substituting the following:

Minister may require a
referendum in a regional district

   946. (1) Before the minister designates a community plan area under section 944 (3), or gives approval under section 948 (c), he may require the board to provide him with information respecting the degree of public support for the plan in that area.

(2) After the minister has reviewed the information provided under subsection (1), he may require the board to hold a referendum on the proposed community plan area or community plan to determine the degree of public support.

(3) Where a referendum is held, the board shall inform the minister of the results of it.

SECTION 8, in the proposed section 947 (2) by deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (a) and by deleting paragraph (b) and substituting the following:

(b) where the plan affects an area of an adjoining municipality, refer the plan to the council of that municipality for comment, and

(c) where the plan affects

     (i) an area of a regional district, outside of a municipality, of which it is a member, or

    (ii) a function of that regional district, refer the plan to the board of that regional district for comment.

SECTION 8, in the proposed section 948 by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting the following:

(a) the board shall, where the plan affects an area of an adjoining municipality or regional district, refer the plan to the council or board of that municipality or regional district for comment, .

SECTION 8, in the proposed section 950 by adding the following subsection:

(3) The minister may designate a rural planning area under subsection (2) where he has received a request

(a) by the board of the regional district where the area is located, or

(b) under section 951 (4).

SECTION 8, by deleting the proposed section 951 and substituting the following:

Petition to regional board

   951. (1) The electors within an area covered by an official community plan in a regional district or an official settlement plan that was adopted under section 809 (3) of this Act before that section was repealed by section 4 of the Municipal Amendment Act, 1985, may petition the board to alter the area of application of the plan and

[ Page 7173 ]

(a) replace the plan and existing zoning and subdivision bylaws in that area with a rural land use bylaw, or

(b) not replace the plan with a rural land use bylaw.

(2) A petition under subsection (1) shall specify the.

(a) purpose of the petition, and

(b) area to which the petition relates.

(3) Section 281 applies to a petition under this section.

(4) Where at least ⅔ of the electors of the area affected by the petition sign it and the board fails to act to implement the purpose of the petition within 90 days, or another period specified by the minister, any of the petitioners may request the minister to make an order under this subsection, and the minister may, after considering the request,

(a) designate the area to which the petition relates as a rural planning area and order the board to prepare a rural land use bylaw by the date specified by the minister, or

(b) order that an official community plan or official settlement plan cease to have effect by the date specified by the minister.

(5) Where the minister makes an order under subsection (4) (a), he may order that any affected bylaw made under sections 963 to 967 and 988 or any affected bylaw made under sections 716, 717 and 729 of this Act before those sections were repealed by section 4 of the Municipal Amendment Act, 1985, ceases to have effect on the date specified by the minister in his order.

(6) Where the minister makes an order in response to a petitioner under subsection (4) (a), he may order that the affected official community plan of a regional district or affected official settlement plan that was adopted under section 809 (3) of this Act before that section was repealed by section 4 of the Municipal Amendment Act, 1985, ceases to have effect on the date specified by the minister in his order.

SECTION 8, in the proposed section 955

(a) by deleting subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) A council may, by bylaw, establish an advisory planning commission to advise council on all matters respecting land use, community planning or proposed bylaws and permits under Divisions 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 of this Part.,

(b) in subsection (3) by deleting "The members of the advisory planning commission shall" and substituting "At least ⅔ of the members of the advisory planning commission shall",

(c) in subsection (6) by deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (a), by adding "and" at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following paragraph:

(c) the referral of matters to the advisory planning commission.,

(d) by deleting subsection (7) and substituting the following:

(7) Where the commission is considering an amendment to a plan or bylaw, or the issue of a permit, the applicant for the amendment or permit is entitled to attend at meetings of the commission and be heard., and

(e) in subsection (8) by adding at the end "but he may attend at a meeting of the commission in a resource capacity".

SECTION 8, by adding the following section to the proposed Part 29:

Works and services

  964.1 (1) A local government may, by bylaw, require as a condition of subdivision approval or the issue of a building permit that the owner of the land provide works and services on

(a) a highway immediately adjacent to the land being subdivided or the site being developed, or

(b) the site being developed.

[ Page 7174 ]

(2) Requirements under subsection (1) shall only be made insofar as they are directly attributable to the subdivision or development and shall not include such works or services that are covered by a development cost charge, unless the owner or applicant agrees to provide the services, in which case the calculation of the development cost charge will be subject to section 982 (8).

(3) The provisions of section 990 respecting the deposit of security apply to the completion of works and services under this section.

SECTION 8, in the proposed section 975

(a) in subsection (1) by deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (a) and by adding the following paragraphs:

(c) land, or a building or structure on a Provincial or municipal heritage site, shall not be altered, and

(d) land, or a building or structure located on land that is within an area designated under section 945 (4) (d), shall not be altered.

(b) by deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), a local government may, by resolution, issue a development permit which may

(a) vary or supplement a bylaw made under Division (4) or (7),

(b) include requirements and conditions or set standards under subsections (5) to (6. 1), and

(c) impose conditions respecting the sequence and timing of construction but only in accordance with the applicable guidelines specified in an official community plan under section 945 (4) (g)., and

(c) by deleting subsection (6) and substituting the following:

(6) Where land has been designated under section 945 (4) (c) or (d), a development permit may establish standards for

(a) the exterior design and finish of buildings and structures, and

(b) landscaping.

(6.1) Where land has been designated under section 945 (4) (c), (d) or (e), a development permit may include requirements respecting the character of development including the siting and form of buildings and structures, but, where the designation is under section 945 (4) (e), the requirements shall not relate to the particulars of exterior design or finish of the buildings or structures.

SECTION 8, in the proposed section 979 by deleting subsection (3) and substituting the following:

(3) Where a local government considers that

(a) a condition in a permit respecting landscaping has not been satisfied, or

(b) where, as a result of contravention of a condition in a permit, an unsafe condition has resulted, the local government may undertake and complete the works required to satisfy the landscaping condition or carry out any construction required to correct the unsafe condition, at the cost of the holder of the permit, and may apply the security in payment of the cost of the works, with any excess to be returned to the holder of the permit.

SECTION 8, in the proposed section 982 (3) by deleting "398 (b)" and substituting "398 (h)".

SECTION 8, in the proposed section 983 (3), by adding at the end ", but any information respecting the contemplated acquisition costs of specific properties need not be provided".

[ Page 7175 ]

SECTION 8, in the proposed section 991

(a) by adding the following subsections:

(1.1) Where an official community plan or a rural land use bylaw contains policies and designations respecting the location and type of future parks, the local government may, notwithstanding subsection (1), determine whether the owner shall provide land under subsection (1) (a) or money under subsection (1) (b).

(1.2) Where a regional district is not, under its letters patent, authorized to exercise a community parks function, the owner shall, notwithstanding subsection (1), provide land.,

(b) in subsection (4) by deleting everything after "the date of application for the subdivision",

(c) by deleting subsection (5) and substituting the following:

(5) Where, for the purpose of subsection (4), an owner and a local government do not agree on the market value, it shall be determined in the manner prescribed in the regulations that the minister may make for the purpose., and

(d) by adding the following subsection:

(5.1) Where an area of land has been used to calculate the amount of land or money provided or paid under this section, that area shall not be taken into account for a subsequent entitlement under subsection (1) in respect of any future subdivision of the land.

SECTION 8, in the proposed section 997

(a) in subsection (2) by deleting everything after "any development permit issued before" and substituting "that time, or during the 180 day period, remains valid.", and

(b) by adding the following subsection:

(3) A local government may amend a development permit that remains valid by virtue of subsection (2) as they could have amended it before the Municipal Amendment Act, 1985 came into force.

SECTION 11, in the proposed section 4 (2) (h) of the Islands Trust Act

(a) by deleting "Divisions (1) to (5) and (7) of Part 29" and substituting "section 987 and Divisions (1) to (5) and (7), other than section 989,", and

(b) by adding "under that section or" after "power and authority".