[ Page 4877 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Mortgage foreclosures. Mr. Levi — 4877

Possibility of producing pipe for proposed Alcan pipeline. Mr. Lauk — 4877

Conflict-of-interest legislation. Mr. Gibson — 4877

Alleged damage by the Sea-Bus. Mr. Wallace — 4878

Land Registry Act. Mr. Lea — 4879

"Machine-Gun Martinoff" firearm registration. Mr. Macdonald — 4879

Sinking of land in Nakusp. Mr. King — 4879

Rumour of new B.C. Hydro tower. Mr. Lauk — 4879

Sales tax on medical supplies. Hon. Mr. Wolfe answers — 4880

Motor Dealers Licensing Act (Bill 39). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Mair — 4880

Mr. Levi — 4881

Mr. Macdonald — 4886

Mr. Wallace — 4887

Hon. Mr. Mair — 4888

Motor Dealers Licensing Act (Bill 39). Committee stage

On section 1 amendment

Mr. Levi — 4888

Hon. Mr. Mair — 4889

On section 23.

Mr. Levi — 4889

Hon. Mr. Mair — 4889

Report and third reading — 4889

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 54). Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 4890

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977, No. 2 (Bill 75). Committee stage.

On section 1 amendment

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4890

Mr. Barber — 4890

On section 3.

Mr. Barber — 4891

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4891

Report and third reading — 4892

Municipal Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 42). Committee stage.

On section 13 amendments

Mr. Barber — 4892

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4893

On section 20.

Mr. Barber — 4893

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4894

Mr. Lloyd — 4895

Division on Section 20 — 4897

On section 28.

Mr. Barber — 4897

Mr. Barrett — 4898

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4900

Mr. Wallace — 4903

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4903

Mr. Lloyd — 4904

Mr. Gibson — 4905

Mr. Lauk — 4906

Mr. King — 4908

Mr. Gibson — 4910

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4910

Mr. King — 4911

Mr. Barber — 4911

Appendix — 4913

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, about three weeks ago, while having the privilege of opening a baseball tournament in Kamloops, I had the distinct pleasure of meeting an attractive young 18-year-old woman whose name is Sandy Blackburn and is now Miss PNE. I would like the House to acknowledge that the great city of Kamloops has produced such a lovely lady. I'm sure all sides of the House will he happy to know that she plans to become an airline stewardess. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that Kamloops has Miss PNE and, in the future, one of the most attractive companions that all members of the House will be able to have on airline trips.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago I had the opportunity of introducing my favourite nephew, Jason Ward. Today in the gallery is another visitor from West Vancouver, a very good friend of my nephew, l2-year·old Kim Anderson. I ask the House to welcome her.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Seated in the gallery today is my niece from Edmonton, Wendi Marr, and her husband, Gordon. I would like the House to make them welcome.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is an actor from Hollywood, California, who is competing with this Legislative Assembly, as the Leader of the Opposition says, but I don't think the Leader of the Opposition will win an academy award.

Mr. John Doucette is well known on television and movie audiences throughout the world. He is here to introduce his movie "The Charge of the Model T" and is accompanied by Mrs. Kathy Doucette arid sons Matthew and Michael.

What is rather important to us, I think, is the fact that he is also here with his son-in-law, Robert Heggie and his wife, Christina. Robert Heggie was our official piper on the Royal Hudson tour of California, Washington and Oregon and it was said by those who counted that over 30,000 home photographs were taken of piper Heggie on that trip.

I would also like to say that Mr. Richter, our new film co-ordinator, is accompanying the party. I know that all members of the House would like to give them a royal welcome.

Oral questions.

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. About two weeks ago I asked him a question regarding the very serious problem with mortgage foreclosures; he took the question as notice. Does he have a reply he

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I do not have a reply yet, Mr. Speaker, but I am working on it. I might tell the member that one problem has occurred to our ministry. That is the constitutionality of doing anything about it, even if a problem does exist to the extent that he has indicated. In any event, I will bring

POSSIBILITY OF PRODUCING PIPE OR PROPOSED ALCAN PIPELINE

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Alcan proposal is the front-runner in terms of the pipeline debates and thousands of miles of expensive pipe will have to be purchased, will the government now re-establish the government partnership with NKK, with a view to immediate construction of a steel mill and pipe-manufacturing facility, to prevent the loss of valuable jobs created by the project going to Edmonton and Regina?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I know of no plans for a pipe-rolling mill in British Columbia, but I'll be pleased to take the member's question as notice.

CONFLlCT-OF-INTEREST LEGISLATION

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier as well. In the opening speech last January, the Lieutenant-Governor informed us: "A more adequate conflict-of-interest statute for public officials will be placed before you for consideration and approval at this session." Will the government be living up to that promise?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll just point out to the member that the session has a capability of going a long time yet.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Bad news. What's the good news? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, it's not really a supplementary; it's a request for an answer. Will the

[ Page 4878 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: With all deference, it's the very fact of dealing with conflict of interest, the fact that poorly drafted bills would not be acceptable in such a sensitive area and the fact that the first attempts made by the last government in what they called the disclosure Act have been so inadequate that it is giving some difficulty in the drafting. I can't assure the member when those charged with the responsibility of dealing with this sensitive area will make the legislation available to the government or deal with what has been a problem for the government.

I would say that the session can be a very....

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Is the answer no?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would say that the session will not prorogue, and even when the very important legislation, which will all be passed before we adjourn, is dealt with, we will still be in what is considered session for many months to come yet.

MR. LAUK: I have a supplementary question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. The Premier indicated that the disclosure Act was inadequate. Could the Premier indicate to the House what loopholes he has found in the Act?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, but I'm sure some lawyers have probably tried to find loopholes both inside and outside the House.

HON. MR. MAIR: Loophole, Loophole and Lauk.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Was that a supplementary question? It seems that the first member for Vancouver Centre was, I think, soliciting my business. I wanted to publicly let him know that, no, I have no intention of retaining him. (Laughter.)

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, if the Premier was answering yes, would he consider making the Act retroactive to August 18, 1976?

ALLEGED DAMAGE CAUSED BY SEA-BUS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with regard to alleged property. damage resulting from the operation of Sea-Bus ferries and a report that claims have been lodged against B.C. Hydro. Could I ask the minister whether his Ministry of Municipal Affairs or the Ministry of Transport is responsible for dealing with these claims for damage resulting from the operation of the Burrard Inlet ferry?

HON. R.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Oak Bay, in effect it is a joint responsibility. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs was responsible for the implementation of the system and yet another ministry has responsibility for B.C. Hydro. Both ministries are consulting on these claims of alleged damage.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, since there seems to be a substantial number of individuals alleging that property damage has been caused, could the minister tell us what investigations either his ministry or the Ministry of Transport is currently involved in to try and determine the precise facts of the situation, which is not new? It has apparently been happening since the inception of this system.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I cannot speak for another ministry, but with respect to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, it is important, I think, for the member to understand and acknowledge in asking the question that there have been claims of alleged damage. It would be a matter for determination elsewhere as to whether the claims are valid or not. Certainly those which have reached our attention are under intensive review by the ministry, and by the Burrard Ferry System management.

MR. WALLACE: . Perhaps I would direct a supplementary to the other minister, whose ministry is quoted as having received the alleged claims. Could the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications tell the House what. number of alleged claims have been lodged against B.C. Hydro, and the financial total of the alleged damage that has been caused? In other words, I'm trying to determine

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): I'd first like to reiterate something the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has said — namely, that these are alleged claims. There are a number, but nothing like the large number referred to in yesterday's issue of The Vancouver Sun. I don't have the precise number, but I'll endeavour to get it. Certainly, I don't have any idea of the total dollar value of these alleged claims;

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr.

[ Page 4879 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, the speed of the ferries has been reduced pending a closer examination of whether or not, in fact, the damage is being done by the ferries.

LAND REGISTRY ACT

MR. LEA: A question to the hon. Minister of Highways. On July 17, 1975, a regulation was passed by order-in-council to the Land Registry Act. It read as follows: "The approving officer for unorganized territory may refuse to approve a plan of subdivision if the plan does not have the prior consent in writing of the Minister of Highways, whose consent shall be limited to considering the likely contribution of the subdivision to urban :sprawl in relation to any nearby established community, and the cost of providing services."

On July 7,1977, that regulation was rescinded by order-in-council, and signed by the Attorney-General and the presiding member of the executive council. The question to the minister is: did he personally, or did anyone from his ministry. appeal to the Attorney-General to have this regulation changed, as the Land Registry Act comes under his jurisdiction?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

MACHINE GUN MARTINOFF FIREARM REGISTRATION

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I have a question for the Attorney-General. Mr. Speaker. Someone who calls himself "Machine Gun "...

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): That's your friend!

MR. MACDONALD: ... has received a certificate of registration from the RCMP as a result of a county court decision to use a submachine gun and a German automatic rifle. It is a serious matter. Mr. Speaker, and I'm asking whether the Attorney-General would not see that that decision is appealed. I think it's very dangerous.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I was being very serious. He's your locker roommate. You should ask him the current condition of the matter. Mr. Member. We'll certainly look into it.

SINKING OF LAND INNAKUSP

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I have a question to the Minister of the Environment. I presume the minister is aware that a serious problem has developed in the village of Nakusp with respect to the sinking of a significant portion of land there for some inexplicable reason that mayor may not be associated with Hydro's reservoir development. I wonder if the Minister of the Environment has dispatched any staff from the water rights branch or the lands branch to examine the dilemma and to give a report on what a remedy might be.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): We have had water investigations people in and they are unable to explain this phenomenon. We have today dispatched a specialist in that particular engineering field who is attempting to determine precisely what may have caused the sinking. We have a number of persons on site trying to determine first what has caused the sinking, and then what remedial action may be taken.

RUMOUR OF NEW B.C. HYDRO TOWER

MR. LAUK: This question is to the Minister of Transport and Communications, who is in charge of Hydro. It's been rumoured that B.C. Hydro is intending to build another tower a la the Bennett Tower that was proposed many years ago for Hydro on the Dawson School site, flying in the face of the GVRD recommendations and the livable region plan and everything else, flying in the face of the desire of New Westminster and Delta and other places to have decentralization of downtown type facilities. The question is: can the minister confirm this ugly rumour?'

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that it is in fact an ugly rumour starting right now, and it should be killed right now as such.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted, if I understand the minister correctly. Is he saying that there is no such plan by B.C. Hydro to build a tower on that site?

HON. MR. BENNETT: He said: "Don't start rumours."

[ Page 4880 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I agree that we shouldn't start ugly rumours in this way.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister respond to my question? Has B.C. Hydro any plan to build a tower or office building on this site?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has responded twice.

MR. LAUK: He has not responded to that question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister respond to that question?

MR. SPEAKER: It may be that you do not wish to accept the manner in which he has responded, but he has responded, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: He has not responded, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister... ?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister responded to your initial question in exactly the same manner as he responded to your supplemental. It's not for, the Chair to determined whether you are satisfied with the answer or not.

MR. LAUK: Well, may I ask this question of the minister? Can the minister confirm or deny that RC. Hydro is intending to build an office tower on the Dawson School site?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, there is no truth to the hon. member's rumour. There are no such plans.

SALES TAX ON MEDICAL SUPPLIES

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, last week in oral question period the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked a question regarding sales taxes on medical supplies — laxatives and so on. I, ask leave to table the reply to that question. Leave granted. Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 39.

MOTOR DEALERS LICENSING ACT

HON. MR. MAIR: The Motor Dealers Licensing Act is one of several pieces of legislation which have come from my ministry of late that are dedicated to improve upon a system that is already in effect. This is a move, I'm sure, that the House in its wisdom will support, and a measure, I might say, Mr. Speaker, which most motor dealers will applaud for its giant strides forward towards greater efficiency in their industry.

In essence, the Motor Dealers Licensing Act updates and modernizes the present system of motor dealer registration, which is found in the motor dealer Act which until October. 1975, was administered by the Motor Vehicle branch of the Ministry of Transport and Communications as it then was. This new Act brings the registration provisions into line with comparable statutes such as the Personal Information Reporting Act, and the Debt Collection Act.

Motor dealers will find that this new Act for the first time provides for an applicant dealer to have a right to registration unless the registrar can point to specific reasons why the applicant should not be registered. The Act also ensures that an adequate appeal is available from the decision of the registrar to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission and to the court. This right of appeal, of course, did not exist hitherto. In fact the new Motor Dealers Licensing Act offers new clearly defined boundaries within which the registrar can move freely. At present his powers are open-ended and badly spelled out, with the result that conscientious officials limit the exercise of their power, and reputable dealers complain that licensing provisions are not being adequately enforced. Let me assure the House that in a situation such as this, nobody — neither the motor vehicle dealer nor the public nor anyone else comes out a winner.

In addition, the clearer definition of powers will enable the registrar to keep dishonest or financially irresponsible applicants or people of that sort from being registered.

In order to obtain registration under this Act, a motor dealer must have a specific business location; a residential dwelling will not be acceptable in these circumstances. What the Act does here is head off the practice by some dealers who sell cars from a residence and pass off their transactions as private deals.

Further, motor dealers must either have repair facilities or a service contract acceptable to the registrar. Another point to note is that the registrar has the power to freeze the assets of a motor dealer for the protection of individuals dealing with that firm or individual. I might say in passing that we would have welcomed such a power last year in a very unfortunate incident in North Vancouver. In part, the new Act is an outgrowth of requests from the two major trade associations, the Motor Dealers Association and the Automobile Dealers Association, for changes which will bring about improvement in the licensing law. One major change likely would be

[ Page 4881 ]

a reduction in the number of businesses which are subjected to licensing, since some marginal or part-time dealers may not qualify for registration. Also on the plus side of the ledger for my staff is that the current system of annual renewal of licenses by March 1 will be changed over to a staggered annual renewal system, so that the work load can be more easily distributed throughout the year.

Finally, the licensing approach will be replaced by a more permanent form of registration of each dealer with provision for streamlined renewal procedures. About 1,500 dealers will be affected by these licensing changes. I would like, if I may, to depart briefly from the subject of the Motor Dealers Licensing Act, and announce to the House that a second major publication on the subject of advertising has originated with my staff. I think it's appropriate that I should introduce it at this juncture, since it deals basically with advertising as practiced by the motor dealer industry, and is in fact called Motor Dealer Guidelines. Sorry, Mr. Attorney....

HON. MR. GARDOM: As long as it doesn't take too long.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, it won't take too long. You may recall that the first publication on advertising, called General Advertising Guidelines, had wide distribution throughout the province and copies were requested by the advertising industry and special interest groups across Canada. The impact of that publication on advertising initiated in this province, , and on advertising coming into British Columbia from other area, has been nothing short of tremendous, with beneficial results flowing both to the consumer and to the advertising industry. These new motor dealer guidelines which I will table, Mr. Speaker, and make copies available to all members, are not unlike the General Advertising Guidelines in that they emphasize that they are not law, but departmental interpretations. They are not to be taken in any way as being etched in stone, but as interpretations by which my ministry guides itself in making decisions.

My ministry, Mr. Speaker, sought and received input from the motor dealer industry in the production of these guidelines. I might say also that we are deeply indebted to the industry for the input which they gave us with respect to this bill. I think it's safe to say that both business and the consumers themselves will benefit from the consistent standards of conduct and fair competition that will result amongst all dealers in the marketplace. Mr. Speaker, it is also my pleasure to introduce and table a trade bulletin published by my ministry, which deals in part with a topic that has wide interest for all members of this House, namely the repair and sale of motor vehicles which have been written off by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. The bulletin is self-explanatory and was designed to educate the industry further with respect to my ministry's policies, legislation and enforcement stance. This trade bulletin is to be distributed in the same package as the motor dealer guidelines.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I return to the reason for being on my feet at this time, namely the Motor Dealers Licensing Act. I would like to say in conclusion that only the over-zealous official or dishonest dealer need fear this legislation. It's good legislation, and I urge it upon the House. I move that the bill be read a second time.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, this bill is really a used-car dealer's delight, because it really doesn't ask him to do anything other than to get his registration in order. It's a pity, because there have been over the years a number of very serious representations,both from the British Columbia Automobile Association and various consumer groups, that something be done in a very real way to protect the consumer. All we have in the bill that really is going to have some impact, hopefully, on the rights of the consumer relates to the sections which deal with the requirements to have repair facilities, and that there be a freezing of the assets. I think they are two positive things; one is that they have the repair facilities. But what concerns me is that the minister appears to have completely disregarded the recommendations that were made 'by the automobile association.

He went on to say that the two people who pushed this issue were the automobile dealers and the motor dealers, who were interested in having such legislation. That legislation really only deals with the question of registration, the type of individuals, that are in the industry. and those who, really should not be in the industry. Okay, that's desirable.

If this is the thin end of the wedge and there is more to come in terms of the protection of the consumer in respect to the motor dealers and the sale of new and used cars, fine; we are going to support this because this is the thin end of the wedge. I do want to point out that there ate some very serious problems that still go on in this province and have not been looked at.

Last November the B.C. Automobile Association went to see the cabinet committee and presented a brief. Almost instantaneously, if I'm not mistaken let's remember that the minister was new in that area — he said there really didn't need to be any changes, that everything was okay in the new and used-car business. Well. it may have been that he was Just waiting so that they could look at some good legislation.

What this legislation lacks in terms of the consumer was well documented, I think, in the brief

[ Page 4882 ]

"The association recommends that legislation similar to that enacted by individual Australian states should be examined by the government with the object of assessing its value to motorists of this province. Briefly, the legislation known variously as the Second-hand Motor Vehicles Act; Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, et cetera, prescribes certain warranties that must be given, by law, according to the value placed on a particular vehicle."

Let's bear in mind that in the bill there are requirements that there be workshops, garage facilities or some contractual arrangement the dealers have with somebody who does this work. In the brief they are looking at the issue of warranty and they go on to say:

"Under the Act in South Australia, for instance, a red sticker known as the 'first schedule' must be attached to the windshield of all used cars offered for sale. The schedule gives details of price, registration number, model, year of registration, odometer reading at the time of the purchase by the dealer and the name of the last owner of the vehicle. Posting of this 'first schedule' requires the dealer to warrant the vehicle in direct relationship with the price asked. A car selling in South Australia for more than $1,000 Australian is subject to a 5,000-kilometer or three-month warranty. Another selling for somewhere between $500 and $1,000 takes with it a 3,000-kilometer or two-month warranty."

We have a very serious problem in this province and have had for years, particularly in the used-car industry, where people have been very badly ripped off. In the minister's own ministry in terms of· the consumer area, 30 per cent of the complaints received relate in some way to sales and purchases of automobiles. We hoped that in this legislation we would move to that kind of warranty situation.

Again, I will say this: if the minister, in introducing the bill, indicates that dealers are going to be required to have repair facilities and that in some way those. repair facilities will be evaluated, then hopefully the next step in another piece of legislation will be the whole issue of warranty.

In another section of the ministry under the Trade Practices Act, the reports on the agreements for voluntary compliance are replete with some scandalous rip-offs that go on even today. This bill does not in any way make any inroads into those kinds of companies. It is suggested that certain companies or operations that shouldn't be registered will not be registered.

When you read the enforcement report which is put out by the minister and you look at the AVCs, the agreements for voluntary compliance — you find that some of the better-known car dealers, are involved in deceptive practices. During the minister's estimates I went into some detail regarding a scandalous operation which took place within Docksteader Motors. We have in the June 25, 1976, enforcement report regarding Baywood Motors. We've got Belmont Sales Ltd., which is operating as Belmont Motors. Now all of these people — and these are well-known companies — have been operating in misrepresenting various sales to people.

Now I'm not about to tear down the industry, but it is important to point out that these practices are still going on and nothing in this Act is going to prevent that. The only approach you could take is to put some of the better-known businesses out of business by failing to register them, and I doubt that's going to happen. It's true that in the minister's ministry there is a trade practices section. As I said in his estimates, Mr. Speaker, I was less than happy with what appeared to be a trend in that division of a failure to adequately proceed towards court proceedings. In the case of Docksteader Motors, which in my opinion, and the opinion of lawyers that I consulted with, was a clear case of fraud, that case was not allowed to proceed to a judicial determination, which was necessary. It is necessary for the industry to have that. It is necessary for the consumer in that where you have a judicial determination, that becomes a warning. That's part of the whole principle of the deterrent effect. There is nothing in this Act that is before us today, Mr. Speaker, that talks about any kinds of deterrents. All right, maybe they're trying to get the ship in order first. In the trade practices division they have got to be much more aggressive about going after some of the very serious malpractices in that particular industry.

I am looking now, Mr. Speaker, at the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), and I'm sure he's going to get up and speak. We need his input — he is a widely experienced individual in this. I think at last count we had something like eight members on the other side of the House who were either new car or used car dealers. I'm sure that they have something to say. I don't want anyone to characterize my speech as an attack on the used car industry. I'm attacking

[ Page 4883 ]

Now turning to the brief from the B.C. Automobile Association, they. went on to talk about the confidence of the car buyer. I want to quote from the brief:

"When enacted, the South. Australian legislation caused some less reputable dealers to cease operation and gave a needed boost to the used car industry and increased the confidence of the buying public. The immediate effect of the legislation when proclaimed in 1973 was to cause a redistribution of prices asked for many used cars, in many cases reducing the price to remove the vehicle from the warranty programme, or increasing it to cover any potential warranty claims."

"Where a dealer refused to carry out what was obviously a warranty repair, and where consumer and dealer disagreed on whether a defect was subject to warranty, the Act gave the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs the power to arbitrate and, if necessary, order the dealer to carry out the repairs. The motoring public was extremely pleased with the legislation as they felt they could buy with confidence from any dealer. The South Australian legislation was the first of its type in that country and was quickly followed by legislation in other Australian states."

The important thing here, Mr. Speaker, is that an atmosphere of good will was created, and that's what we need to have created in this province, particularly in this industry. This bill will not do it. Hopefully, a succeeding bill will, but this bill will not. It's just the thin end of the wedge. The brief goes on:

"In respect. to dealer support, similar legislation was enacted in New Zealand in 1975, and will come into effect in stages during 1976 and '77. It is interesting to note that it was first proposed as a submission from the motor trade to Parliament in 1971, to not only protect buyers' interests, but also to restore confidence in dealers. The New Zealand motor trade said the image of the car salesman as a glib, untrustworthy huckster was unfair to the majority of reputable dealers."

The thing is that out there among the public, in relation to the car industry, there are those feelings. They are there because nearly everyone whom you meet in our society — your friends, your neighbours, even your family — have all had a bad experience at one time or another. Some of them are incredible stories and I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you know about them.

We have the case of a person who goes to a used-car dealer and the used-car dealer gives them a heavy pitch, Then the client, in all of his honesty, says: "I'd just like to take the thing for a run." The car salesman says, "Well, what do you want to do that for? The car is in good shape; we have a seven-day, money-back guarantee. You·don't want to do that." And the rather innocent ones don't do it. Then they drive it home and they find, as in one particular case, that the thing went okay when it was going forward but it didn't go in reverse at all. He couldn't get it out of his driveway.

Now that goes on. It's a hard-nosed industry. That's how you got to make a buck. It is interesting — and I think it is what is intended ...

MR. WALLACE: I wouldn't mind having a party that could only go forward. (Laughter.)

MR. LEVI: The party that we've got over on the other side is going sideways. They have a pretty bent chassis. Instead of pulling the chassis off the market, they have just kind of repaired it and they are keeping it going.

The thing is that in the bill there is a section which assists the legitimate motor dealer. I think it relates to what I have known for some years as curbing. That's a classical, internal ripoff system which salesmen have. They are working for some company and they want to make a few bucks on the side. They go outside of the lot or they make some quiet arrangement with somebody and they see a car off the lot. I think that's called curbing. I gather in here, of course, that that will stop, because you certainly are not going to license a curber, even though he may sell more than five cars a year. So buried somewhere in this is some protection, even for the industry itself.

I'll just return to the brief, because it's an excellent brief, Mr. Speaker. It's well written; it's well documented. They went there to see the cabinet with a great. deal of ardour, and they did feel, I think, that at that time they kind of got slapped in the face. I have been in touch with the industry to ask them for their views on the legislation but unfortunately they haven't seen fit to respond. I was rather curious as to

[ Page 4884 ]

"In calling for the legislation, the motor trade sought to eliminate the, unethical operators and bad practices that contribute to the poor image, and to upgrade the reputation of car salesmen with customers. This association contends that similar legislation drafted for British Columbia— conditions and price range of vehicles— would give much needed protection to the used-car purchaser. It is prepared to use its good offices with the Australian and New Zealand Automobile Association, with whom it is affiliated, to seek information for the government should it be requested. Meanwhile, the British Columbia Automobile Association submits a copy of the South Australia legislation study by the government, which is an appendix to this brief."

They lay it out and it has all the implications of a model Act. It really lays out for the minister or for his department the blueprint for the future. I'm sure the minister knows that this is a serious area of concern for consumers. We will continue for many years to come to be a car-oriented society. As such, large amounts of disposable income are going to continue to be spent on all manner of vehicles, whether they are used or new.

In September, 1975, in a brief to the cabinet, the Consumers' Association of Canada, B.C. branch, covered a number of issues respecting consumer protection. In item 3 on page 2 of their brief they refer to "Consumer Products Warranties Act:' I will quote from what they say: "Our experience in dealing with unsatisfactory or defective consumer goods clearly indicates a pressing need for legislation to ensure that consumers have effective redress through warranty to the manufacturer and/or to the supplier.

The minister has already indicated in other statements that we are looking in this province at the house warranty, and that's a good move. Probably as important in the daily lives of the people in this province, next to housing, are automobiles. In the brief, they state:

"New cars. The largest area of consumer complaint deals with automobile purchase. Although there are new car warranties now, many are inadequate and unenforcable. Hopefully, British Columbia warranty legislation will include new car warranties which are more comprehensive and more enforcable."

In the second section they talk about used cars:

"As there are many unethical and dishonest practices in the used car business, we urge that this government include a mandatory comprehensive warranty system in consumer product warranties legislation." Then they go on to quote in that section of their brief from the Australian legislation which I have just alluded to in my previous remarks.

Now, we know that the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is concerned about the issue of car sales. In May, I976, they issued a bulletin for the motor vehicle trades, called "Six Problem Areas for Car Sales." I just want to read from it and then cite a couple of examples:

If you are a motor dealer or an employee of a dealer, here are some problems you could run into. It is hoped that this review of potential trouble will give you a better understanding of the way certain British Columbia laws affect your industry. These six potential problem areas are based on actual legal proceedings which followed certain allegedly deceptive practices by motor dealers."

Let's note that in there they say "allegedly deceptive practices." I want to repeat this. I've been over it once before, and I want to go over it again: I hope that we can get from the minister some very specific statement about what they're going to do in the trade practices area. The assurances of voluntary compliance which are constantly cited are tending to get in the way of necessary judicial determinations. I'll go so far as to say that the AVCs are taking people off the hook from, in some cases, criminal charges. That's not good enough. It's certainly not good enough. We all know of very serious rip-off practices which have taken place, and yet there is the use of· the assurance of voluntary compliance. A problem with the AVCs is that it takes a great deal of time to get such an agreement consummated. In the meanwhile the same practice is going on by the same company, and even when an AVC is signed, other companies are doing the same thing anyway, so we have to go after them. I don't disagree that there's a role, a very necessary function, for AVCs, but there are some very serious problems with them, even, as I quoted from the report, the "allegedly deceptive practices" by motor dealers. I want to go to quote from what he says here.

"This bulletin describes these practices and gives some details of the voluntary agreements that ended them." We just make a comment: It's not true that it ended them. We can cite examples where people have signed AVCs not to roll back odometers, and we have other cases of other companies doing exactly the same thing. So it has only ended that practice, hopefully, within the company that signed the AVC. I want to go back to the bulletin: "Motor dealers are encouraged to review these cases to avoid similar problems in the future. The voluntary agreements or assurance of voluntary compliance, the AVCs, that

[ Page 4885 ]

Now, they have six problem areas. One example, problem number three which relates to advertising, presumably is going to be resolved in the announcement that the minister made during his remarks in second reading of the bill. That's a good move.

It's true that it's far better to get the advertising industry, or any industry, for-that matter, to agree to do the self regulation than to have to come in there with a big hammer and pass the law and say: "You've got to do this." That's not always possible to enforce anyway. You get into incredible bureaucracies; you have to go through the courts sometimes. The end result is that the consumer is not protected. It's true.

As the minister said, this is part of a series of legislation he's been introducing. Travel agencies we had that one. That came in because they couldn't police themselves. This legislation, which simply in the main deals with legislation, is again inadequate, and they are not policing themselves. Yet they should.

The important thing in terms of legislation is that we have to have in mind the two parts of the community. I'm not one to believe that you should only have protection for the consumer and not for the people that do the selling. That's important too. But there is an onus on the people who are the vendors to see that their practices are above dispute when it has been the tendency for people in the business area not generally to want to regulate themselves. If anything, this bill will give an indication, as other consumer legislation has given indications to various people in the business area, that either you clean up your own house or you'll have it done for you. This bill hasn't done that yet. But if it's the thin edge of the wedge, then that's important. I would like to have the minister, when he's summing up— although we can get more specifically into the question-and-answer in the committee stage — to tell us what lies down the road. I don't want him to tell us that it's a question of policy, and therefore he can't discuss it. He can and should give some indication to the consumers and to the people in the industry that down the road is other legislation, hopefully, dealing with the issues of a warranty in terms of used cats. He's already indicated that without legislation we will have something in relation to advertising.

I'd like him to tell us specifically about what he's going to do about the problem of the signing of assurances of voluntary compliance. Then once it is signed you have somebody else doing exactly the same thing and it's not having the desired effect. Perhaps the minister would indicate to me just how broadly the AVCs are broadcast in respect to the motor dealer industry. I think I raised in his estimates the necessity for there to be a wide publication.

We did get into some discussion, Mr. Speaker, about the cost of advertising in this country. But there is the issue of adequate notification of what's going on to a particular industry. The minister has the powers as a minister of the Crown to recommend to the government certain legislation. From time to time it is necessary for a minister to sound off in a very practical way and say to the particular industry: "These are the kinds of practices that are going on in your industry that are not acceptable." Where he feels comfortable about citing particular facts regarding certain practices, he should do that as a warning. "If you do not get your act together, we're going to bring in legislation." There isn't a great deal of that going on.

I don't think the AVCs are that widely distributed, and I think that the money is not that large in terms of the cost to see that these people have these kinds of bulletins. Because we do have to have a continuing reminder to this particular industry that practices are going on— and not just by fly-by-night operations either — in respect to people who are being ripped off. You know, it's not just the issue of some salesman misrepresenting a particular vehicle. In the Docksteader case, where there was an AVC signed, I pointed out that people were under the impression in this particular case that they were buying a new car. It was only really by a coincidence that they happened to run into somebody that had actually had the car previously. They were advised that it was not new, it had been in an accident, and it had been fixed up. Also, what happened in one of the two instances in which the AVC was involved was that the odometer was rolled back.

It took these people almost a year to get back their money. I met them and discussed with them the kind of problems they had, the kind of abuse that they took and the incredible amount of time that it took them — the loss of work time on behalf of both of them — going down to see the owner and asking for redress and then being involved with the minister's department, and certainly they did a good job.

What's worrying you, Mr. Minister of Human Resources? What is upsetting you? Is he worried or something, Mr. Minister? Mr. Speaker, what is he worried about?

Interjection

MR. LEVI: Bill, slop chuntering: read your letters.

The thing is, they went to the ministry and they were able to get assistance, but it was a long, long process. The upshot of that case was that it was on it's way into the supreme court. In fact, it was in the supreme court. Then the lawyers got together and

[ Page 4886 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Listen, I can remember the time, buddy-:boy, when you used to stand over here and I was sitting over there. I never went to sleep when you spoke, because your heightened "anglophilic" accent used to keep me awake. Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I'm only one of the few people in here who can say that. I'm the only one who can say this — "anglophilic." Or is it "anglophallic"? I can't remember.

Just to sum up, Mr. Speaker: there are some serious shortcomings with the bill. It does not in any way set out any protection for the consumers. It really starts to re-organize the industry in terms of registration. Okay. It's going to depend on the registrar — how hard-nosed he is going to be in respect to who's going to be registered. That's important, but down the road somewhere there has to be some better legislation than we have today. This is not an industry that has shown in the past that it's prepared to keep its own house in order. It's a highly competitive industry. I am not of the opinion that even though fewer people will seek to be registered of those who are practising" now — about 500 different businesses — there won't be more people who will want to come into it. It's that kind of an industry.

The key to the legislation — at least I would like to see it as the key — is that it just now opens the door and indicates to the industry that there is more to come. It says to the consumer that we are serious about seeing that they are protected and that we will bring in more legislation. It seems to me that you are going to have to legislate the issue of warranties, and it is important. If we do that, then we are on the way to matching what is going on in Australia and having worthwhile, practical, industry-supported legislation. It is industry-supported in Australia, and we want to get the support of that industry here, so that the veracity of the industry is upheld and the rights of the consumer are upheld. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, just a few remarks in addition to what was said by the second member for Burrard. The warranty problem shouldn't be hard to solve in this province. Bill Neilson had a good draft and he wrote a report on it, as I recall. I think Ontario is legislating in the realm of warranties, based on that report — maybe they haven't yet but it shouldn't be too hard. There is a good report on the question of warranties and if the minister will rifle the desks around his department he will find it.

The second point I want to make is, there should be a requirement in this legislation that in the case of repairs, the dealer or the repair shop give a proper estimate of the costs to the member of the public who brings the car in. That shouldn't be too difficult, but it should be enforced. Too often, somebody takes in a used car into a repair shop and at first there is carburetor trouble. But by the time you go to pick up the car, the chassis was bent and the transmission had been stolen — as it was in the Surrey Dodge case, by somebody who didn't steal the car but stole the transmission and had to ... but that is the kind of thing. Then you find that you are faced with a huge repair bill. You should have been given an estimate, as a matter of course, after examination by the dealer, of the cost of the repair job. You should be able to rely on that, but you can't rely on it today. The consumer is ripped off time after time by unnecessary work being done on a car and then charged up to the consumer who is subject to a lien. He doesn't want to go to court — the car can be seized — so he pays and he is ripped off.

The next suggestion I have for the minister, Mr. Speaker, is that when you buy a used car the purchaser should be handed a statement about the car. That shouldn't be difficult. If a salesman is going out to sell a house, he should give full particulars about that house to the purchaser. They don't always do that either, but they should. The car dealer should take the time to acquire a little, history of the car. Was it in a bad accident? Has it been used as a taxi? He shouldn't be concerned with just the mileage on it and the odometer thing. That's fine, but what were the repairs that have gone into that car? What was the previous use of the car? A statement of that kind shouldn't be too hard to compile and there should be a duty on car dealers to compile that statement and hand it to the purchaser who then has some protection. If the statement is in error or the car is found to be something else entirely.... The provision of information to the consuming public is the way to check most of these abuses. That should be written into the Act.

The final point I want to bring up with the minister is that I am not sold on all these federal consumer offices. I think it's needless duplication. I can see the necessity for the government of Canada passing a law with regard to consumer practices that extends from coast to coast, but the administration and the enforcement of those laws shouldn't be in the hands of a provincial department here and the federal department down the street. That's needlessly spending the taxpayer's dollar and confusing the public. We see that all through Confederation today. We've gone crazy with excessive government and overlapping agencies, even in the case of labour relations where you have got a good B.C. Labour Relations Board.

[ Page 4887 ]

Am I on the bill, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're going to be on the porch.

MR. MACDONALD: You know, let them have a federal Labour Code, but in enforcing it why not have it then devolved to the H.C. Labour Relations Board to conduct labour relations in the province? Why two? God, you go into that B.C. branch of the federal Labour Ministry and you could fire a shotgun through there and not hit a soul. It's a waste of money.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this bill I don't have the detailed appreciation of the bill that the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) has outlined but it seems to me that insofar as the registering of motor dealers is concerned, I like the positive approach that anyone has the right to seek to be registered and the registrar must show reasons why not. This seems to me to be a very fair and reasonable approach and really is the approach we have in the· professional fields of medicine, law, dentistry, and all the others. The person who wishes to offer a service demonstrates that he has the qualifications and the registrar has to show reason why he shall not be registered. For that reason, I think this particular part of the bill is very sound.

I'm just wondering about one respect, and I would appreciate the Speaker's comment on this. In his introductory remarks, .the minister mentioned that one major change would be a reduction in the number of businesses which are subjected to licensing since some of the marginal or part-time dealers may not qualify for registration. On that basis, I wonder.... I say this in all seriousness .since we've got problems with the Constitution Act all around this place. This Act, in my view, provides members of this House who are car dealers with a direct pecuniary interest in this bill inasmuch as the minister has stated that the bill will reduce competition by reducing the number of registered dealers. This means that other persons selling vehicles have less competition. I'm not raising this point frivolously. I think that some of the arguments we have gotten into over other matters....

HON. MR. GARDOM: What about the tax bills you vote on? Are you going to extend the argument to that?

MR. WALLACE: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm just trying to make the point that under standing order 18 it relates to the words "direct pecuniary interest." This issue has been: gone over many different times in this House. While we all debate the budget and obviously have a financial interest, the phrase that is important is "direct pecuniary interest," in my view. I don't mean to make a big issue of this, but I don't suggest that it is frivolous either. I'm simply saying that the minister himself, in introducing second reading, has made it plain that the bill may well eliminate some of the competition in the business. If that is the case, then I would think the point I am raising at least deserves mention by the minister, and perhaps comment by the Speaker.

Otherwise I think 'the bill, in principle, moves very much in the right direction of trying to upgrade and improve the business of selling, servicing and repairing cars. While it may not provide all the improvements that members of the official opposition have asked for, it would seem to me that it is very much a step in the right direction. I can certainly support this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just before we proceed further in closing second reading on this bill, I have a quick observation' on the point raised by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). In order for an hon. member to be concerned about the implications of standing order 18, I observe that it must be a situation with conditions that are not in common with all other people and all other subjects within the provincial jurisdiction. So I fail to see immediately why a person whose business happens to be the selling of cars, either new or used, would be disqualified from speaking to or voting' on the bill that is presently before us.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think that also in answer to the member for Oak Bay I might mention the only Latin phrase I learned at law school: de minimis non curat lex — the law does not concern itself with trifles. I really don't think that anybody is going to make any substantial amount of money in the car industry by reason of putting curbers out of business. It would be very difficult to trace any amount of money demonstrably to one car dealer or another by reason of putting them out of business.

MR. LAUK: The maximum refers only to your fee.

HON. MR. MAIR: As a matter of fact, I used that at all times in order to justify fees that were as outrageous as yours, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the questions that I heard during my estimates 'posed to me again during this bill. May I just remind the members that the name of the Act is Motor Dealers Licensing Act? It really has got nothing whatever to do with standards of practice after they've got their licence; we deal 'with that under the Trade Practices Act. I might say, Mr. Speaker, in the event that some

[ Page 4888 ]

The member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) placed a great deal of weight on a submission made to us by the B.C. Automobile Association. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that submission did not come to our attention until the cabinet meeting in question and we were not given any advance copy of it. I'm sure the member would agree that only a very small part of it dealt with this particular problem.

In commenting upon it afterwards, I made remarks which I make again today. It's not really fair to look at areas like Australia, New Zealand or, indeed, Europe in talking about used car warranties where they, not in all cases hut by and large, have a logbook system

Secondly, they have an entirely different attitude toward the automobile than we do in North America. They don't have the six- or seven-year obsolescence thinking that we do — run them into the ground and buy a new one after three or four years. The whole situation, therefore, is much more conducive to a used-car warranty system.

That is not to say we're not looking at it, Mr. Speaker, through you to the members opposite. We are; we're considering it very carefully. However, we would not put it in this bill, we would put it in another bill that more appropriately would deal with that subject.

Once again, although this is perhaps not apropos to the bill, the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) raised the question of assurances of voluntary compliance. I did have a strong feeling of deja vu, because I heard the same questions during my estimates and I gave the same answer I'm giving now: we have radically changed the enforcement procedure over the last few months. As far as we're concerned, if there is a clear breach of the Trade Practices Act, we prosecute. If we use the AVC at all, it is as a legitimate settlement document, not as something to be negotiated as a right from the beginning. The AVC is going to be rarely used and only in those extraordinary circumstances.

Once again, it's difficult to relate to a licensing bill, but the member does talk about 30 per cent of our complaints dealing with motor dealers. The question really is a little unfair because that also includes repairs, Mr. Member, so it's not entirely due to the dealings of the motor dealers themselves.

There is no question about it, however, that we are dealing here with a very large, complicated piece of machinery that is often sold, resold and resold again, and it does create by that reason a number of difficulties that the member has alluded to, and quite correctly.

Regarding the question raised by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) concerning statements on the condition of a vehicle, I've made remarks in this connection with regard to the real estate industry, and I quite agree that we should move in this direction. I think it is important that we encourage, if not by legislation then certainly by persuasion, dealers, whether they be dealers of houses or cars, to give some sort of warranty in advance of people buying.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered more than the questions raised dealing with the bill; in fact I've dealt with other areas of my ministry. Accordingly, I move now that the bill be read a second time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before taking the division I wish to refer to May, 18th edition, at page 398, with respect to personal pecuniary interests. "In the Commons it is a rule that no member who has a direct pecuniary interest in a question shall be allowed to vote upon it, but in order to operate as a disqualification, this interest must be immediate and personal, and not of a general or remote character."

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

MR. LAUK: In addition to recording, I request that all the names of those voting "yea" be recorded Journals of the House.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 39 to Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith. Leave granted. Bill 39, Motor Dealers Licensing Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

MOTOR DEALERS LICENSING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 39; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. MAIR: I move the first amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. LEVI: Could the minister just tell me why it is that in the definition of motor vehicles, they've excluded a number of operations including electrical

[ Page 4889 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: To the second member for Vancouver-Burrard, it's the intention of this Act to register dealers who sell vehicles for personal use only, rather than go the wider spectrum of getting vehicles that are used in the logging industry, the mining industry, and so on and so forth. It may very well be that sometime the registration of those people will become necessary or desirable, but it is not the ministry's feeling that it is desirable at this stage.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: I move the second amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.) Amendment approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: I move the third amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: I move the fourth amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

HON. MR. MAIR: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Sections 15 to 22 inclusive approved.

On Section 23.

MR. LEVI: What exceptions are there to the odometer...? It says "except as permitted by regulation a person shall...." What particular regulation allows one to interfere with it?

HON. MR. MAIR: The one that comes immediately to mind, Mr. Member, is in the case where an odometer might have broken and was not a known fact at the time. There may be other such exceptions, but they would be of that order.

Sections 23 to 30 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 39, Motor Dealers Licensing Act, reported complete as amended.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. MAIR: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 39, Motor Dealers Licensing Act, read a third tune and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 54.

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 54; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 54, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 4890 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 75.

STRATA TITLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1977, NO. 2

The House in committee on Bill 75; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to Bill 75, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: Well I'm not sure if this is specifically on the amendment because I haven't got it out of the book yet.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's on the order paper.

MR. BARBER: Yes, I know. I don't have it. This bill is something of a surprise. I understood there's another one coming through. Could you give me one second to look it up? Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the amendment is section l(e), line 2, dealing with the definition of charge by deleting "estate" and substituting the word" "interest."

MR. BARBER: Can you tell me on what page of today's orders that appears, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Page 16, for the member.

MR. BARBER: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. According to my notes, we have no particular objection to this. When we get to the main section I do, after amended, or if you will now, as amended. I should like to repeat, if I may, the couple of questions I raised yesterday on second reading.

Amendment approved.

On section 1 as amended.

MR. BARBER: If the minister is agreeable, I did raise a couple of questions yesterday, and he said he would answer when in committee. I would appreciate his comments now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) indicated yesterday three matters which were of concern to him, and I undertook to attempt to deal with them in committee stage. With respect to section I(a), Bill 75 does remove the concept of separate locally appointed approving officers for strata title subdivisions. The definition of approving officer was amended so that it would be consistent with the definition in the Land Registry Act. There will be guidelines established by regulation for approving officers carrying out this function to follow when dealing with bare land strata plans.

In this way the interests of regional districts will be protected and served. Further explanations will follow in sequence, I think, on other sections.

MR. BARBER: Apart from consistency with the Land Registry Act, and I appreciate that argument, could the minister inform me regarding the taking from the regional districts — at least one of which is particularly concerned about this aspect, and I raised that yesterday — this particular authority. That being taken from them, what assurance might they have that their continued legitimate interests in being able to prevent improper bare land subdivisions will not be denied by this new provision in the bill?

HON. MR. CURTlS: As I indicated, they will be dealt with in regulations. Nothing is being taken away: We're looking for consistency in this Act and in land registry.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, the Land Registry Act is to be repealed under section I of another bill. Under section 321 of the new Land Titles Act, the Land Registry Act is to be repealed, so where will this leave the definition of approving officer?

HON. MR. CURTlS: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that I can discuss another bill, but it is consistent with what is already in the Land Registry Act and what is contemplated in another bill before this House.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. BARBER: This is the section which contains, as we read it, a legal error. Section 3 is amended, if the minister will look on page 2 of the Act, down at the bottom, looking at (f). Section 3(f) is amended by repealing subsection 4(b), et cetera. It proceeds on to (i), and here is where the apparent problem is. As we read it, section 3(i) of the amendment Act has a

[ Page 4891 ]

Basically what you have done is create a situation where in an active part of this bill, as you propose it via this amendment, you refer to another part of the same bill which, in fact,. is repealed. I draw your specific attention, if I may, to page 3. Mr. Minister, under (i). I will read it out to show you what happens. It says, "by repealing subsection (5)(f)", and then you take a look on page 4 at 5(f). It reads: "(iii) a conversion into strata lots of a previously occupied building by an owner-developer other than the Crown, be accompanied by a certificate of approval under section 5(5)." Then you turn to section 5(5) and it says: "(b) by repealing subsections (4) and (5)" — i.e., it's repealed. Section 5 is amended by repealing, in part, subsection (5); however, section 3 makes active reference to section 5(5)by requiring a certificate of approval. As we read this. it is a contradiction. It's just a technical amendment, but I wonder if it would be....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I believe there is an amendment on the order paper that will delete that.

MR. BARBER: With this one?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, 5(5).

MR. BARBER: Is it here? I better take a look at those amendments a little more closely. Not having done so. can the minister tell me whether or not it refers to this apparent improbability?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I think it might help members to realize that the amendments which are on the order paper and I feel it is necessary to explain — are correcting some technical inaccuracies in the former Act as well as clarifying certain sections of this bill. The amendment, as was pointed out by the Chair, which is coming up in just a few moments, I expect, will resolve the difficulty the hon. member has identified.

With reference to this particular section, the approval requirements for strata plans are now dealt with under sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Section 3(5)(f) is only amended, Mr. Chairman, to include the appropriate cross references. We can deal with this in detail, I would expect, in sections 4 and 5, if members wish.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: If I understand properly, this amendment corrects the apparent anomaly, which my researcher indicated, where one bill referred to another that is now appealed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Sections 14 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

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

[ Page 4892 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Sections 19 to 25 inclusive approved.

On section 26.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 26 as amended approved.

Sections 27 to 51 inclusive approved.

On section 52.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the first amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the second amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 52 as amended approved.

Sections 53 to 58 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 75, Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2), reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 75, Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2), read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 42.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 42; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the first amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the second amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: I actually rose on the first amendment, but I expect this will do as it certainly covers the intent of it.

The minister has indicated that as a result of presentations from municipal government, in effect, the operating principle of this section was expanded to allow municipalities at their own initiative to take advantage-of the development permit process. I have contacted some people in municipal government who are pleased indeed that it was so expanded. Some of the amendments that are on the order paper here today on page 12 appear to take that into consideration. I wonder, though, if the minister could indicate to the House whether he's prepared to give any further undertakings to local government that by amendment, if it turns out they don't have the power.... Some of them fear they still might not have to initiate development permits as actively and as progressively and imaginatively as they might have. I wonder if the minister will undertake today, by telling them so in this House, to give them that authority and that assurance in the near future.

I realize that it's a somewhat unusual request to make of the minister, but I continue to hear from the people with whom I consult in municipal government that indeed amendments, both on the order paper and in the form of the bill itself, still don't absolutely reassure them that the initiative they want to take and the leadership they want to show, given the context and the history of some abuses of land-use contracts, will really be open to them. Technically, it

[ Page 4893 ]

HON. MR. CURTlS: It would be difficult to give an undertaking which might take the ministry beyond the limits of the legislation which is being discussed and which, hopefully, will pass at some point and be given royal assent. I indicated at the outset of second reading that the amendments contained in Bill 42 were the most significant, the most far-reaching. in terms of local government in British Columbia. in many years.

It might be appropriate at this point to respond to the member and other members of the committee that we are clearly going to have to send out explanatory information and answer a variety of questions which will flow from local government as this becomes law. Again, no one can indicate when this particular session of the Legislature will terminate, but we are" not that far from a 1978 session. This will give the municipalities some months in which to consider the amendments, to use them, to become familiar with them. and to point out if. in their view. there are deficiencies. Or, indeed, there may not be deficiencies.

So we see the Municipal Act, Mr. Chairman — and particularly this land-use control and planning area as a continually evolving document. I can't guarantee, but I would expect there would be further refinements or amendments in 1978 in 1979 and in successive years. So the undertaking, to the best of my ability, is given in response to the point raised by the member.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the third amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the fourth amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: This is one that, in effect, adds six months to the startup period. I wonder if the minister could tell us very briefly what persuaded him that the extra six months were required.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The first considerations to these sections were given last fall. The bill was introduced at the beginning of April, and it was anticipated that it might become law before August 24 or 25. Therefore we saw some time ago, since we were not running on what had been a schedule that seemed logical at the time, that it was appropriate to extend the transition time by a further six months. It's as simple as that.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the fifth amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

MR. BARBER: The section allows the minister to alter boundaries of regional districts. It allows the minister. having given six months' notice to the regional districts, to recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Counci1that two districts be merged if they should be adjoining, or that boundaries should be altered if it appears worthwhile. This is a section which, as the minister knows, and we

[ Page 4894 ]

most certainly know, is of some concern to local government. Nowhere in the explanatory notes or, to the best of my knowledge, in any of the minister's statements to date, has he illustrated the need, such as he sees it, for these provisions. Indeed, it has been the expressed fear of some people in local government — again, those with whom I regularly consult — that this might be a kind of enforced amalgamation about which the voters will have no say at all. It might be an opportunity for amalgamation of districts to be forced without it ever being tested by the voters themselves to see whether or not they like the idea. Without doubt, regional districts are in some considerable difficulty these days. They're being challenged and criticized by their own constituents and, indeed, often by their own directors.

What concerns me here is that perhaps in partial answer to those criticisms, the minister has proposed a remedy which may create a great many more criticisms. This could, in effect, be forced amalgamation without it ever being tested at a vote at a local level. I wonder why the minister feels this necessary. I ask him whether or not he can illustrate such case histories and give such examples as may defend it, at least in his mind.

Thirdly, I ask whether or not he is willing to give consideration to putting these kinds of choices to the voters for popular decision. At the moment amalgamation can, of course, be forced — and it has been — in this province, and we know it. But often, and wisely, provincial governments, regardless of the party they happen to represent at the time, have chosen' to test such possible amalgamation with the voters before anything should ever be forced on them. In section 20, there is no provision whatever for testing. It allows this minister, or any other minister, to decide personally whether or not to alter the boundaries of regional districts and, indeed, whether or not to combine them in a real amalgamation, which has not been previously provided for in this Act. I would appreciate the minister's answers to those three questions.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member I think not deliberately, but perhaps inadvertently is incorrectly using a term which is not dealt with, intended, implied or in fact, existing in section 20. That is "amalgamation." My understanding of amalgamation is to take a municipality and combine it with something else to amalgamate into a larger local government jurisdiction — another larger municipality. Yes, it was possible, under the NDP, to enforce amalgamations. That existed.. in this Act for some time, hence the Kamloops and Kelowna situations, which we've had to work pretty hard to clear up, as a matter of fact, in the intervening years.

This is an adjustment of regional district boundaries, Mr. Chairman. In other words, it would 'permit the minister, as spelled out — in consultation, with six months' notice to the regional districts concerned — to adjust boundaries, but if an electoral area is such in one regional district, it could not become incorporated, under this section, in another regional district. It would simply become an electoral area in another regional district. It provides for the adjustment of regional district boundaries only, not municipal boundaries or the expansion of municipal boundaries. The reason is that the boundaries were drawn somewhat arbitrarily 12 years ago and there are clear instances where an adjustment of boundaries should at least be examined. We have no specific adjustments which are in mind at this moment and which will happen immediately after royal assent. I do caution the member that amalgamations are not seen in this in any respect.

MR. BARBER: With respect, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, sections (e) and (f) indicate that the boundaries of two or more adjoining regional districts may be altered, or a present regional district may be divided into two or more regional districts. I am not raising that particular point, I am raising (d). Now my use of the word "amalgamation" is perhaps too coloured by the conventional use of it in this province, which would perhaps restrict that definition to municipalities only. Section (d) reads simply: "After six months' notice to the regional districts affected," the minister may "recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that two or more adjoining regional districts be merged." Well, for me, Mr. Chairman, that means amalgamation.

The minister might not like the particular connotation of that word, but the power is clearly implicit here, and it was never there before, that wholesale merging of two or more — it could be three or four or five, if they had contiguous boundaries presently distinct, separate and autonomous regional districts may be forced or, in the language of the bill, merged. Well, to me, if you can alter the boundaries so as to create a merged, single identity where two or more previously existed, that indeed is a form of amalgamation.

Again, some cases but not all, are freely conceived in this province. Such amalgamation at a municipal level has been tested with the voters first. It occurs to me that it would be wise and prudent if there should be an opportunity for the voters in these regional districts — I appreciate the distinction between electoral districts and regional districts in this sense to have their voices heard on this too.

Indeed, there are some regional districts in this province which perform really quite admirably. They have a wide variety of functions and handle those functions in a very prudent, cautious and effective way. There may be a number of citizens presently

[ Page 4895 ]

I feel, and our party feels, that this should be tested in some manner or another. Perhaps a direct vote is not the only way to do it. Perhaps there are other tests that come to mind. But as I read it, this clearly provides for the forced merging, as the bill puts it, or amalgamation, as most people would call it, of regional districts — two or more which were previously distinct — into one. We're concerned about that.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I'd like a little clarification on this one too. I think it is a very worthy section of the bill. In the Regional District of Fraser-Fort George, for example, we have the McBride-Valemount area that is part of the regional district. McBride, the closer community, is something like 130 miles from Prince George, and Valemount's another 50 miles beyond there. It's pretty difficult for all the directors on the regional district to have a very thorough knowledge of the background or what's going on in that community when it's that remote. Again, it's pretty difficult for the directors from that area to attend .. meetings in the Prince George area.

I just wondered, Mr. Minister: what population base would be necessary for. an individual regional district, or what would be an assessment base that would be considered? Would they be better off looking at the form of a district municipality;and still stay in the same regional district? Or would all these be considered on the individual merits? I think that probably would be a case. They would have a lot more local control if they had a smaller, more compact, regional district, but the population. base is

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I share the concern of other members about this section. The regional districts in British Columbia, as far as I'm concerned, were a superb innovation when they came in, and the regional district governments have, generally speaking, been doing a good job. I don't think that any change in their boundaries ought to be undertaken at all lightly, and in particular, I don't think that this Legislature ought to confer the power on the cabinet to change any regional district boundaries simply by cabinet order. That is exactly what, this section would do.

The territorial integrity of any governmental unit is fundamental to the ability of that unit not only to function on a day-by-day basis, but to plan for the future — for growth and expansion and the needs of its people. If regional districts come to have some uncertainty — even simple theoretical uncertainty of the kind that would be created by this section — as to what their boundaries might be over the next two years, their ability to plan and to know which citizens for whom they will be planning will be seriously compromised, in my view.

Therefore there should, at a minimum, be some restriction on the power which would be conferred by this section, in terms of local approval by vote of the electors in the areas to be affected, generally speaking. There should be some kind of approval of whatever scheme the minister of the day might want to put forward — to either consolidate or divide or rearrange regional district boundaries, in whatever way it might be. I appreciate that a case can be made for the change in some regional district boundaries.

I appreciate, too, that I believe the minister has underway or is about to commission a study into the general function of regional district governments. I am concerned that at this point, we should be so easily and almost offhandedly conceding power to change the boundaries of regional districts in a way that the minister would not, I think, wish to lightly exercise in terms of, let's say, municipal boundaries. I don't think that any more of that power should be available in terms of regional districts. As a matter of fact, I think the minister does have certain powers now in terms of municipal boundaries that perhaps go almost as far as that. But that doesn't make this right.

It seems to me that the territorial integrity of regional districts should at least be protected by the right of the people in the, area affected to vote on it. For that reason I oppose this section as it is currently drafted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the remarks by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson), we agree to disagree, and we have a means to resolve that in

MR. WALLACE: Like what?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will come back to that point in just a moment. The hon. member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) indicated a question with respect to what should happen to a particular unit within a regional district electoral area boundary. He's quite right — the

[ Page 4896 ]

criteria vary tremendously and some electoral areas and some municipalities have very low assessment. We would have to examine each one on its merits and would attempt, with the area concerned, to determine what is most desirable.

That brings me back to the comments made by the two opposition members with respect to section 20. I believe that it's a good move; I'm satisfied with it. We've looked at it very carefully. There is six months' notice of intended change. Once again, a great deal of public discussion, exchange of ideas and opposition, can take place in six months. Or, in some instances, there might be nothing more than silent agreement that a particular change is required.

It's strange for the critic of the New Democratic Party to speak about voting rights. He is a member of a party now. He was not a member of this Legislature when two municipalities and adjacent areas in the interior, Kamloops and Kelowna, were amalgamated — just like that, presto. He may not agree with that.

The fact of the matter is that his party put it into this legislation and enforced amalgamation of two very large communities in British Columbia, so don't talk to me about voting rights for individuals. If you disagree with what we propose here in terms of adjusting regional district boundaries only, then you cannot agree with what your colleagues did in the former government and you should not be sitting with that party; you should be sitting down there. Mr. Speaker, I don't know how the former Minister of Municipal Affairs felt about local government. I suspect that he had something just above contempt for local government. I respect local government.

This section will permit us to sit down and give notice to a regional district or regional districts and say: "For obvious reasons, because of this development here, that low assessment there and because of the growth of a community over the last 10 or 12 years, it makes sense to change the regional district boundaries — to use your word — "to merge two regional districts or electoral areas. Here is six months' notice. First of all, do you think we should do it? How do you regional districts feel about it?" They'll say: "No, we don't want anything to do with it."

All right, then we may not proceed. But if we still believe that it's in the best interests of the area concerned, we will give the six months' notice. It will follow that there will be great public debate and discussion and then the cabinet will or will not agree to proceed with the proposed change.

So, Mr. Chairman, it's here. It has not been here but, with respect, to hear that this, which deals only with regional district boundaries and does not move someone from an unorganized area into an organized area, is objectionable to the official opposition, is a little bit difficult to take after we had the enforced amalgamation by the former government of two communities in this province.

MR. BARBER: As it happens, I wasn't a member of any party, much less of this Legislature, at the time this· came in, and it's hardly any secret that I am in occasional disagreement with my own party.

One of the things that does concern me is the fact that neither here nor, as I freely conceded in the previous forced amalgamations, in the New Democratic government and the prior Social Credit government, were there always opportunities to test public opinion in advance of such a move. If I'm in disagreement with my own party, well, so be it. That's happened before.

I do recall that voting was indeed permitted in Nanaimo when that occurred during our administration and in one other city. There was another city where a vote took place, wasn't there?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: That was forced. That was greater

AN HON. MEMBER: Brocklehurst.

MR. BARBER: Brocklehurst.

The point remains, for myself" an important philosophic one. I think that though public hearing, through testing and through the six-month notice that the minister has given — and I think that's very good — opportunities be provided to test and examine public opinion. Simply providing six months isn't necessarily adequate to the job. There is no provision in here for, shall we say, public hearings or even meetings sponsored by the ministry.

I would appreciate it if the minister would give an undertaking that during the six months, if he does announce that he is considering the recommendation of a merger or a change in boundaries, his ministry would be willing to sponsor such public meetings and to test public opinion in that kind of way. I think that's an important philosophic commitment and I would appreciate hearing from the minister about it.

I personally feel that those citizens have a right to be heard and to be consulted very literally, very personally and very immediately before these kinds of decisions are taken. I find at the moment no immediate provision for that, save the grant of six months. I'm glad it's not six weeks, and that's certainly good. But I think that a further commitment could be made to test that opinion.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the minister an analogy as to the kind of authority that this would be giving the cabinet. This would be similar to Ottawa being able to say to the provinces:

[ Page 4897 ]

"We don't think that the boundaries between the provinces are quite right. We'd like to straighten them out a little bit." For example, they might say: "Well, the Peace River block really does fit more naturally into Alberta. We'll cut off British Columbia, continue on up the Rocky Mountain chain to the Yukon, and so on." That might make sense to Ottawa. Under the minister's philosophy with this particular legislation, he would seem to give them the power to do that.

I reject that kind of argument. To me, what the minister has told us is that he will tell the regional districts what he is proposing to do. They will have six months to tell him whether they agree or disagree. If they disagree, and if he still thinks it's best, Victoria will go ahead and do what it thinks best in any case.

I don't think that is proper. I don't think that is a belief in the philosophy of local control. Local control includes the power to make your own mistakes and to carry on with local boundaries that are as the local people choose· them to be. If local people, whether through their regional district councils, Or through an election, or through some kind of a referendum on a change in the boundaries — which there should be — express their opposition to Victoria's proposed move, Victoria should not attempt to impose such a change in regional district boundaries.

So I say that on the principle of local control, this section is wrong. I repeat to the minister that if he supports this kind of section, then presumably he has to support the right of Ottawa to change provincial boundaries. How wrong that would be! It is clearly wrong for a senior level of government to have the arbitrary power particularly by cabinet order to so simply change the boundaries of a local government unit. I oppose it very much.

Section 20 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 13

Mr. Gibson requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 21.

HON. MR. CURTlS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Sections 22 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

MR. BARBER: Had you forgotten about section 28, Mr. Chairman? Didn't you think that we wanted to talk about this one? Sure we do. This is the section that allows the minister personally, with only the appeal to cabinet, of which he is a member, to rewrite any municipal or regional bylaw in the province.

It is not just us who have been talking about this bill. Our research office has been on the phone this afternoon to the officers' of the executive of the UBCM. There is considerable disagreement there. I wish to read into the record some direct quotes from various members of that executive taken between roughly 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. today. I'm informed that there will be a meeting of the table officers of the

HON. MR. CURTlS: Yes, a regular meeting on Friday.

MR. BARBER: Yes, that's right. At that meeting, I am further informed that this subject will be raised.

HON. MR. CURTlS: They may be meeting to condemn the NDP's actions in this regard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We doubt it very much, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. CURTlS: It's possible.

MR. BARBER: That's certainly not the impression we picked up this afternoon.

HON. MR. CURTlS: Are you sure we are talking to the same executive?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Only one member can speak at a time.

[ Page 4898 ]

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): As the minister is aware, the mayor of Vancouver has sent a letter to him raising strenuous objection to section 28 of Bill 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's pornographic.

MR. BARBER: The mayor is a member of the executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The chairman of the regional district of Nanaimo has raised objection to the bill, and Mr. Smith has made that a matter of public record. The chairman of the Capital Regional District has raised strenuous objection to this section of the bill. He calls it "a danger to democracy and a massive conceit." Mr. Campbell is considerably opposed to this section of the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What day did he say that?

MR. BARBER: Mr. Campbell? He said it when the announcement was made, when the bill first came down in April. I'm not aware that his opinion of the section has changed or, indeed, that his famous opinion of the minister has altered either. So I would be surprised if there was any change.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not the best of friends.

MR. BARBER: They're not very good friends.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You'd be surprised.

MR. BARBER: However, it should be pointed out as well that another member of the executive, Mayor Harold Moffat of Prince George, has described this section of the bill as "real fascism."

This afternoon, we were on the phone to Mayor Shaw, who is the village representative on the executive of the Union of RC. Municipalities. He says, and I quote directly from him, this afternoon when interviewed by one of our research officers: "I have my reservations about that kind of authority. There is no need to put that kind of authority in the hands of the minister." This hardly seems to me like strong support for the position that the minister has taken or, indeed, for the suggestion that this has received anything like the blessing of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

How does Mayor Ferguson, the treasurer of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the mayor. of the district of Abbotsford, describe the bill? At 3:05 p.m., today, he simply said: "This is too much power to the minister." He is opposed to it.

Mayor Muni Evers, I am informed by my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), although I have not spoken to him personally, has also raised objection to this section of this bill on, I understand, the same ground as Mayor Ferguson, Mayor Shaw, Mayor Moffat, Chairman Campbell, Mayor Volrich and Chairman Smith have already raised.

It seems to us, Mr. Chairman, that what we suggested when this bill came forward for debate originally and what we suggested when we came to the second part of second reading just a few days ago is turning out to be absolutely correct. There is rising in local government in this province a tide of resentment and criticism of a very powerful sort against this provision in the bill. It's my expectation, based on information I've received from people who will be attending it, that at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention, scheduled for the third week in September, there may well be motions presented against this particular section, asking that it be rescinded altogether.

I am informed that there is a considerable quantity of opinion, representing all political parties and ideologies of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, indicating that this particular section will come under extremely heavy attack at the convention. It should be noted that Resolution 15, presently on the books to be discussed at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention, sponsored by the council of Burnaby, asks that section 28 be removed altogether. The council of Burnaby, in the absence of only one of its members, unanimously condemns this section and unanimously condemns the philosophy behind it. We believe that this section has, little support from municipal government, little support from regional government, and deserves no support at all from this Legislature.

We don't think that this minister deserves this power. No minister of ours ever asked for it. No Municipal Affairs minister in this province has ever had it, and in my personal and strong view, no minister deserves it. We condemn this section. We ask once again that the minister refuse it. We ask once again that he withdraw it altogether from the bill. We ask once again that the Union of B.C. Municipalities at its convention have an opportunity to question this kind of power, be it in this section or in any other in the Municipal Act. They have a right to be heard and as we hear them, as recently as just an hour ago, they are increasing and growing in their opposition to this section. We oppose this section and ask the minister to withdraw it.

MR. BARRETT: There seems to be a conflict of evidence here. The minister left the impression with this House, perhaps unwittingly, that he had great support· from municipal leaders and municipal officials. Perhaps the minister could get up in the House and file letters with the House from any mayor or executive member of the UBCM who supports this.

[ Page 4899 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you participating in the debate or are you playing court?

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking you a question. We're in committee; we're asking questions. I'm asking you a question. Would you like me to give you the answer? I can't do that. No, you've got to do your

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, Mr. Chairman. He was asking me a question and I was asking him a question. Now we have traded questions.

I asked the minister: has he any correspondence from any leading municipal official or member of the UBCM who supports this section of the bill? Does the minister have any correspondence from anybody?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only one member can speak at a time, hon. member. You're on your feet.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Up or down.

MR. BARRETT: Are you prepared to answer?

HON. MR. CURTIS: This particular member, the Leader of the Opposition. plays this game when he has nothing better to do in his office, I suppose.

MR. BARRETT: I ask you a question....

HON. MR. CURTlS: If he has points to make in debate, let him make the points.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I do. That is, I've made the points. Don't tell me what to do. This is committee.

HON. MR. CURTlS: If he has specific points to bring forward, do so, but don't play they "are you going to answer, are you going to give me the answer now. are you going to stand up?" That's very tiresome. You have been doing that for 16 years and I was tired of it after the first few years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to section 28.

MR. BARRETT: I want to humbly thank the minister for lecturing me on how to behave in committee. I appreciate that genteel know-it-all lecture and I now accept the slap on the wrist.

Now back to the section. If I may humbly beseech the minister, as we are permitted to ask in committee, would he please answer this question: has he ever received a letter from any municipal official, mayor or executive member of the UBCM who supports this section of the bill? Yes or no. All the smokescreen from the minister won't cover up the fact that he tried to leave the impression with this House that he had the blessing of those municipal leaders, which he does not have. All of his nice blandishments about how we should all behave and not be naughty, naughty in committee, won't cover the fact that he's trying to take dictatorial powers under this section. He tried to leave the impression with this House that he had the sanction from municipal officials who were democratically elected, and he does not have that.

He has come close to lying in this House. I'm not saying he has; he has come close to it. He has left the impression that he had the okay from people at the UBCM, and from mayors and councils, and he does not have it. He does not have one whit of evidence, not one letter, not one thing to show this House that he has had any support for this section from any mayor, or any council, or any executive member of the UBCM. If you did, you would have filed it in the House.

I enjoy the minister's little deflective move. After all, he's good at deflecting moves. He used to do it when he was a Liberal, he used to do it when he was a Tory, and now he's doing it as a Socred. The Tory leader knows what kind of story he used to get. Do you remember that, Mr. Tory Leader? You used to think when he said he supported the Tory party that he meant it, remember that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, back to section 28, please.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'm back to the section and dealing with the minister's non-answer.

MR. LAUK: That was his only backbencher you were attacking.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're hard to come by, David.

MR. BARRETT: It's pretty hard to come by.

AN HON. MEMBER: Harder to keep.

MR. BARRETT: Harder to keep. At least you could have a meeting, the old meetings in the phone booth bit. or meet him around a corner and say: "Psst, are you still with me, Hugh? What's the line today?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe it's section 28, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: The minister has been asked

[ Page 4900 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Unlike the NDP government, we don't deal in letters as such, with local government, but rather in consultation on an eyeball to eyeball basis. I admitted the other day in second reading debate, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was not in the House at that time....

MR. BARRETT: I heard you.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I don't know if he was or not, but he may have forgotten the comment that was made. When we first discussed Bill 42, section 28, we discussed all of the sections" obviously, with the executive of the UBCM, with the Municipal Officers Association and representatives of the Planning Institute of British Columbia, the municipal section of the B.C. Bar Society, and others involved in, or interested in, local government. We discussed this section at great length with a number of people and they were not happy with it. But when we explained it to them and pointed out very key words which seem to be overlooked by the speakers for the opposition in committee debate — as was the case in second reading debate — that this section comes into play only where something of genuine public provincial interest is concerned. So don't read something into it that is not there. We have been receiving letters in the last little while, one of them an unsolicited letter from the mayor of the city of Duncan. I'm sorry she's not here to participate in the committee debate. I think it's important to indicate that the letter came in disclaiming remarks attributed to the mayor of the city of Duncan by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) in an earlier portion of second reading debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you mean the Socred candidate?

HON. MR. CURTIS: If the member is interested, the closing paragraph:

"Please be assured I would retain the right to be critical of the provincial government and your ministry should the occasion arise. However, in this specific instance over the last several months I have not found it necessary to do so."

So much for letters referred to by members of the official opposition, and comments attributed to individuals who do not even serve on Vancouver Island. In second reading debate, I had to help the member for Cowichan-Malahat recall the name of someone who is associated with Vancouver Island municipalities. She wrongly attributed a remark to the executive director of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

That party did not like local government when it was in government; it does not like local government now. Mr. Chairman, we can disagree on section 28 with some years of experience. I believe that section 28 will fall into perspective, a perspective which the opposition spokesman refused to recognize in debate today and on previous occasions.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is a rule of this House that when a member quotes from a document, that document should be filed. I would ask that the minister indicate

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't believe it is a rule in committee, hon. member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I give the undertaking to the committee that I would be happy to table the entire one-page letter when it is appropriate to do so.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the minister that what I asked was: "Have you had specific endorsation from the UBCM, or anyone on the UBCM, or any mayor on this section 28?" That's what it's all about. Do you have someone at the UBCM executive level who endorses this particular section? That's what I'm asking. I would ask the minister to quietly reflect in a moment of cautious thought that the question is asked in terms of the frame of reference the minister himself gives. He is the only one whom I know of who defines his good relationships with the municipality as being better than any other government. I accept your definition as being your own. You're entitled to your definition, but I'm entitled to a bit more than your definition.

I want to know whether or not, on this specific section, you have heard from anybody at the UBCM or their executive who expresses agreement that whether it's you, sir, who, as a minister.... Perhaps a socialist may become a minister again someday, or goodness forbid! — a Conservative may become a minister someday, or even worse — goodness, goodness forbid! — a Social Crediter may become a minister some day. That might happen, but not as long as that minister's around.

But since, Mr. Chairman, the minister is there, I ask him: have you a letter from any executive member of the UBCM saying: "We agree with section 28 whether you're the minister or not"? Have you that? Please let us know, and the whole debate will be

[ Page 4901 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no. We have no letters. We did not solicit any and none were forthcoming. I see quite clearly as the responsibility of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to occasionally do those things which we believe to be in the provincial interest and not necessarily simply to meet all the requirements of local government.

The former Premier and Leader of the Opposition, if he has spent any time at all with local government in this province, would know that the Union of B.C. Municipalities deals with something in excess of 100 or 110 resolutions at its annual conference each year. A number of them are forwarded to the provincial government through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, to my colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), to the Ministry of Health, and other ministries, and they're not accepted. We agree to disagree on many instances.

In this particular case, the Union of RC. Municipalities, some 18 members strong, give or take one or two, on the executive.... The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) cited today.... I believe he indicated his research people had been in touch with four, five, six.... Well, you know, that was this afternoon. I assume you've also been calling on previous occasions. But again, perspective should be maintained. There are 17 or 18 — I'm subject to correction on the final number — members of the Union of RC. Municipalities executive, a much larger number than the table officers, obviously.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the statements of the minister. Actually. it's a very good debate. I think the point is that what we're getting from the minister is that he is saying to us that when he deems it to be in the best interest, and after considering all the facts, he's ultimately going to make the decision that he thinks is in the best interests of that municipality or of the province. Okay, that's fair enough. That's not the argument in terms of whether or not you think it is the best thing. The question is one of democratic power.

I find it somewhat ironic that this minister would stand in this House representing that coalition group over there, and say in very, very quiet tones that there may be occasions when he thinks local democracy will make a bad decision. Rather than let local democracy, through the voting process, correct itself, he will clean it up to his satisfaction.

There's a dangerous precedent here, Mr. Chairman — the power of veto, a precedent that was clearly spelled out as a major issue of the last election campaign. This particular minister joined another party because he felt that freedoms were being lost in this province. Does the minister not find it ironic that after having campaigned on the mythical loss of freedom, he is part and parcel of a real loss of freedom in this section? Does the minister not find that a little bit ironic, if not uncomfortable or embarrassing? What we're dealing with here is the fact that under the Social Credit administration, the minister has taken unto himself in this section the power to determine whether or not, at occasions that he deems, a council has made a decision he agrees with. He will decide whether or not he likes their decision.

But whether he likes it or not is not what's at stake. What is at stake is the very thing that they mouthed when they were in opposition — but that obviously they don't believe when they're in government — and that is the freedom to make mistakes at the local level through the democratic process. What you're really saying through this section is that people should not bother to go and vote for mayors and councils. People shouldn't listen to debates on the basis of philosophy or approaches, because finally and ultimately, regardless of whom you elect to the municipal council, the minister is reserving for himself the power to change the decisions after you've gone through the whole process of voting.

Now that's dictatorship. It may be benevolent and considering this minister's actions, it will probably be benign, mainly on the basis of fear of making any kind of decision — but that's not good enough. I happen to like the minister, but I don't like his decision.

HON. MR. CURTlS: Please don't.

MR. BARRETT: Well, if you don't want my fawning adoration, Mr. Minister, it's too bad. I love you anyway. You're stuck with it.

MR. WALLACE: The odd couple!

MR. BARRETT: You can't outlaw that. My emotions are mine, and if I wish to share my feelings with you, sir, section 28 or not, I will embrace you as a colleague in this House. But, sir, it is not your principles I embrace. They are too difficult to find.

One is reminded, Mr. Chairman, of the exchange of insults that should never be repeated in this House. In this kind of debate in the House of Commons, when a certain minister was being asked a question about a similar section to this, he was told that that member will either die by hanging or by horrible disease. Do you know what the answer was? The member said: "It depends whether or not I embrace your principles or your mistress." Do you remember that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, I remember.

[ Page 4902 ]

MR. BARRETT: He does. That's the only thing the hotliner remembers. He used to write those quips out to keep it going for three hours.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now we're back to section 28

MR. BARRETT: We certainly are.

MR. WALLACE: We're all the way back to Disraeli.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is he Conservative?

MR. BARRETT: No, but I had other connections with Disraeli. There were only two of us. (Laughter.) We won't comment on that, Mr. Chairman. You bet your life. It took a long space in between him and me. The opportunity was there, but the people never took advantage of it. That was the problem. Good old Disraeli would have never ,gone for this section. He was a Tory.

The point is, Mr. Chairman, that the minister must understand that you cannot presume to draft legislation based on your image impression of yourself. Standing in the mirror and saying, "I will be a good boy and I will not abuse power," is not good enough. The minister is not going to be around forever. The system, hopefully, will be, and the system cannot abide an abuse of power by having written in statute a section that allows the minister to change a duly elected council's decision by whim, by fancy, or by any other reason with which he wishes to rationalize it.

I can accept your appeal that you will be careful, you will be cautious and you will use it sparingly. All of those conditions have been put on by other people in other jurisdictions who also asked for more and more power. "Just this little bit. I won't use it too much. You can trust me. I won't overabuse it." The fact is that the system is more important than that minister or me.

The point that we're trying to get across, so ably and eloquently spelled out by the new MLA, that young man who still has idealism.... Even after experience in the chamber of the House, he still believes in the system and isn't as cynical as some others who have got old scars and old wounds and have, been around in at least one party, or perhaps two or three or four. But that member is in one party, starry-eyed and young, and hasn't reached 30 yet. He still believes that the rule of law and the system shouldn't be interfered with by political whim or fancy even by a good movie fan like you, sir. So I suggest you do the right thing.

MR. LAUK: Resign.

MR. BARRETT: No, that is too cruel.

MR. LAUK: Why?

MR. BARRETT: Because he has gone through all again. the parties that exist. Where is there left for him to go?

MR. LAUK: He could stay home.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I wish you would call my colleague to order. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. members. Only one member can speak at a time, and back to section 28.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the point is that he's a good fellow. I'm a good fellow and we're all good persons in this House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: All honourable men.

MR. LEA: Hear that, Rosemary?

MR. BARRETT: All honourable men, no matter what party we switch from or anything else.

Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the minister to please withdraw this section, and through the removal of this section declare to the electors of this province that: "You may on occasion not agree with the decision that we make, but that's tough." They have — the right to make those decisions whether you agree with them or not. They have a right to change those decisions, whether you agree with them or not, through the ballot box — not through the minister's office. That's what it is really all about.

It is not a question of whether you are a good guy or a bad guy; it's not a question of whether you are nice or naughty; it's simply a question of: "Do you trust people to make their own decisions for themselves in their own jurisdictions?" That is what it is all about.

What the young member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is trying to tell you is that you should allow people to make their own mistakes or correct them, as they see fit, through the ballot box. It is a time-proven system. It sometimes throws things out of Whack, but never makes mistakes and, in the long run, is even, fair, and responsible. It lets people grow to be good citizens. No Big Daddy, no dictatorial power, no broad, sweeping, iron jackboot authority — just let people be free, Mr. Minister. Let freedom ring.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to approach this perhaps in a somewhat different manner and ask the minister if he could give the committee any examples of how he might propose to use this particular power that is being proposed

[ Page 4903 ]

He has agreed with the committee that he has had pretty well unanimous representation from mayors, municipalities and· the UBCM against this particular section of the bill. Clearly he must have very strong reasons for wanting to include this section and to bull it through in this manner against the almost unanimous opposition of the local level of government in this province.

I would ask the minister if he could perhaps give some convincing examples to the committee of circumstances in which these extraordinary powers might be used. I would like a good example in history or even a hypothetical one. Where in the past, for example, would come to the minister's mind where this kind of power might properly have been used by a minister of the Crown to change local government decisions? If he is able to give us some good cases in point then he might change the mind of the committee.

It seems to me most unlikely that the minister would have advanced this kind of extraordinary power without having some circumstances in mind in which the power might be used. I would be very glad if he could enlighten the committee as to the background there.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know the reason for the absence of the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) earlier this week, but I would refer him to the Hansard Blues where I quoted a very specific instance in the Thompson-Nicola regional district which is the kind of thing that gave us concern. The member may have

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to repeat my opposition to this section for the basic reason that it contradicts the whole principle of the relationship between the provincial government and the local level of government, namely, that there is such a thing as local autonomy. When there is a fundamental principle underlying the relationship between two levels of government, this particular power in this section not only contradicts that underlying principle but, of course, sows the seeds of possible discord between local government and the ministry. This is for the simple reason that local governments are bound to ask themselves that if the minister, who stated today his respect for local government, wants to have this power to overturn their democratically reached decisions then, of course, the confidence that they mayor may not have in this minister and this government is sadly undermined. Who would blame municipalities for that serious questioning of the reality of the autonomy that they are supposed to have?

The other point that I would like to stress is that I have some difficulty in understanding the precise wording to which the minister refers in section 28. The wording, Mr. Chairman, reads: "where the bylaw is contrary to the public interest of the province: I feel, for one .thing, that the minister could only quote one particular instance where the government felt that this kind of power would have been useful, and that's in relation to the question I asked the minister in second reading and to which he has referred again this afternoon. But it would seem to me that it would help the opposition to have some more specific, tangible, typical situation where a local bylaw affects the public interest of the whole province. Now there may be other examples that the minister is aware of which would help me to understand this better, but I've been thinking about this section for some time and trying to think in my own mind what kind of local bylaw would be so menacing or unsuitable that its passing in a democratic manner by elected aldermen and mayor in a municipality would have such overriding significance in the public interest of the whole province that the minister would choose to want this power to, in fact, simply neutralize the authority which the electors of that municipality placed in the hands of the aldermen and the mayor through the normal electoral process.

In that regard, I felt that the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), despite all his humour and his other comments, hit the nail on the head when he did say that the voters in a municipality who are to have their elected people's decision overturned in this way are, in fact, being told that one person knows better than they do, whether they are 20,000 people in Oak Bay or 100,000 people in Burnaby.... I'm not referring to the personality of this minister at this time; I'm saying that the section says that one person, who happens at that time to be the Minister of Municipal Affairs, knows better than all the voters in the particular municipality who elected that particular group of aldermen and mayor. I wish not to belabour that point, but simply to say that that is really what underlies my deep concern at this section. I would also hope that perhaps before we finish debate on this section the minister would try to give the House some more tangible, definitive evidence as to the kind of issue — never mind which municipality it might have been or might not have been — that within one municipality could be a significantly undesirable, dangerous, or whatever influence on the public good of the province.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks from the hon. member for Oak Bay with respect to this, but in his debate he has focused on a municipality. I would think that if this authority is used, it is more likely to be used in a regional district.

[ Page 4904 ]

I say it not to suggest that the member for Oak Bay doesn't realize this, but the entire province, with the exception of a tiny corner, is covered by regional districts. Therefore it follows that a regional district board, for one reason or another, could block something which is genuinely in the provincial public interest, and I don't think we can afford that. The decision is being made not by an appointed person, not by the inspector of municipalities, but by an elected person and with an appeal to other elected persons.

So some of the statements which have been made this afternoon and which were made a few days ago and a few weeks ago and, indeed, a number of weeks ago. : . because I wouldn't want our visitors today to think that this is the first time we've talked about this, Mr. Chairman. We've spoken about this repeatedly since the matter was first raised in second reading since the bill came forward in second reading quite a few weeks ago, so we're covering a lot of old ground.

Again, it is apparent that the two sides of the House are in dispute on this section. But the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), I'm sure, will appreciate the fact that local government is not just a municipal council. It is not just an Oak Bay, a Burnaby, a Surrey or a village of Chetwynd; it is the entire province of British Columbia. I think we would be abdicating our responsibility as elected people at the provincial level if we did not have the right in the proven, genuine, provincial public interest to say to a local government jurisdiction: "I'm sorry, we have to overrule you." It's not whether a shopping centre is put in or not. That's not the public, provincial interest. It's not whether an apartment is approved or a subdivision is zoned for single family, single-family duplex or highrise or whatever. But something that is extremely major — it might be a port; it might be port facilities; it might be a pipeline....

MR. BARRETT: Deal with it at that time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Oh. Deal with it at that time. It might be the situation that we discussed the other day, when the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) wasn't present, and that's Afton. Those are some of the examples. Now if members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, wish to focus on the specifics and say "well, what's going to happen?" — I don't know what's going to happen. We identify that we could have a very serious problem where the provincial interest is frustrated by a local council or a local regional board. It's not an easy choice to make. We opt for this choice, Mr. Chairman: a decision by elected people at the provincial level who are answerable to the public provincially.

MR. LLOYD: I'd like to speak in support of this section. In fact, I couldn't support section 25 if it wasn't for this section. Section 25 is the one that deals with the preparation of a community plan and a settlement plan by regional districts. While section 25(769B) indicates that the preparation of the settlement plans will be subject to approval by all the member municipalities in a regional district, by the MLAs and by the minister, I still think some check and balance is very critical at the provincial level. Some of the opposition members have mentioned Mayor Moffat's opposition to this particular section of the bill. I think anyone who is really familiar with the mayor feels that the mayor feels he could probably administer the northern half of the province

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not here to defend himself.

MR. LLOYD: So I think, in all fairness, the recent controversy in Prince George might be a pretty good indication of why a check and balance — or a court of appeal, if you would — should be available at a provincial level. Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Are you accusing the mayor of wrongdoing?

MR. LLOYD: I think the controversy on subdivision direction or zoning or community plans all these controversies at the local level — really show the need for checks and balances at a provincial level. When you're talking of planning or zoning that affects Crown property, like in an area around the district of Mackenzie, where it's all Crown land, that's quite one thing for a local government to sit down and decide that. It's quite another set of priorities when your entire community is surrounded .by private property. Whichever way your zoning or development goes — you make one person a shopping centre, you make one another high-density area — there are definitely areas of conflict there and I think there should be a court of appeal available to property owners who feel their rights have been overridden.

MR. LEA: You just wiped it out!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LLOYD: As an elected MLA, I'd like to have

[ Page 4905 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Please allow the hon. member to debate under section 28.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's putting his foot right in it.

MR. LLOYD: Another thing, Mr. Chairman, which I think raises quite a bit of concern on section 25, if it wasn't for the check and balance of section 28, is the difference between regional districts across the province. It's quite one thing when a regional district is just made up of municipalities that border one another, just bang, bang, bang. It's another matter when the regional districts are spread over 200 or 300 miles and the decisions are made by the board of directors, sitting on that regional district, deciding all the development that's going to take place between their various centres. Of course, the regional districts are always loaded heavier to the population centres. So people who desire a rural lifestyle could quite easily be subverted and made to settle inside the community borders, instead of being able to provide a homesite close to their job, close to the application. I think this is something that has got to be open for an appeal in other areas. I don't think we can have a rigid plan affecting 200 or 300 square miles.

I favour good planning and good development policies as much as anyone else. But I think the criticism that we're getting overgoverned and that there's too much red tape these days is a genuine criticism — very genuine! Rigid planning is one of the things that brings this about. I think there's got to be more flexibility. Certainly having an appeal at the provincial level is one of the areas where that flexibility is exercised.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please take your seats, hon. members. It's very confusing for the Chair.

MR. LLOYD: It seems to be a lively topic, Mr. Chairman. They can't wait to get in the act.

Because of my concern for the rights of the individual, I speak in support of this section 28. I think it is a very necessary part of the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, if I understood the hon. member for Fort George correctly, he was saying something like: "Democracy, but not too far where the local level is concerned." Local people aren't to be trusted. I'm really interested to hear all this talk about checks and balances for what is done at the local level. This is one of the most centralist governments we've ever had in this province.

I again want to bring to that member, and to the committee, the analogy of the federal government vis-a-vis the provinces. Suppose the federal government exercised the kind of checks and balances on the province that this member is suggesting the province should exercise on the local districts. Now the federal government does have a theoretical right of something called disallowance, which hasn't been exercised for many, many years and which the federal government has avowedly said it does not propose to use again, no matter how bad the provincial legislation. Without that kind of restraint, you can't have truly responsible government at a provincial level. The same kind of thing applies to the local level.

This section, Mr. Member, goes far beyond disallowance. It gives the minister the right to completely change whatever the bylaw was and submit his own thoughts in the place of the judgment of the locally elected council. I say that's wrong. It may well be that from time to time there has to be an overriding of decisions made at a local level in the provincial interest. I do not question that. What I say is that overriding must be done either by the courts or by this Legislature, one at a time, on a case-by-case basis, with a special law passed in each case. It is simply too serious a question. this infringement of local control. to be done in the secrecy of the cabinet room.

I think perhaps the game may somewhat have been given away when we started asking the minister about some of the cases that might give rise to the exercise of this kind of power and he mentioned such things as development in the northeastern part of British Columbia. I wonder if he is suggesting that some of the very important developments there might be riding roughshod over the opinions of the regional district on their quite legitimate concerns about the proper installation of social infrastructure as these enormous projects go ahead. This is a very, very serious question.

Now I note that the minister adverted to an example that he had brought forward earlier in the debate having to do with the Thompson-Nicola Regional District. I looked up Monday's Blues and I find that there's about 20 seconds' worth of talk on that. I'll quote the entirety:

Have we had requests from municipalities or regional districts for a regulation such as this? The answer is, no, we have not, although we know that one municipality was very concerned about the possible action which might have been taken by a regional

[ Page 4906 ]

district. That was the Thompson-Nicola Regional District. The city of Kamloops, viewing the possible decision on the part of the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, did not formally identify the need for something of this kind, but in conversation throughout that period we were very concerned, as was the city quite clearly.

MR. BARRETT: That's all there is?

MR. GIBSON: That apparently is the only justification the minister gave for this section of the bill — at least, it's the only one he cited a few moments ago., That, to me, does not on the face of it seem to be a sufficient enough case example for the installation of the very serious principle in this bill which is adverse to local government. I say again to the minister that when something as serious as the overruling of local level government has to be done, that ought to be done by this Legislature, in a full debate in this Legislature, and in no other way.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I think the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) has expressed the true feelings of the Social Credit government, and in particular this minister, with respect to section 28. It is a pure and simple concept of paternalism. It becomes a tragic joke, a tragicomedy, when you hear the member for Fort George talk paternalistically about one of the greatest mayors in the history of British Columbia. Apart from any partisanship — and he was very, very pro-Social Credit in the past — one thing we know about Mayor-Harold Moffat is that it was he and men like him, but particularly Mayor Moffat, who are responsible for the six producing pulp mills in Prince George. It's one of the most thriving municipalities anywhere.

Interjections

MR. LAUK: Well, there are three in Prince George and six altogether in the area.

Now let me tell you something else. If Mayor Moffat thinks he can run the northern half of British Columbia, I can tell you he would do a far better job of running the Ministry of Municipal Affairs than the present minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now back to section 28.

MR. LAUK: This is section 28, Mr. Chairman. Mayor Moffat said he is opposed to section 28. He says it's real fascism. The member for Fort George was on Mayor Moffat's council so Mayor Moffat is an expert on fascism.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you this. This kind of paternalistic attitude on the part of the Social Credit government is creeping into everything they do.

The hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) has suggested it may be a way to ram through every municipality and city and village the pipeline. Just ignore the considerations of local villages and municipalities, overrule bylaws that would be protective in the nature of local communities, overrule bylaws that would be established by various municipal councils to protect property values, to protect home environment, to protect communities. Is this part of a secret deal that was discussed many, many moons ago?

MR. BARRETT: The word slipped out — "pipeline."

MR. LAUK: Pipeline indeed.

The hon. Liberal leader was quite right when he said that the federal government has the power of disallowance. They said they'd never use it. You remember the last time they used it? They used it four times with the Social Credit administration in Alberta. On one of those occasions it was the gag law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now back to section 28.

MR. LAUK: The Social Credit government in Alberta established a" law to try to silence the press of the day. You saw the expression of this attempt by this government by the B.C. Government News — not the usual pamphlet form, but a full-scale newspaper tabloid with editorials from Barron's in New York and pictures of all kinds of Social Credit hacks on the

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you're prepared to talk on section 28 I'll recognize the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: If there's ever a reason for the federal government, Mr. Chairman, to disallow, it's section 28. I'm not suggesting the federal government do it, but, boy, is it ever a good reason — direct interference with locally elected governments.

Are you suggesting, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister of that government over there, that the people are showing bad judgment when they elect municipal councils? That's exactly what you're saying. No one said that democracy is an efficient system.

No one said that it's always right. Democracy is based more or less on majority rule. A majority crucified Christ. The majority do a lot of things that are wrong, but in a democratic system, when you accept democratic principles, you've got to live with the system, good or bad, because in the final analysis we know, through hard experience over generations, that the democratic system in the end is best.

It avoids dictatorial systems emerging. We hear all

[ Page 4907 ]

Mr. Chairman, if ever there was a reason for the federal government to disallow, this would be it, although I don't agree with the power of disallowance at the federal level. And for the member for Fort George to get up and attack Mayor Moffat.... The member for Fort George was elected as a political hack and partisan, on that council and acted so throughout his entire term of office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Personal attacks on members are never in order. Back to Section 28.

MR. LAUK: I'm protecting Mayor Moffat's good honour and integrity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Except on a substantive motion. Unless you're prepared to make that motion, please withdraw.

MR. LAUK: He's perfectly all right as an MLA. It's a great relief to the council at Prince George that he's down here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am asking you to withdraw unconditionally.

MR. LAUK: Withdraw what, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The statement that he is a political hack.

MR. LAUK: I withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please continue on section 28.

MR. LAUK: He was a political partisan and acted so on council throughout all of its deliberations during his term of office. There's no question about that. On any issue that came up, he would take a Social Credit partisan attitude.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to section 28, hon. member. I'm cautioning you for a third time.

MR. LAUK: Now he's attacking the mayor. The mayor took a position that would be favourable to Prince George. When the hon. member for Fort George was a council member, he took a position that was just partisan, political and had nothing to do with the benefit of Fort George.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the hon.

MR. LLOYD: I don't expect much more out of that member. All he's done since the session started is run people down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. LLOYD: Under section 43 he should get back to the bill occasionally if he can....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not a point of order.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Fort George, Mr. Chairman, chose to stand in his place in this committee and attack the mayor of Prince George. He chose to stand in his place. I didn't ask him to stand, and if he can't take 'the heat, he shouldn't stand up in the debate. What's he complaining about now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to section 28.

MR. LAUK: Well, did the hon. Chairman draw the member for Fort George to order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm dealing with the first member for Vancouver Centre on section 28 of Bill 42, please. Unless the other hon. member has something further to add in this debate, please continue.

MR. LAUK: Getting back to Mayor Moffat....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to section 28.

MR. LAUK: It's the same thing.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Fort George attacked Mayor Moffat. Why? Because Mayor Moffat, showing great courage on behalf of not 'only the people of Fort George but on behalf....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please.

MR. LAUK: If you spent less time interrupting, you'd spend more time understanding what I'm saying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, unless your debate is relevant to this section, it is not in order. Please be strictly relevant to section 28.

[ Page 4908 ]

MR. LEA: On a point of order, could the Chairman please tell me whether it is in order, on this section, to mention municipal leaders who are against this section to prove a point? Is that in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it depends in which context the debate is used.

MR. LEA: Well, then you tell me what context.

MR. LAUK: Good or bad?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I only deal with the points of order, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Good — then deal with them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver Centre on section 28. I will not interrupt you if you stick to this section.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, you've been here for two years now and you should know that interrupting me prolongs the speech; it doesn't shorten it. You know that by now, don't you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that does not mean that the Chair will ignore the rules of this House.

MR. LAUK: All right.

It was the hon. member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) who chose to bring in Mayor Moffat, not us. He attacked Mayor Moffat for opposing this section of the bill. That's what I'm getting at. Mayor Moffat showed great courage, as many other municipal leaders have done...

MR. BARBER: Virtually all of them.

MR. LAUK: Virtually all of them, as the hon. member points out.

... in opposing section 28 because it is dictatorial and paternalistic: The member for Fort George has demonstrated this attitude of arrogance and paternalism toward local government in standing up in his place and attacking one of the great mayors of British Columbia.

Mayor Moffat is re-elected term after term; the member for Fort George is a fledgling politician. The people of that area will draw their own conclusion. I hope for the sake of the hon. member for Fort George that word of his attack on Mayor Moffat does not reach Fort George. I hope that"no one breathes a word in Fort George of the vicious attack that's been made by the member for Fort George.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. We're not debating Mayor Moffat, we're debating

MR. LAUK: I can understand why the Chairman is upset...

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman is upset because you are out of order.

MR. LAUK: ...about section 28, because the Chairman is a democrat. He's very, very offended by this section himself.

Mr. Chairman, we'll breathe not a word. We'll just keep it within these four walls, his vicious and paternalistic attack on local government and, in particular, Mayor Moffat of Prince George.

MR. KING: I'm very much concerned about the section and I just want to say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that this section should be withdrawn.

Just to read the most offensive part, in my view: "Where a bylaw has been enacted by a Council under Part XXI by a Regional Board under section 796, 796A, or 798A, and the minister is of the opinion that all or part of the bylaw is contrary to the public interest of the province...."

Mr. Chairman, to vest in a single person, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the authority to define the public interest of the total province and completely override and veto the democratic decision-making process of local government, municipal councils or regional district boards is absolutely unprecedented, as far as I know, in this province.

I can recall debates in this Legislature when the NDP was the government. I recall one particular debate with respect to the Labour Relations Board of the province and the right of appeal that either trade unions, individuals or businesses had before that Labour Relations Board. I can recall members of the now government, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), and, yes, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis), questioning the right of appeal — whether or not it was democratic enough, whether or not it was at arm's length from the government.

What we have here is a completely arbitrary power vested in the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to override the democratic decision-making process of local government without justifying to the Legislature what he defines as the public interest.

Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned because in my own particular area and in the city where I live, the city of Revelstoke, we have a major dam development pending — indeed, construction work is underway. Now it has been adjudged that that hydro-electric

[ Page 4909 ]

development is in the best interests of the province. We had the Crown corporation, British Columbia Power and Hydro Authority, attempt to start a housing development within the boundaries of the city of Revelstoke in violation of the bylaws of the city of Revelstoke. The city was able to circumvent that intrusion and order them out.

Is the minister suggesting now that the. rationale for this section would he his power to override that kind of decision by the local government? Certainly the dam can be said to he in the best provincial interest. Does that mean, then. that the municipal government and the regional district are to be bereft of any authority in determining the orderly development. the orderly sequence of building development to accommodate the work force. the municipal planning that should go into the orderly development of that community? Would the minister use that kind of provincial interest. in his own individual wisdom. to determine that he should override the wishes and the decisions of the local government?

Mr. Chairman, I can't find adjectives strong enough to describe this fearful power that the minister is taking unto himself. It's incredible to me that people on that side of the House who portray themselves as freedom fighters the rugged individualists, the defenders of free enterprise and personal initiative and personal freedom — are here sitting mute and silent in support of a bill that makes the most serious incursion into the democratic rights of local government that I have ever witnessed in this province. We have heard one member get up and defend this particular section, Mr. Chairman — one Social Credit. backbencher. What he had to say made cold shivers run up and down the spines of opposition members. What he suggested was precisely as the Liberal leader suggested, that a little bit of democracy is okay for local government, but we cannot trust them too far.

I suggest to the government that if there is a legitimate fear that local governments may venture into areas where they are not competent to represent and reflect the total provincial interest, those areas should be defined by the statute and the authority and jurisdiction of the local municipal councils restricted accordingly.

I suggest too, Mr. Chairman, that if there is a need for some kind of veto power over local governments, which are elected democratically by almost an identical process to the way the provincial government is elected, perhaps that veto should be in the hands of the people through a referendum. Perhaps the people should be able to call a referendum on important issues of provincial policy. Perhaps they should have that right with respect to decisions. that are made by this provincial government.

Would the Minister of Municipal Affairs consider extending that right to the people of the province? I'm appalled at the minister. He talked earlier about his predecessor having contempt for local government. That's a shocking and irresponsible thing to say. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman. that the previous minister amalgamated two areas of the province, the cities of Kelowna and Kamloops, where there were long-standing historic problems that were not dealt with by the previous government, where the Municipal Act did not allow a mechanism for an overall vote of the people contained within that area on a simple majority basis. But I can tell you that the former minister never did take unto himself the kind of arbitrary powers that are provided in this particular statute. arbitrary powers that indicate to me a complete contempt, a complete scorn and a complete distrust of local politicians.

I find it somewhat ironic, Mr. Chairman, that so many on the government benches found their way into this very institution through the municipal source. Many on the government side sat as aldermen and mayors. The minister himself was a mayor of this province for quite a number of years. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was a mayor of a local community for some 20 years. I wonder what they would have said when they were mayors....

MR. MACDONALD: Who's that Mair over there?

MR. KING: I hope we are talking about locations. I hope we are talking about stations and not gender, my friend.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Highways, when they occupied chairs as mayors of important municipalities in this province, would have tolerated this kind of statute, even from the former Social Credit government whom they supported. No way. They as representatives of the community would have rebelled and would have been very vocal in their condemnation of this kind of provision.

I say it's a charade. I say it's ironic and it's hypocrisy, because this is the government that portrayed themselves as the defenders of freedom and democratic rights in this province. They and the real estate people and the bird, Mr. Chairman, talked about freedom. I say to you, and I say to members of this House that if this bill is not withdrawn, a very important and a very substantial part of democracy and freedom has gone down the tube in this province. A very, very important precedent will have been set, a precedent of one minister of this government taking unto himself veto power.

Perhaps he has something in mind like the President of the United States. Perhaps he wants to move away from the British parliamentary system of government and give unto the executive council

[ Page 4910 ]

greater veto power. But if this minister can do it, what is to stop the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) from intruding into the realm of local autonomy in education matters and interfering with academic freedom in this province? It's the thin edge of the wedge and it's a very dangerous precedent.

I'm surprised that this particular minister would attempt to justify this kind of statute in the House. I'm appalled and I certainly strongly oppose it. With all respect I can muster, I urge the minister to withdraw this section.

MR. GIBSON: I will make just a short intervention at this time. There are some things that can simply be quoted without further comment. I want to read two quotes from the opening speech in this Legislature:

"My government will propose legislation that will expand the responsibility of local government in the field of community planning.

"You will be asked to approve legislation which will give our citizens more direct access to the regulatory process that controls the quality of community development and the use of land."

The second little illustration I want to give is the fact that on the statement of the Premier in the House the other day, a committee has, according to him, been working for some eight months or so now on the question of an Alcan pipeline going through northeastern British Columbia. This, of course, was one of the areas that the minister suggested might be subject to this kind of overriding .provincial control. Two phone calls were sufficient to establish the fact that that committee that had been working on the Alcan pipeline, and the question of the impact it was going to have on British Columbia and specifically that area of British Columbia had not been sufficiently impressed with the needs of the local municipalities to consult either Fort Nelson or Fort St. John, which will be the two communities in northeastern British Columbia most affected by that enormous project when it goes through.

I think that that says something, again without the need for further comment, about the attention that this particular government is paying to the thoughts and wishes of local people. This section is completely unacceptable for those kinds of reasons.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to spend any time on this debate, but I listened to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), and I must say that I don't mind people opposing my colleague's bills and the sections, but to hear the pious claptrap that came but of him concerning the decisions made by my colleague's predecessors was a bit too much.

Mr. Chairman, he conveniently forgets that one Angus McKay in Kamloops took a supreme court action to prevent the amalgamation of Kamloops, as the previous minister wished to have it. Mr. McKay won the lawsuit, went to the court of appeal, won it there, and those people legislated him out; of existence and legislated that decision out of existence. The people of Kamloops had no chance to express themselves, went to court, won in court twice and had their decision legislated out of existence. That is the qualify of opposition that we are hearing to this bill today. Mr. Chairman, I think that they have a lot of gall to stand in this chamber and criticize that minister for that Act and that section, based on their record in municipal affairs during the brief — thank God — time they were in power.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the comments made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with respect to Kamloops are, I think, completely relevant. We have had many pious statements from the other side of the House today suggesting that this is unprecedented, unheard of, without parallel.

I don't want to bore the committee, Mr. Chairman, again today, as I had to bore the committee previously, by referring to the Ontario Planning Act, the Newfoundland Urban and Rural Planning Act, the new Brunswick Community Planning Act and the Nova Scotia Planning Act. I spoke the other day of the recently passed legislation in Manitoba concerning the city of Winnipeg; in Saskatchewan there is the Urban and Rural Planning and Development Act. I don't think we will find one in Alberta, but most provinces in Canada have the power given to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs with respect to a local decision with no appeal whatever.

Mr. Chairman, if we are looking at legislation which is so odious for the official opposition and for the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) — but particularly the official opposition — I wonder if they have read the Municipal Act, which is a bulky document, and if they looked at section 798(a)(7). I think it's perhaps important to read this section because it speaks directly to the sort of thing which is contemplated in section 28 of Bill 42.

"Where an owner of land has applied to the regional board for a land-use contract under section 702(a) and the regional board does not include the lands in a development area and enter into a land-use, contract, the minister may, upon the application of such owner, if he is of the opinion that the proposal of the owner for development is reasonable, direct that the lands be designated a development area, and a

[ Page 4911 ]

land-use contract entered into, subject to such terms and conditions as he may consider advisable."

That legislation came in — I'm subject to correction — in 1972. I know that it was there through the entire New Democratic Party administration in British Columbia, was not repealed and was not amended. If they find this section offensive, then I wonder, Mr. Chairman, and I ask the committee why, with the other section 798(a)(7), which has no notice requirement, no appeal provision whatever, it was not repealed during the three and a half years of NDP rule in this province. So don't tell me, Mr. Chairman, through you to the official opposition, about a section of an Act which you find offensive when you lived with another section which is even more strong in terms of ministerial authority and you made no effort to amend it.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, just two points. I find no provision in the Municipal Act, including the one just quoted by the minister, which is absolutely as broad and open-ended as section 28 of the statute that we are considering in the House today. There's no limitation on the provision we're dealing with.

The section the minister just quoted dealt within specific parameters. No one argues with the minister having some specific control in specified areas. In the section that the opposition finds objectionable, it is up to the whim of the minister to define and to determine anything that he finds objectionable in local bylaws.

With respect to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair), I find that rather ironic because until the NDP came to office in the province of British Columbia, a citizen didn't even have the right to sue government. Under the former Social Credit government, he had to get a fiat from the Attorney-General, and it was never granted. There's a lawyer, Mr. Chairman, who now says. that he finds it objectionable that a citizen having that right was interfered with by the government. It's nonsense and hypocrisy.

MR. LLOYD: I'd just like to clarify a few of the remarks made earlier. I'm not going to sink to the level of debate the first member for Vancouver did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 28.

MR. LLOYD: Certainly. He indicated I was attacking Mayor Moffat. That wasn't true in any way. I served on council with him for three years, and I'd probably still be on council there if we hadn't been trying to deal with the last government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you must deal with section 28.

MR. LLOYD: I'm dealing on it the same as they were...

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you must deal with it in order.

MR. LLOYD: ...on the amalgamation agreements we're trying to straighten out. Also, as far as the community plan goes, the minister has indicated the control the minister had before. It's also in the Municipal Act on the adoption of a community plan under Part I, section 697. The minister had control under the old Act on the approval of a community plan, so why this was felt to be so autocratic is beyond me. I still want to make it clear that my stand on it was the concern' of the individuals that municipalities shouldn't run the entire country. People living in between them have rights as well. That's what I was trying to clarify, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER: The minister's allusion to section 798(7) is as irrelevant as his allusion to other municipal and planning Acts in other provinces. He conspicuously fails to tell us that in those other provinces to which he has referred — specifically Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan — they have municipal boards, or municipal appeal boards, or appeal proceedings at a junior, non-partisan, non-political level. There are areas and boundaries and elements of appeal that exist within those governments that are not provided. for in, this legislation. There is no municipal board in this province, and there is no provision for it in this bill.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that those are absolutely irrelevant comparisons. What we're concerned about here is the attack on the integrity and the freedom and the autonomy of local government in the, province of British Columbia. I would like to remind the minister that there is no provision in here to publish his decision in the Gazette, or in any other place. There is no provision for a public hearing. There is no section of the present Municipal Act that is being amended by this section we are now debating. It is a brand new power. Were it extant or residual there would be an amending section to a previous section in force. The fact is that the Municipal Act presently ends at number 878.

This section we are now debating creates a brand new section, 879. It creates a brand new power. It was not there before. Nothing is being amended that was there previously. This is a brand new section. The absolutely irrelevant comparisons being made by the minister and his defenders, able as they are, do not detract from the fact that in a brand new section with a brand new power, we're dealing with something that never existed or occurred before within municipal government and its provincial

[ Page 4912 ]

I pointed out earlier that local opposition to this particular section is not declining, as the minister would hope, but is, in fact, increasing. I have pointed out that as of this afternoon, we are aware that Mayor Ferguson of Abbotsford, Mayor Volrich of Vancouver, Mayor Moffat of Prince George, Mayor Shaw, the village representative on the UBCM electorate, the mayor of Burnaby and his unanimous council, the chairman of the Nanaimo Regional District and the chairman of the Capital Regional District are all loudly and powerfully opposed. I believe that, according to my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), the mayor of New Westminster is equally opposed.

Several minutes ago the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) asked whether or not the minister had any support at all from local government. The minister did not answer. Perhaps, reminiscent of the Bill 33 debate, I can answer for him. We have discovered that he has one supporter, the chairman or president of the UBCM, Mayor Duke of Lumby. He is the only person anywhere we have been able to find, in private conversation or on public record, who has supported this provision. He himself hopes that it is used with great caution. It may be that that's why the UBCM executive to date has been surprisingly quiet on this section.

However, he did admit in conversation this afternoon that the executive itself has taken no official position and, I am informed, he mentioned that it may well come up for debate at their regular meeting on Friday.

So there is apparently one source of support for the minister's position. The minister has been totally unable to identify any other municipal support, and so have we. We don't think he has it. It's not there.

I would also point out that political support for this bill, as far as the newspapers of the province recommended and represented, is also zero. The Vancouver Province in an excellent editorial on August 11, entitled "Supermayor Curtis," attacked in very powerful and forthright language the unseemly and unnecessary provisions of this section. I won't read that into Hansard, because I expect the minister and most other members of this House have already read it.

However, just tonight in the Victoria Times, this minister, this provision and this government were once again attacked for bringing in such a gross abuse of power as to allow the minister personally to make these decisions. There's an editorial entitled "Where's the Proof?". When we get back to the debate after dinner, I propose to read it into the record, because I think it's an excellent and most able analysis of the utter failure of this minister to justify his actions, to justify the alleged need for this power, and to justify the centralist, bureaucratic and, in our view, really quite totalitarian moves made by this particular section.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

HON. MR. MAIR: During debate on second reading of Bill 39, I had indicated to the House that I would table two documents. I neglected to do so at the time. I ask leave to do so now.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

[ Page 4913 ]

39 The Hon. K. R. Mair to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 39) intituled Motor Dealers Licensing Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1, line 9 (dealing with the definition of mobile home): By deleting "and Registry".

Section 1, line 24 (dealing with the definition of motor-vehicle): By deleting "farming or construction" and substituting "farming, construction, mining, or logging".

Section 1, line 30 (dealing with the definition of representation): By deleting this definition.

Section 1, line 32 (dealing with the definition of sale): By deleting "includes" and substituting "means".

Section 14 (2), line: By deleting "inquiry" and substituting "complaint".

42 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 42) intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1977, to amend as follows:

Section 13 (2) (dealing with section 702AA): By deleting subsection (2) (k) and substituting the following:

"(k) regulate the exterior finishing of buildings, other than residential buildings containing three or less self-contained dwelling units, having due regard for requirements made under paragraph (c),".

Section 13 (2) (dealing with section 702AA): By inserting after section 702AA (2) the following:

"(2a) Where, in the opinion of the Council, special conditions prevail with respect to the physical environment or with respect to design or siting considerations, the Council may, in a zoning by-law or an amendment to the zoning by-law, designate areas of land within a zone as development permit areas and provide that an owner of land within a development permit area shall, prior to the commencement of a development other than the development of three or less self-contained dwelling units, obtain or hold a development permit, which may regulate or require any or all of the matters referred to in subsection (2) (a) to (k)."

Section 13 (2) (dealing with section 702AA): By deleting subsection (4) (c) and substituting the following:

"(c) by-laws or amendments to the zoning by-laws in accordance with subsections (2) and (7) or subsections (2a) and (7),".

Section 13 (2) (dealing with section 702AA): By deleting subsection 4 (d) and (e) and substituting the following:

"(d) where a by-law under subsection (2) applies, vary or supplement the provisions of a by-law of the municipality enacted under section 702 or 711, but only in relation to any of the matters included in a by-law under subsection (2), or

"(e) where a by-law under subsection (2a) applies, vary or supplement the provisions of a by-law of the municipality enacted under section 702 or 711, but only in relation to any of the matters referred to in subsection (2) (a) to (k), or

"(f) vary the provisions of section 713 as they apply to that land,".

Section 13 (3), lines 11 and 12: By deleting "June 30, 1978." and substituting "January 16, 1979."

Section 15 (dealing with section 702c), subsection (l) (a), line 3: By deleting "provision of sites for" and substituting "creation of three or less lots to provide site for a total of".

Section 18 (b) is deleted and the following is substituted:

"(b) by repealing paragraph (c) and substituting the following:

(c) by a person who alleges that enforcement of a zoning by-law with respect to the siting, shape, or size of a building or structure, or the

[ Page 4914 ]

1977 section 714 (i), would cause him undue hardship; in which case the Board may, to the extent necessary to give effect to its determination, authorize such minor variance from the applicable provisions of the by-law as, in its opinion,

(i) is desirable for the appropriate development of the site,

(ii) maintains the general intent and purpose of the by-law,

(iii) does not substantially affect the adjoining sites, and

(iv) does not vary the permitted uses or densities of land use prescribed by the applicable by-law, and such variance applies to the person and subsequent owners of the building, structure, or mobile home park, and".

Section 21 (dealing with section 766B), subsection (8), line 4: By deleting "regional district" and substituting "local community".

75 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 75) intituled Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2), to amend as follows:

Section 1 (e), line 2 (dealing with the definition of "charge"): By deleting "estate" and substituting "interest".

Section 4 (dealing with the proposed section 4 (1)), line 2: By deleting "proposed", and by deleting lines 7 to 10 and substituting the following: "the owner-developer shall, on tendering a strata plan for deposit, file with the Registrar a certificate of a British Columbia land surveyor, dated not more than 90 days prior to the date on which the strata plan is tendered for deposit certifying that the building has not been occupied prior to the date of the certificate."

Section 5, line 11: By deleting paragraph (b) and substituting the following:

"(b) By deleting subsection (4)."

Section 9 (f): By adding the following subsection after the proposed subsection (8):

"(9) Notwithstanding section 2A of the Land Registry Act,

"(a) a transfer or conveyance, or

"(b) a charge by way of mortgage, agreement for sale, option to purchase, lease for life or for a term exceeding 3 years of all or part of the common property of a strata corporation under this section shall be deemed to be a subdivision of land, and Part VI of the Land Registry Act applies."

Section 13, line 2: By inserting "constructed on a strata lot" after "buildings".

Section 18 (c), line 7: By inserting "or filing," after "registration".

Section 26 (dealing with the proposed section 31 (7», line 1: By deleting "deposited" and substituting "has been accepted for deposit", and by deleting "has been accepted by the Registrar".

Section 52: By adding the following after paragraph (a):

"(a1) in section 3 (j) by inserting "subject to the Act," before "determine"."

Section 52 (d) (dealing with the proposed section 50 (5) of the First Schedule): By inserting ", including the owner-developer," after "owners".