1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5555 ]

CONTENTS

An Act To Amend The Medical Practitioners Act (Bill M204). Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading –– 5555

Islands Trust Amendment Act (Bill 30). Second reading.

Mrs. Wallace –– 5555

Mr. Lea –– 5557

Mr. Skelly –– 5559

On the amendment

Mr. Skelly –– 5561

Mr. Lockstead –– 5561

Mr. Cocke –– 5562

Ms. Brown –– 5564

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1985

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MEDICAL

PRACTITIONERS ACT

Mr. Cocke presented Bill M204,

An Act to Amend the Medical Practitioners Act.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is to extend

the exceptions to the Medical Practitioners Act. The Medical

Practitioners Act now accepts chiropractors and others from their

jurisdiction; this bill would amend it further to accept persons

practising acupuncture in this province.

The acupuncture people have formed an association, have excellent

discipline and are maturing to the extent that they should be

recognized at this time. Furthermore, it is a procedure that has been

carried on with great success for some 3,000 to 4,000 years, not only

in the Orient but in Europe and a great many states in the United

States, and in other jurisdictions in this country. I think B.C. has

now come to the point where it should also recognize the practice of

acupuncture as a legal procedure in this province.

Bill M204 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 30.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned debate on Tuesday

I indicated that I wanted to talk a bit about what had happened on

Thetis Island, an island in my constituency that is under the Islands

Trust.

What we had happening there is a perfect example of cooperation, a

partnership: local government, the Islands Trust, long-time year-round

residents and people who want to have summer homes there sitting down

to work out a solution acceptable to all people concerned. They avoided

the small acreage, the overpopulation, the desecration of that unique

area, and they did it by using consultants, people who are

knowledgeable about environmental concerns, water supply and sewage.

They came up with a solution that was equitable and satisfactory to the

people immediately concerned. Mind you, it wasn't that satisfactory to

the people who wanted to desecrate that island; but they were not able

to carry that out because of the good statistical documentation that

the Islands Trust and the municipality were able to put together to

support what they, the people concerned, wanted to have happen on

Thetis Island.

There's a great deal of mumbling going on, Mr. Speaker, and I'm

having some difficulty in getting the attention of the minister, in

fact.

You know, what happened on Thetis Island was that the developers concerned

were overridden in their bid to destroy that island. The minister told us yesterday

that he had no developer friends. Perhaps times have changed since 1979; I'm

not sure. Certainly he appeared to have developer friends at that time.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 43,

irrelevance in debate. This is Bill 30: "The minister may assign

employees of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to assist the trust in

carrying out its duties under this Act." The member is talking about

Meares Island, which has nothing to do with this building. She is not

sticking to the bill.

[10:15]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I know that this member,

during her debate the other day and today, is hedging around and

leaving innuendo, which I take exception to. Mr. Speaker, if this

member or any other member on that side of the House wish to make such

statements outside of this chamber, then I invite them to do so.

Otherwise, clean up your act, get out of the gutter and speak to the

bill. But if you have any innuendo, make it out in the corridor, and

I'll be there to meet you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. A point of order

was raised by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound regarding

relevance. The minister then took exception to some remarks.

Unfortunately the Chair was not aware of the entire content of the

member's earlier remarks. I would ask the member now to bear in mind

the various points of orders that were made. The member may wish now to

continue, or do we have a further point or order?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, on a point of order, my colleague to my

left here made a statement that the member for Cowichan-Malahat

referred to Meares Island. I'm sitting right beside her, and I know

that she never mentioned Meares Island. I would like the member to

withdraw that statement, because Meares Island was never mentioned. It

is Thetis Island we're talking about,

MR. REID: I heard her.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I'm sure we have all had a chance

to review matters which may have taken place. In light of those various

observations which have been made, I would ask the member to continue

in her address.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, one thing, Mr. Speaker, I obviously have

not only your attention but the attention of the House now, which was

something I didn't have before.

I agree with my colleague here that I have made no mention of Meares

Island. I'm talking about Thetis Island, which is in my constituency

and part of the Islands Trust. I was talking about the fact that

through cooperation with the local government and the Islands Trust,

and with the use of employees of Islands Trust, who were knowledgeable

about the issues involved, we have been able to work out a satisfactory

and acceptable community plan that suited the needs of all the people

involved there. It did not suit the needs of the developers. Without

that kind of expertise that was available to us we very likely would

not have been able to win that battle. The minister again is very

super-sensitive. He didn't hear what I said, and yet he's up saying

that I'm making innuendos. The remark I made was that he said the other

day he had no developer friends, which may be true, but if it's true

[ Page 5556 ]

the case has changed since 1979. Now that was the

only remark I made, and if that's an innuendo, I think the minister is

super-sensitive.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I want to

very clearly state to that member that indeed she is making an

innuendo. She is attempting to go back. I suggest that if she or any

other member of the House wishes to do that, I welcome them to do it

outside of the protection of this House, and I'll meet them there to do

so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, hon. member. Hon. members, a point

of order must be a point of order, and if a person wishes to reply to a

statement by another member in the concluding remarks, he or she may so

do at that time. But we cannot interrupt members who are speaking for

anything other than a real point of order.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really need

protection from that member. I've had a lot of dealings with that

member. And you know, when you've been the chairman of the Turkey

Board, it's pretty hard to fly with the eagles.

The Islands Trust does fly with the eagles. That's what the Islands

Trust is all about, and that minister fails to recognize that. That

minister is attempting to hamstring the trustees. He's attempting to do

that for reasons which shall remain nameless. I don't know what they

are. I have my suspicions about what they are, but suspicions are not

evidence, and I don't intend to go into that. But there are some

strange things that have happened relative to the staff of Islands

Trust, while those trustees had the rights and the powers to hire their

own staff — without this legislation.

What we had was the case of the Islands Trust requiring a manager.

What does a manager do for the Islands Trust? This is an employee who

will no longer be hired by the Trust. This manager will be hired by

that minister. But they needed a manager, so they went to the minister

and said: "We need a manager. We need to institute a search for a

manager."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, the minister assigned one of his staff to

help them search out a manager. And they searched out a manager. They

had a contest. They went through all the rules and regulations. They

hired a manager. The minister indicated that he didn't want them to do

this. But at this point they looked at the legislation, and they said:

"We have every right to do this. We need a manager. We need an

administrative officer. We need someone to liaise with government

agencies. We need an advocate — independent, at arm's length from

government."

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Do his ministry officials operate without his

knowledge? Is he that irresponsible, and incapable of running his own

ministry, that he has people out taking

part in these kinds of things

without his being aware of it? I doubt that, Mr. Speaker. I think that

the people who act.... If, as the minister, he doesn't know, he is

still responsible. What occurred is that one of his ministry people

worked with the Islands Trust to find this manager.

What I'm saying to you is the importance of having this independent, arm's-length

manager in position, doing his job. He has to supervise the 13 local trust committees

and 13 area planning committees; he has to attend four annual meetings arranged

for this. He is the chief executive officer of the Islands Trust council. He

has to liaise with clubs and citizens' groups — a two-way exchange, the

very thing I talked about occurring at Thetis. Yet when the Islands Trust, which

under the legislation had — still has until this bill is passed — the power

to appoint those people, and use that power....

Do you know what that minister did, Mr. Speaker? He refused to

authorize payment for that manager, until the trust went to the A-G's

department and got a legal

interpretation which indicated that he was

required to do that. That's what this bill is all about. He didn't want

that manager there. He didn't want them to appoint someone who would

carry out those duties and responsibilities in the best interests of

the Islands Trust.

Why not? Exactly for the reasons that I indicated before. He wants

to destroy the effectiveness of the Islands Trust. He wants to destroy

their ability to regulate and control reasonable and acceptable

development in that unique area. He wants to be able to make the

decisions. He wants to decide where the logging will take place, where

the industry will go, where the housing developments go and how dense

they will be. And why? Well, he says he has no developer friends.

This is a most unfortunate bill we are talking about today. I have

respect for a minister who stands up for what he believes in, even

though I don't agree with him. Certainly if there was one minister in

this House whom I differed with on nearly every occasion, it was Mr.

Vander Zalm. But at least you knew where you were at with Mr. Vander

Zalm. When he was going to get rid of the Islands Trust, he wasn't

afraid to say so. He came right up front with it: abolish the Islands

Trust. Mind you, he slipped it into a miscellaneous statute. But it was

there for all to see — straightforward. Everybody knew what it meant.

When you write it down — abolish the Islands Trust — you know what

you're going to do: you're going to abolish the Islands Trust. But what

this minister is doing is a devious practice; it's a devious route.

What it's doing is telling the public that this is a mere housekeeping

bill: "We're going to hire the staff." What it's really doing is

putting the control of those Gulf Islands in the hands of that

minister, who can do as he likes if he controls that staff. It's a

powerful tool, and he's doing it under false pretences. He's doing it

in a devious way. He thinks that if he can sneak it in this way the

people who are concerned will not recognize it for what it is. He'll be

able to get it in there, and that's the thin edge of the wedge; then

away we go, bit by bit, and that's the end of the Islands Trust. He can

decide who will be the employees there. He can decide what they will do

and what they won't do.

That is devious. It's typical of this minister's approach to

problems. He's not upfront like his predecessor. He's not prepared to

stand up and say: "Yes, this is the first step. This is what I want to

do. I want to be sure that people who want to chop up those islands

into little pieces and sell them...." You know, waterfront property is

like gold in this province. That's exactly the direction in which that

minister is heading. I don't believe he's changed very much in the

years he's been here. If he has changed, it's probably been for the

worse and not the better. I believe he is still interested in breaking

up not only agricultural land reserves but the Islands Trust.

[10:30]

Interjections.

[ Page

5557 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Say it outside where you don't have the protection

of the House. I'll sue you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister will come to order — now.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm surely not going to accuse the minister of having friends. I don't want to get sued.

But really, I think we're losing what should be the discussion

around this legislation. In second reading, which we are in, we in this

Legislature are to discuss the principle of a bill; we're to discuss

the philosophy of the bill, if you like. I remember one time having a

story told to me about the former premier, W.A.C. Bennett. When he

introduced a piece of legislation he stood up and said: "The principle

of this bill is, are you for it or are you against it?" That seems to

be the kind of legislation that we're looking at here.

The real question that we have to face in this Legislature is the

principle of Bill 30. It seems to me that the principle is clear and

has been stated in the minister's own words when he introduced the

legislation. I quote a small part from the Hansard Blues.

"In addition, staff now working with the Islands Trust are

part and parcel of the Municipal ministry as far as staffing is concerned. They

are also members of the BCGEU bargaining unit and therefore are part of the

mainstream of the ministry. However, the ministry does not have the legal authority

to assign staff to the Trust to carry out their responsibilities. It is with

this in mind that we wish to bring in and have passed this legislation that

will clean up this matter."

So the minister has stated rather clearly that the reason for this legislation

is that the ministry wants to have the legal power to appoint staff, dismiss

staff, and pay the staff. At the same time the minister insists that he really

wants to leave the autonomy of how to deal with staff up to the Islands Trust.

Mr. Speaker, that is an impossibility. In my experience, when someone hires

me, pays me and has the power to fire me, that's who I answer to — nobody

else. To think otherwise would be silly. It wouldn't make sense.

Let's look at how this bill came into being. The minister gets angry

with the member for Cowichan-Malahat if she mentions that he may have a

developer friend — not that he does; he may have. He denies having any

friends who are developers. That's probably true if he denies it. But

what he is also saying in that statement is that he had no brief, he

had no lobbying from developers to bring this legislation in.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That's right; I didn't.

MR. LEA: I believe him. He says he did not and I believe him.

The Islands Trust say that they didn't ask for the legislation. Does

the minister also agree with that? He agrees with that. Will the

minister also agree that no one lobbied him to bring in this

legislation? The minister says no one. I'd like to have one more

indication from the minister: did he have a lobbying or a request from

his own staff to bring this legislation in?

Mr. Speaker, if I could get the minister's attention for a moment,

did the minister get a request from his own staff that this legislation

would be appropriate?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I respond in my closing remarks....

MR. LEA: Just nod your head. Did you have the staff come to you or did you go to the staff?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Question period will come at two o'clock.

MR. LEA: We can't ask questions at two o'clock on this

legislation, because it's before the House, but I'd like you to answer

it. I suspect maybe he did have a lobbying from his senior staff,

either one way or the other. The minister said he had no outside

influence; nobody came to him and wanted the bill or wanted the change.

So it either had to come from the minister to the staff or from the

staff to the minister.

MS. SANFORD: Maybe it was from the Premier to the minister.

MR. LEA: I don't think it was from the Premier to the minister, Madam Member. It could have been, but I doubt it.

I really believe that the principle of this bill is whether you're

going to have local decision-making or centralized decision-making.

That's the principle. It would be a very simple matter if the minister

would take his place in this debate and say: "I am for centralized

decision-making. I am not disposed to having consultation with people

before I make up my mind, either." That would be the minister's right.

He could also stand up and say: "Well, I'm afraid when you leave it in

the hands of local people, they might make a mistake." Yes, they might,

but isn't that what local autonomy is all about — you make the

decisions that are going to affect you immediately and personally, and

you take responsibility for them? Isn't that what local autonomy is all

about, Mr. Speaker?

Are there going to be mistakes made? Of course there are. If you

centralize it there are going to be mistakes made. But what these

people are asking for in the Gulf Islands is the right to make their

own mistakes, if there are going to be mistakes made. They have to live

with the consequence of those decisions. They're the people who live

there. They're the people who have the responsibility, because they are

the residents of the Gulf Islands. When the whole world is going the

other way, when the whole world is saying: "Bureaucracy and centralized

decision-making isn't working. We have to take a look at smaller units,

whether it's in the economy or in supplying government services...."

Everybody I know says: "We've tried the centralized bureaucracy way,

and we'd like to have a change. We would like to be participants in the

decision-making process."

What happened with this bill coming into the House? There is a

litany of lack of consultation with the people who are going to be

affected, or their representatives. On March 15 the Islands Trust wrote

asking for a meeting with the minister to discuss the legislation.

There was no reply. On March 25 they wrote again suggesting some

alternatives. Again there was no reply. "On March 26 I wrote again" —

this is from the Islands Trust — "outlining in detail three options to

amend the existing

section 13(

l) of the existing act to bring it into

line with what the minister may find acceptable." There's no reply yet

on record. On March 28 they wrote again asking for a meeting — no reply.

Mr. Speaker, is democracy just every three or four years when we go to the voting booth, or is democracy an ongoing

[ Page 5558 ]

process? Do people and their representatives have

the right to consult with their government before decisions are made?

Does the government have a duty to consult with citizens before they're

going to make decisions that affect the lives of so many people? They

do have that duty.

We are faced here with an ongoing problem. It's not just in

municipal affairs; it's also in education, where we have the centre of

the bureaucracy with the ear of the minister and the ear of government.

I'm afraid that within those bureaucracies in Victoria there are a few

people.... We have 400 in education or 400 in municipal affairs;

probably about 10 percent of them have the ear of the minister — maybe

40. They are people at the very senior levels of the bureaucracy who

aren't evil people but who want, after a period of time, to have

control of everything that they feel is in their field. They have the

ear of the minister.

I've been a minister. They sneak up to you and they say: "You know,

Mr. Minister, you're the best minister we ever had." You say: "Gee,

williky, are you sure? Thank you very much. What was that request

again?" "Let's take away the autonomy of the Islands Trust." "Right."

Then when they get the legislation in the House they say: "Well, my

pride won't let me change it. I won't listen to the opposition. I won't

listen to members of my own caucus in the secrecy of a caucus meeting."

I know that there have been members of the Social Credit side of the

House who have privately said to the minister: "What are you doing? Why

are you doing it? What have you got to gain? Nobody's asked you for it

and you're doing it." Probably the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) has had his own private little meeting with the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and said: "You're killing me on the Gulf Islands. I'm

not going to get any votes next time." Nor will somebody else if the

Minister of Finance isn't the candidate. "Take it away." But the

minister is adamant. He wants this legislation. He wants it because he

does not want the people of the Gulf Islands, apparently, to make

decisions on those matters that are only going to affect them.

The Islands Trust, elected by the people of the Gulf Islands, is not

going to make decisions that affect people on the Queen Charlotte

Islands. They're not going to make decisions that will affect people in

Victoria, Vancouver, Dawson Creek, or Cranbrook — only decisions that

affect their lives and their future. Those are the only decisions that

they want to make, and if they're going to carry out those decisions,

they have to have the right and the obligation to hire the people who

are going to carry out those decisions.

I found out one thing when I was a cabinet minister: if you gave

your staff an order that they liked, it was the most efficient

organization you could ever find in your life. It was done just like

that. Give them an order they didn't like, and you would be in a memo

war like you had never seen before in your life. They could stall it,

they could write back for clarification 20 times on one point, and

decisions that had been taken by government did not get carried out. If

the Islands Trust does not have the power to hire, to direct and to

fire the staff, then that staff will not be responsive to them. In

fact, the staff will be responsive to the people who pay them their

cheque, hire them and fire them. It's not very complicated. Mr.

Speaker, I suggest that's how you would act. I would suggest that's how

any one of us would act: when someone has hired us, they're paying us,

and they have the right to fire us; that's where we're going to go and

get our instructions. You can't assign somebody to somebody else and

say: "Okay, work for them, but they don't have any power. They can't

tell you what to do; they can't hire you, fire you or do any of those

things." It just doesn't work.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like the minister to do.... When we get

into the next stage in this bill, I'm sure some amendments are going to

be coming forward. I would like the minister to seriously take a look

at the amendments and to consider whether or not the government is big

enough to accept amendments that would make this piece of legislation

more acceptable to the citizens whom it's going to affect. Once and for

all, let this government say publicly, one way or the other: are they

for local decision-making or are they against it?

I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that in their heart of hearts they are

against it. I find that hard to believe. I cannot bring myself to

believe that any member of this Legislature is really out to take the

decision-making away from local people. But in effect that's what this

bill does. Is that what the government wants? It is the effect of the

bill whether or not that's what the government wants.

One of the things that we don't seem to have in this House.... This

should be the time that we exchange ideas. This is the time, in the

exchange of those ideas, that all 57 of us who represent the people of

this province should try to arrive at a consensus. Not that one side

wins and one side loses, but we should always be striving for a

consensus. Because if in this House we can reach that consensus, then I

think probably the decisions coming out of this House would be

decisions that most people in this province could live with, would be

glad of. But it doesn't happen. It's one side wins, one side loses.

It's not seen as a win-win situation, it's seen as a win-lose

situation. Mr. Speaker, the only losers in that situation are the

people of this province, and in this case the people who live on the

Gulf Islands and the people who have been elected to represent those

people and their trustees of the Islands Trust.

[10:45]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

All we can do, the only power we have as private members in this

House in dealing with government, is to use arguments of reason,

arguments of logic and sometimes arguments of emotion. It is the

private member's duty to make such arguments. It is the duty of the

government to listen to those arguments. If they hear something that

strikes a chord, if they hear an idea or an argument from a private

member, it is the duty of the government to make the necessary changes

to then bring the legislation in line with their own conscience.

We could take all day, all night, all week, all month or all year,

but if the government isn't prepared to listen and to change their

minds once in a while, then we on this side of the House — all private

members — are speaking for nothing. If that's the case, Mr. Speaker,

then I think that the people of this province should know that it's a

win-lose situation.

Now it could be just this: there may be more citizens of this

province who are for centralization than opposed. That's fine. All the

Social Credit government has to do is stand up and say: "It is the

policy of our government that wherever possible, for efficiency's sake,

we will centralize the decision-making process." That's clear enough.

Then the people who believe in that can vote with good conscience for

Social Credit. There's nothing wrong with that; there's nothing evil in

having that idea. There's nothing wrong in saying to the people: "This

is what we believe. Do you? Vote for us if you

[ Page

5559 ]

believe what we believe." That's an idea, and

that's what politics is all about. But the people in this province

should know what the various political parties have in mind for them,

should they become elected.

MRS. JOHNSTON: True.

MR. LEA: "That's what they should know, true," says the

member for Surrey. It is true. I ask the member for Surrey whether the

people in her constituency voted for a centralized decision-making

process or for decentralization? What did that member tell them,

previous to election day? What does she still tell them?

MRS. JOHNSTON: Are you on the Municipal Affairs bill?

MR. LEA: Yes, I am on the Municipal Affairs bill, and as

private members we are all going to have to vote on it. And the

question that we have to face is: are we going to take away autonomy

from the Islands Trust? Are we going to take away from the Islands

Trust the authority to make some decisions they are making now? It's as

simple as that. If you think we should, vote for the bill; if you think

we shouldn't, vote against the bill. That's the duty of a private

member.

I think everyone in this House — all 57 members — knows the issue,

and we're all going to vote according to our conscience, I hope. But if

we do — if we all vote in this House according to our own conscience —

I'm sure this bill will fail. Which brings us to the biggest problem in

this Legislature: people are so trained to vote party, regardless of

their own conscience and their own integrity, that it can become a

sham. If the private members, including the Social Credit members, in

this House were to take courage and were to vote with conscience and

integrity, this legislation would not pass; in fact, many of the pieces

of legislation that come into this House would not pass if we were to

treat Parliament as private members, the way history shows us we

should. You vote with conscience and with integrity, and you don't

always vote party line.

Mr. Speaker, I find it impossible to believe that there isn't one

Social Credit back-bencher who isn't, in their heart and in their

conscience, against this bill. It will remain to be seen whether one of

them has the courage to vote against the party system and to vote

against the government that happens to be of the same political party

that they are. But until that starts happening, democracy in this

province is a sham, and we will continue to see more centralizing

legislation come through. We will continue to see more power taken away

— not only from the people in regional, municipal and school

governments but from this Legislature — and put in the hands of the

cabinet. We will continue to see that, until some of the private

members on the government's side find the courage to do what the

electors sent them here to do — that is, to represent their own

conscience and not vote party all the time.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in our gallery today we have 64 grade 9

and 10 students. Mr. Hazelton, the teacher from West Whalley Junior Secondary

School in Surrey, is accompanying them. We also have visiting students from

Horizon Jeunesse Polyvalente School in Laval, Quebec. I would ask the House

to please welcome them.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to take

part in

second reading debate on this amendment. It's unfortunate, however,

that the amendment is on the floor at all, and unfortunate in the way

that it came to the Legislature in the first place: without a

legitimate process of consultation with the people who are involved and

the people who will be affected by this bill. If that process of

consultation had taken place, I am sure the minister and the people in

the Islands Trust could have reached some kind of solution that would

have been acceptable to both sides. Unfortunately, we're again dealing

in this House with a piece of legislation that forces a decision, made

in the back rooms of government, down the throats of people living on

the islands offshore the coast of British Columbia. I think this type

of legislation is totally unacceptable.

When we passed the Islands Trust legislation in the first place,

virtually every citizen in British Columbia, every citizen who lived in

those islands or had an interest in those islands, recognized that

those islands are unique and that some special legislation and form of

administration should be developed which applies to those islands as a

unique asset to the province. It's not the first time such legislation

has been passed, as you well know, Mr. Speaker. The province and the

national government have in many cases recognized that there is an

interest in certain lands, and in land use in those areas, that goes

beyond the people living in those areas and beyond the current

generation. The national government sets aside national parks,

recognizing that there's a national interest in those lands and in the

way those lands are used, and also an interest that goes well into the

future, beyond the current generation. If you visit Pacific Rim

National Park, you'll see at the entrance a sign that says: "This area

is a living museum to protect the characteristics of this unique west

coast area for citizens living today and for citizens who may live

beyond our time."

By establishing a trust in that way, we recognize there's an

interest that goes far beyond the people living in that area, far

beyond the people in this province, and far beyond the people who are

living here and now. We do the same thing with provincial parks and

forests. We recognize that certain areas of land are so important for

the forest industry, so important to the economy and the people of this

province, that jurisdiction is taken away from local citizens, and the

interests of the province and the forest industry in those lands become

paramount. It's because they are so important to the people of this

province for their economic value to the forest industry. For that

reason, we set aside things like provincial forests or tree-farm

licences so that the interests of the people in the province as a whole

are represented in those lands.

We did the same thing with the agricultural land reserve when the

New Democratic Party was in government. We recognized that if the

jurisdiction over agricultural land was left with local municipalities,

or left with the small regions in which those agricultural lands were

located, the provincial interest, or the interest of future

generations, wasn't adequately represented. So we set up an

agricultural land reserve that recognized the importance those lands

had for all citizens of the province, and that recognized that all

citizens of the province should be involved in decision-making with

respect to those lands. Also, the government would be involved in the

decision-making with respect to those lands because of

[ Page 5560 ]

the interests of future generations in those

critical land areas. The government should be representing all the

citizens of British Columbia and the interests of future generations.

I'm not sure that this government adequately does that at all.

The Islands Trust, when it was established, was a unique attempt to

identify a number of interests in those islands offshore in British

Columbia, especially in specific islands that were included in the

Islands Trust. We tried to set up a system that recognized the

interests of the people in the area: how they wanted to see their

communities developed in ways that may be unique from one island to the

other. We also wanted to see the interests of all the islands as a

whole included in this legislation that set up the Islands Trust, so we

established that broader interest in the legislation as well. But one

of the things we wanted to see preserved in that administration of the

Islands Trust was the provincial interest and the interest of future

generations as a whole in this province. So it was a unique piece of

legislation.

In order for that legislation to work, it had to be based on trust:

trust between the government and the citizens on those islands; trust

between the elected representatives of those citizens and the elected

representatives who sit in this Legislature. That trust involves a

level of consultation, negotiation and compromise if it's going to be

successful, if it's going to work at all, if all those interests are

going to be represented adequately in the unique way that they were

supposed to be when this legislation was drafted and presented and

debated in the House in the first place. I think it's unfortunate, Mr.

Speaker, that we're even dealing with this legislation in the House

today. It's essentially a power grab by the government. Instead of

leaving in the legislation that unique balance of interests, which can

only work if people trust each other and are willing to work and to

consult with each other, this government, by this power grab, is again

seizing control over those islands that are located in the Islands

Trust. All of the power to control development and to administer land

use on those Gulf Islands is again centralized in Victoria under the

authority of the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

It's a shame that we are dealing with this legislation in the House

today. It represents nothing more than a power grab by the Social

Credit government of the legitimate interests of the people who live in

the Gulf Islands, and it's an insult to those people whose interests

are represented in the Islands Trust legislation. That legislation now

becomes a mockery, and a mockery of the people on the Gulf Islands.

[11:00]

Mr. Speaker, this government has talked about cooperation. They've

talked about partnership, about working together with people in the

various communities of the province in order to encourage economic

development and to restore the economy of the province, which they're

mostly responsible for destroying in the first place. We recognize and

endorse the government's change of heart or change of mind, if they

really intend to do it. If they really intend to get involved in

partnerships and cooperation, if they really intend to reduce the level

of confrontation in this province, then we in the official opposition —

and people all over British Columbia— accept that. We welcome and endorse that.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation flies in the face of the government's own

statements with respect to cooperation. This is a seizure of power from the

people in the islands represented in the Islands Trust. It's a blatant seizure

by the government of powers that had been delegated by a previous government

and enjoyed by the citizens of the Gulf Islands over the last several years.

It is a blatant seizure of power, no more and no less.

What happens next? What happens if a school district decides that

they don't want to go the way the government is going? What happens if

a school district says to the Minister of Education: "Look, can't we

sit down together and work out a program whereby the quality of

education can be preserved in our school district?" Is the Minister of

Education going to do what the Minister of Municipal Affairs is doing

with the Islands Trust and say: "I'm going to seize the right to hire

and fire your staff. In the future they're going to be working for me

rather than for the duly elected representatives in that school

district"? Is this the first in a line of power grabs that are going to

take place around this province?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You don't even believe what you're talking about.

MR. SKELLY: I certainly don't believe the stuff I hear from you, Mr. Minister.

If the government doesn't like what the duly elected council of a

municipality established under legislation in this province is doing,

if they don't like the kind of budgets they're proposing or the kind of

work they're doing within that municipality, is that Minister of

Municipal Affairs, who is setting a precedent under this legislation,

going to turn around and say: "I am going to seize from you the power

to hire and fire your staff"? That's the kind of precedent that's being

set with this legislation. The government is seizing back a power that

has been legitimately delegated to the duly elected representatives in

the Islands Trust. The staff working for the Islands Trust will no

longer be responsible to the duly elected members of the Islands Trust;

they're going to be responsible to the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

who has the right to hire and fire those staff people. Some of them may

work for him, in any case, in other capacities.

Mr. Speaker, this is dangerous legislation, for a number of reasons. The first

is that it represents a power grab from a duly elected body. The minister, if

he were honest and straight up, would simply say to the Islands Trust: "We're

getting rid of you entirely." Instead, he's going in the back door,

turning the situation around and saying: "I'm not going to get rid

of you; I'm going to leave you there as eunuchs, incompetent to do the job

you've been assigned to do under the legislation. I'm going to take

control of your staff and I will actually be the Islands Trust. You're finished.

All you are is figureheads." If the minister were honest he would simply

repeal the Islands Trust legislation and set this province back more than a

decade.

There is an opportunity here for consultation and compromise. Our

understanding is that the Islands Trust representatives have been in

touch with the minister. They've attempted to talk with the minister

and discuss the situation with respect to staff, land use and economic

development. We understand that the Islands Trust representatives

recognize their responsibility for the people on the Gulf Islands. They

recognize the responsibility that has been granted them under the

Islands Trust legislation. They're willing to work with the minister to

exercise the responsibilities that they have. They recognize that the

government has tremendous control over what the Islands Trust does in

any case. That control is granted to the government in the original

Islands Trust legislation because, of course, the government must

represent the interests of the citizens of the province as a

[ Page

5561 ]

whole, and the interests of future generations. But

they are willing to work with the minister, to consult with the

minister and to compromise when the minister makes demands of them in

the provincial interest.

I think the minister should withdraw this legislation and give the

Islands Trust an opportunity to meet with him and work out a solution.

We shouldn't be here in the Legislature today attempting to ram the

minister's solution, developed without consultation, down the throats

of the people who live on those islands, and down the throats of the

people who live in this province. There is an opportunity here for the

minister to live up to his statements that he believes in cooperation,

that he believes in consultation, that he believes in partnership.

There is an opportunity here for the minister to affirm those

principles, if he really believes in them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the minister an opportunity to reconsider this

legislation. I want to move a reasoned amendment, that the motion be amended

to read from the word "that" to the end: "The government, through

its failure to consult with the local representatives, has created a situation

respecting the Islands Trust area which is contrary to the principles of cooperation,

self-government and local autonomy." I've discussed this amendment

with the Clerks and with the Speaker, so I'm sure it would be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: The reason we presented this amendment during

debate on the principle of this bill is to indicate what this bill

really represents to the citizens of this province, the members of this

House and the representatives of the Islands Trust. It represents a

power grab by the government over the delegated responsibilities of the

Islands Trust. It really represents an end to the Islands Trust's

autonomy in those areas where it had autonomy. We would ask the

minister to reconsider, to meet with the representatives of the Islands

Trust and work out a compromise with respect to the hiring, assignment

and appointment of staff. We think that compromise is available. We

resent the government's unilateral attempt to grab power from the

Islands Trust without any consultation at all. We hope that the

minister is prepared to reconsider. We would also hope that the

minister is prepared to reconsider in the light of statements made in

the throne speech and the budget speech that this government claims to

believe in cooperation, consultation and partnership. Now the minister

has an opportunity to affirm those claims — either to affirm them or

put them to rest forever. We're giving the minister an opportunity to

do that in this amendment to the debate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I fully support this amendment, and will be voting for

it in due course — based simply, I guess, on the speech the leader of the opposition

has just made. I don't want to repeat that speech. There's a very important

principle involved here. That is the principle of duly elected members having

the right to make decisions governing their areas of responsibility, whether

they be a municipal council, a school board, a regional district, a hospital

board or the Islands Trust, or whatever. Duly elected people have the right

to make their own decisions. In this case of the Islands Trust, that particular

body has directors who have been duly elected, and they have, generally speaking,

made excellent decisions on the islands that they govern and control and that

fall under their responsibility.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, many islands have been saved by the Islands

Trust. Let me give you an example of what can happen. Prior to the

Trust coming into being in 1974.... There is an island off Powell River

called Savary Island. There are some 22 voters, I believe, on the

voters' list for that island. But in the summertime that island has up

to approximately 300 residents. Approximately 55 or 60 years ago that

island was butchered — cut up — into 50-foot lots, generally; some lots

are 100 to 200 feet long. Practically the whole island was ruined, cut

up into lots, with uncontrolled development.

There is a great lack of water on the island. Some five or six years

ago a group of speculators went to Alberta — to Calgary and Edmonton —

and were selling lots, sight unseen, advertised as "waterfront lots on

a beautiful Gulf Island," which Savary is. They were selling these lots

sight unseen — 50 feet wide, perhaps 100 feet long, waterfront. And

they weren't lying; they were waterfront lots. The only problem was

that it was 300 feet down to the water — straight down — for starters.

Besides which, there was no drinking water.

Well, when the committee that eventually set up the Islands Trust

went to Savary, the people on Savary decided at that point not to take

part in the Islands Trust, because the damage had been done. There was

a totally uncontrollable situation.

The point I'm making, Mr. Speaker, is that this is what could have

happened, and started to happen, on many of the other Gulf Islands that

we visited during the course.... I was not part of that committee, by

the way, but I did travel with the committee while they went through my

riding. As a consequence of the commission hearings, two islands,

Gambier and Keats, decided to become part of the Trust and have been

very happy with the workings of that committee ever since. I think it's

worked well.

I might add, as I recall, that there are some 34 voters on the

voters' list in my riding. Their population swells on Gambier to some

600 people during the course of the summer, people who have summer

homes and enjoy.... But much of that island has been preserved. Some

industry still takes place. There are booming and sorting grounds in

the Gambier area. But now what the minister is effectively doing is

abolishing the Trust. That's what he's doing through this legislation;

that's basically what is happening. He's abolishing the Trust.

What we can expect to see in the future on islands like Gambier,

Keats, Lasqueti and the other Gulf Islands will be uncontrolled

development, possibly by friends of the government — possibly. I'm not

saying that will happen. But there certainly will be uncontrolled

development, and the orders will be coming straight out of the

minister's office. That's what will happen; that's what this means.

What are the Trust people supposed to do after this legislation

passes? And it will pass, because the government is very insensitive.

It has been for years, but it is particularly insensitive. Many of the

government members are not that familiar with the coast and what can

happen to the islands on this coast.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, you're not. And they don't care, Mr.

Speaker. They don't even care; they're very uncaring. They won't even

get up and defend the minister's legislation in this House. They won't

even get up on their feet and

[ Page 5562 ]

defend this legislation. They know very well, as a

former speaker pointed out, that this is bad legislation. We can expect

to see further erosion. It would not surprise me at all if the

government decided to abolish or take over almost full control of

municipal councils in the future. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

[11:15]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The minister shakes his head, but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker,

that this government has effectively taken away just about all the

local jurisdiction of our duly elected school boards. They are now

doing the same thing, and worse, to the Islands Trust. We can expect in

the future that they will take over even more and more control of

municipal councils and regional boards.

It's scary legislation. It's scary, because it's just the tip of the

iceberg. I would hope that some members on that side of the House will

get to their feet and, for once, show a little spunk and indicate that

they are going to vote for this amendment and against this legislation.

MR. COCKE: Speaking on the amendment, which the

government.... If they had the sense, after listening to the debate and

hearing what the people that are involved in the Islands Trust are

saying, the government would accept this amendment.

What a heritage we have in those islands. It is a beautiful heritage

that to some extent, particularly in recent years, has been protected —

because of the Islands Trust. We stand here in this House today — if we

have any conscience at all — with the fate of those islands in our

hands. The fate of those islands should be vested largely in the people

who inhabit those islands — the islanders.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It is not, Mr. Member — that member who sits in

his seat and makes little remarks, but cannot get up in this debate and

defend this piece of legislation with any kind of definitive words that

would tell us that he really believes what he's saying from his chair.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example of what happens when this

Social Credit government gets involved in the workings of a local area.

Just take a look at the First Capital City development proposition

that's going on in New Westminster. They take away New Westminster's

initiative by coming in and taking over the authority of that

commission, and nothing happens.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. Mr. Almas has moved down the river.

The King Neptune restaurant is long dead — floated into the sunset.

That's the kind of proposition that this government has to offer when

they get their hands into local jurisdictions. What we have here, in

this new legislation that the minister contends does not take away the

autonomy of the islands, is just that.

Why didn't the minister have guts enough to come into the House and

take the Islands Trust legislation off the statute books altogether? He

did in effect do that, but he did it in a way that he feels he can

defend. What the minister is doing is saying to those elected officials

of the Islands Trust: "You no longer have the authority to do what

you're charged with doing by the legislation that was in place

heretofore."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would

think that the speaker is presently talking about the bill instead of

the amendment. The amendment is to hoist it for a period of time, and I

wish he'd bring his speech back to relevancy.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. In response to the point of order, it is not a hoist amendment that is currently before us.

Does the member for New Westminster wish to rise on the point of order or continue speaking...?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I think you've answered the question.

It's a reasoned amendment for that minister with cotton wool in his

head instead of his ears.

HON. MR. HEWITT: None of your amendments are reasonable.

MR. COCKE: This is a reasoned amendment. It's in order, Mr.

Minister. This is an amendment that should be accepted by this

Legislature here and now.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I'll read it for those illiterates over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Temperate language, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll read the amendment just so that

the members understand what it says: "The government, through its

failure to consult with local representatives, has created a situation

respecting the Islands Trust area which is contrary to the principles

of cooperation, self-government and local autonomy." That's the

amendment, Mr. Speaker, and it is in order.

In fact, the bill is in no way cooperative, because it takes away

local autonomy without even discussing it with the people beforehand.

Remember, historically...and we don't have to go back very far, do we?

The bill was introduced for second reading earlier this week — Tuesday

— and that very morning Islands Trust people were here to discuss the

question with the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: They called the meeting.

MR. COCKE: They called the meeting, so the minister has no

further responsibility. He went to the meeting and, as he normally

does, sat there.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, talk about undue haste. Having met with

them only an hour or so beforehand, he comes into the Legislature and

puts the bill up for second reading. Now if that doesn't mean that he's

serious about going through with an unamended bill, then I would like

to know what would give one that feeling.

What was the big hurry? There's all sorts of other legislation

before this assembly. Lots of it could be debated without too much of a

problem. This one, however, is one they want to hurry through so they

can take away the Islands Trust's

[ Page

5563 ]

responsibility for doing their duty to their own particular locality.

Mr. Speaker, he didn't want to show his whole hand; otherwise he

would have rescinded the original legislation. He didn't rescind the

original legislation, but in fact he has done that very thing.

What we're trying to suggest here is that the amendment indicates

what the government has been talking about ever since we've been back

in session, since the throne speech. They've been talking about

partnership — hand-in-hand we'll go into the future — and cooperation.

This bill is in exact contrast to those principles. The exact opposite

is being done here today, and it's infamous.

Mr. Speaker, you know, the unfortunate thing is that they're getting

away with it. Nobody is listening. I think this particular issue is one

of the most important issues facing this House, because it is such an

important issue in high principle, but I find it very difficult to hear

it being reported, either in the press, in the electronic media or

anywhere else. And yet you go out there on your way home, those of you

who use the ferries and those cabinet ministers who fly over to the

mainland on a regular basis daily, and you look down below you or look

out from the ferries and see what a marvellous heritage we have in

those islands and think about the kind of development that can occur

without the defence of the Islands Trust and the Islands Trust

employees.

You see, the Islands Trust are a group of elected people as we are

in this assembly, Mr. Speaker — but the people who run, who do the work

that is called for by the assembly here, are the employees. I predict

that the minister will move into municipalities, as they've moved into

New Westminster already, and take away the autonomy of those

municipalities. We in this party have been calling over the years for

decentralization, and here we're faced with further centralization.

My memory goes back, colleagues, to the day when we were government.

Yes, my memory goes back to those three years and four months of

enlightened government, the only enlightened government that this

province has seen. What did we have in that campaign in 1975? Remember

we had seagulls floating in the Social Credit ads, and those seagulls

were talking about freedom, local autonomy and decentralization. That's

what the Socreds said they would do. Yet we were bringing this province

toward decentralization at a speed never before thought of or seen, and

they reversed it the minute they were elected. Heaven alone knows why

they continued to be re-elected, other than they used the people's

money to advertise their wares.

Mr. Speaker, I said this the other day, and after seeing this bill

and arguing this bill in this House, I'll say again that there isn't a

chance that the Socreds will be elected again in this province. Then

when they're not elected, they will dissemble and go back to their

original warrants.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the amendment, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what you said in....

MR. COCKE: I've never said it before in this House, but I say it now with confidence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will come to order, please.

MR. COCKE: We'll send that minister back to Penticton, where he belongs, so that he can be a private citizen.

Mr. Speaker, this Islands Trust should, if anything, be amended by

the kinds of amendments that have been put forward by the people

involved in the Islands Trust. But no, they amend the Islands Trust to

give all the authority to that poor minister, who has trouble running

his own ministry, let alone taking responsibility for the Islands

Trust. The Islands Trust can only be protected by those people out

there who are involved in decisions around the protection of those

islands.

[11:30]

Mr. Speaker, the reason that they're there is because they love

those islands. What would the minister say about a referendum on his

bill, which some of the Islands Trust people have asked about already?

He would say no, because he knows perfectly well that it would carry by

three-quarters or more.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is some motive here, other than

the motive of authoritarianism. Will one of those members of that

cabinet or their back-bench support get up and tell us what it's all

about? What they're doing makes absolutely no sense. The minister could

have got up in this House and suggested right off the top, when he

introduced this bill for second reading, that there was something going

wrong on those islands. But, no, he didn't. He didn't suggest that at

all. He said: "We want to take over their staff. We want to run things."

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Read the act, dummy. You don't understand it.

MR. COCKE: The minister is so sensitive. He jumps around and calls people unparliamentary names, and that's his only defence.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your parliamentary name?

MR. COCKE: Not the name that you would suspect, mister minister of all things possible, the minister from Tokyo — geisha.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your parliamentary name?

MR. COCKE: The member for New Westminster, not geisha.

I challenge the members of the Social Credit Party to follow their conscience....

AN HON. MEMBER: Appeal to the back bench.

MR. COCKE: There's only one person left in the back bench, and he's just leaving. We've lost the whole back bench.

MR. MACDONALD: How can you bring the government down if the back bench leaves?

MR. COCKE: That's right. It's very difficult to bring the government down. The Premier has everybody over there enslaved. At a big price.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the amendment.

[ Page 5564 ]

MR. COCKE: I do, however, challenge any member of the Social

Credit Party who is a member of the Legislature — whether minister,

parliamentary secretary or whatever — to take a look at this amendment.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, isn't the member supposed to be speaking to the amendment, and not on parliamentary secretaries?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He's been advised of that. Thank you.

MR. COCKE: I'm exactly speaking to the amendment. What I was

doing was challenging you to read the amendment, and having read the

amendment to search your conscience with respect to what the minister

is doing, and then you will find that you have no alternative but to

vote for this amendment. It's pure and simple. The wording of the

amendment is the same kind of wording as we found in the throne speech

and the budget speech. They're all about partnership, cooperation —

these marvellous Social Credit ideas. That's precisely what we've put

forward. We've put forward an amendment that will make this bill into

what it should be: one of cooperation and partnership.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There appear to be some differences of

opinion. If there are, all members will be allowed time to get up and

state what their particular differences of opinion might be.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I've been here too long.

MR. COCKE: Never was anything better spoken. The minister of

industry says that he's been here too long. The people of British

Columbia agree. That goes for the whole works of you.

Mr. Speaker, the reason they are becoming so uncontrollable back

there is that they are wrestling with their consciences. They know

perfectly well that what the Minister of Municipal Affairs has done is

wrong. He will destroy the heritage of the islands with this piece of

legislation. Mr. Speaker, he should either withdraw it or accept this

amendment, and so should they all.

MS. BROWN: I am rising to speak in support of the amendment.

I think that the real reason the bill was introduced in the first place

was because the minister doesn't really understand or know the history

of the Islands Trust. So I want to use a little bit of my time to

educate the minister, if that's possible.

Prior to 1972, and the NDP becoming government — a number of years prior to that, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have

been here all morning and would ask if I may have permission from the

member who now has the floor to leave the room for a few moments. If

she'd just nod her head in agreement, I would be very pleased indeed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's an interesting point of order; it doesn't really qualify.

MS. BROWN: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I will be

willing to permit the minister to leave the room if he will agree to

withdraw the bill.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order, I think that all the

minister has to do is raise his hand if he wants to leave the room and

the speaker can nod. While he's gone, could he take the bill with him?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we're speaking of matters that might

happen in a different forum. My responsibility is only to the

Legislative Assembly.

MS. BROWN: I was trying to give a little bit of historical information to the minister about the Islands Trust and how it came into being.

Even prior to 1972 and the NDP becoming government, many years prior

to that, people living in the Gulf Islands.... Indeed, the Social

Credit government of the day recognized that those islands were being

threatened by unrestrained development. I don't know if you remember,

Mr. Speaker, but the then Social Credit government introduced a

ten-acre freeze on those islands as a means of protecting the very

special qualities of those islands. When we became government in 1972

the Municipal Affairs Committee, under the leadership of James Lorimer,

who was the minister at the time, toured the Gulf Islands. A number of

the present members sitting on the government side were a part of that

committee: the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) and the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). Indeed, I think the Minister of

International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was also on that

committee. We travelled through the islands, visited with the people

who resided on those islands and talked to them, and listened to what

they had to say about how the islands could best be preserved — not for

the residents of those islands or even for the people who used them for

vacation purposes, but really for all Canadians and not even just for

British Columbians. Mr. Speaker, I was a member of that committee as

well.

I think the one thing that came through on that tour we made through

the islands was the concern and commitment, and the responsibility

which the residents of those islands felt for the Gulf Islands area as

a whole — their recognition of its uniqueness and specialness, and

their determination that it shouldn't just go the way of all other

development but that it should be preserved. It was really as a result

of a number of the recommendations which came from the islanders

themselves that the committee tabled a report in this House and the

Islands Trust was formed.

I want to add that, like a number of people in this Legislature, I

have done a bit of travelling and have seen other islands in other

parts of the world. Indeed, I was born on an island myself. So I know

just how fragile islands can be, how easy it is to destroy them and how

impossible it is to restore them once they've been destroyed. I think

anyone who, for example, travels to Sweden and sees what's happened to

some of the islands which are part of that particular community, and

looks at some of the old photographs of what those islands used to look

like 50 or 150 years ago, recognizes that it really won't take very

much for us to thoroughly destroy the Gulf Islands. Indeed, some of the

islands as they presently exist may be on a path, almost irrevocable,

from which we will be unable to protect them.

[ Page

5565 ]

The important thing that came out the committee's travels was that

no government here in British Columbia, in Ottawa or indeed anywhere

else understood and appreciated the fragility of those islands as much

as the people who resided on those islands themselves. That is why the

decision was made to leave the authority for the planning and

protection of those islands in the hands of the people themselves,

recognizing that, unlike so many other communities, their goal was not

to develop as fast as they could, in a mad chase to have industry and

commerce and everything move in and destroy the islands, but to make

the islands remain as part of our heritage, as part of what makes

British Columbia and Canada beautiful. Anyone who has travelled around

the world and seen other islands, including the Greek islands and the

islands in the Caribbean and other places.... We often hear their

virtues extolled, but they cannot compare with some of the islands in

the gulf.

I was particularly struck by the statement earlier by my colleague

the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), when he talked about Savary.

Really one of the saddest experiences that the committee had was to

find that this island, which is probably the jewel of the Gulf Islands,

had been so destroyed already that it couldn't benefit from being a

part of the Trust. That decision was made. Savary Island is one of the

most beautiful islands anywhere in the world. It just cannot be

compared to other islands, it is so beautiful. Yet the fact of the

matter is that because of the kind of development that the member for

Mackenzie talked about, the decision was made that there wasn't any

point in their being a part of the Trust. However, a number of other

islands opted to be a part of the Trust. They were more unspoilt than

Savary was; the feeling was that there was some hope for them.

[11:45]

I want to repeat that the important thing about the recommendations

brought down by the committee, and the important thing about the

decision made by this Legislature in 1974, was that the islanders

themselves were best able to decide in the best interests of those

islands. That is what is now being removed from them by the legislation

which we are trying to amend through this reasoned amendment.

What we are saying to the minister, and what we are saying to the

government, is that situation has not changed. There is absolutely

nothing that this government has done today which would lead us to

believe that they can preserve and take better care of the Gulf Islands

than is being taken by the Trust and by the autonomy which the Trust

enjoys in terms of hiring its own staff and administering those islands.

The role of the Trust is an advocacy role. It is a unique role. Once

those people become members of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, they

can no longer be advocates. They've changed masters and, really,

instead of being accountable to the residents of the Gulf Islands and

the people who have elected them and been hired by the duly elected

people, they now become accountable to the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs and to the government. Therefore they cease to be advocates on

behalf of those islands.

It is not the kind of relationship that one would expect from a government

which is talking about partnership, cooperation and local decision-making.

You can't have partnerships between unequals. Where power is not shared

equally, partnership is not possible. As it now exists under this act, when

the minister takes unto himself the power to hire and to fire, when he removes

from the duly elected trust members the right to hire and fire their staff,

he has created an unequal relationship between himself and the islands, and

therefore partnership is not possible. It is not possible for two organizations,

groups or whatever to operate as partners when one is more powerful than the

other. There is always going to be the lack of trust, the fear of exploitation

and the fear of advantage being taken.

That, Mr. Speaker, is why the reasoned amendment is certainly worthy

of the minister's consideration. I appreciate the fact that he is

sitting through the debate and that he is listening to it, because I

know that the members of the Trust who met with him were unsuccessful

in changing his mind. But because we live in a democracy, the Gulf

Islands have a second chance. We as elected members have an opportunity

to speak on their behalf and give the minister an opportunity to

reconsider his legislation at this time.

In addition, I want to express my disappointment that the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is the member of the Legislature

representing many of those islands, is not here in the House fighting

on behalf of those islands.

MS. SANFORD: It was his idea in the first place.

MS. BROWN: There you are. He was a member of the committee,

and he travelled through those islands. He listened to what the

residents had to say, and the residents weren't always in agreement,

but what came out of it was consensus. He listened to the consensus. He

was elected by those people to come to this Legislature, to represent

them and to fight on their behalf. He has been strangely silent. He has

not participated in this debate. I could not allow the debate to go by

without expressing my profound disappointment in the quality of

representation which the Gulf Islanders, represented by that minister,

are receiving. I realize that that was out of order and....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's quite unparliamentary.

MS. BROWN: Of course it was totally out of order, and I had absolutely no business making those comments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Personal references are out of order. Will the member please withdraw.

MS. BROWN: Sure, and I stand rebuked. There's no question about it, and you are quite right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw, please.

MS. BROWN: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please proceed on the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your bringing that to my

attention, but one is so concerned that the minister should hear from

everyone who cares about the islands. That's the only reason why I

raise that issue, because I know that as a duly elected representative

for a number of those islands his point of view would be important to

the minister at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with the minister a little bit of

history of the policy of the Trust and its mandate. I have before me

the 1975 annual report, I guess it is, or a policy statement, which was

submitted by the then chairperson, Hilary Brown, to the Legislature on

the Trust. In the

preamble of it, she stated:

[ Page

5566 ]

"Few areas in Canada offer so many benefits as a place

to live, work and play as do these islands. Their quiet beauty and

tranquillity, however, is now being eroded by increased traffic and

land development, which is often insensitive to the special qualities

of the islands landscape. In addition, development is already causing

water shortages, sewage disposal problems, increased need for fire

protection services, schools, hospitals, ferry transportation and other

community services.

"The Islands Trust Act passed by the Legislature in

1974 requires that the Trust preserve and protect the unique amenities

and environment of the islands for the benefit of the residents in the

Trust area, as well as the province generally. In short, the act

formally recognizes the special nature and character of the islands."

And that, Mr. Speaker, is what we are concerned is going to be lost

when the Trust becomes just another cog in the machinery of the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs. That can't be permitted to happen. It's

not just another regional district. It's not just another community.

It's not just another municipality. The Gulf Islands are very special

not just to British Columbia or even just to Canada.

I realize that I am repeating myself, but I think it is worth

repeating. We often lose sight, as a wise person once said, of the fact

that what we have in our community is not what we've inherited from our

ancestors, but really what we are holding in trust for our children.

That's what the Islands Trust is. It's not an inheritance which we

have to plunder and do as we will with. It isn't. It really is

entrusted to us, and we have to care and nurture it and ensure that it

is passed on, if it is at all possible, in a better condition and

better situation than when we became aware of its existence.

That is what we're afraid will not happen if the trust becomes just

another file in the filing cabinet of the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs. It cannot lose its uniqueness in terms of how we perceive it.

If we cease to perceive it as being unique, and start to see it as just

being as ordinary as everywhere else, then we will react to it as

though it's as ordinary as everywhere else — and it isn't. It is at

that point that we question whether in fact the uniqueness and the

specialness of the Gulf Islands are best served and protected by the

government of the day or by the residents of that island.

Again, I want to remind us that the uniqueness of those islands was

brought to the attention of government by the residents; it wasn't the

other way around. Government didn't wake up one day and say: "Aha, the

Gulf Islands are unique." The islanders came to the government and

said: "We've got something very special here, and it is under attack.

It's in jeopardy; it's going to be destroyed unless it's protected."

They were the ones who first recognized the threat to those islands and

brought it to the attention of the Social Credit government of the day

— not this one, the government of the father.

They were the ones who first brought it to the attention of government. They

were the ones who devised and designed and came up with the ideas and the recommendations

about how those islands could best be preserved and protected. I think they

have proven that they operate in the best interests of the islands, and I think

that they have proven their ability and their skill to continue to do this job.

The government has not done so. As my colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

pointed out in using other examples where the government has moved in and taken

control, the situation has not benefited; in fact it has worsened as a result

of that. That is the reason why we introduced this reasoned amendment and why

we ask the minister to take the Social Credit second look.

That, again, is not an original idea of the NDP. It was the original

Social Credit government that used to say: "The time has come to take a

second look." So we are asking this new minister, who has so little

understanding of the history of the Islands Trust and of the Gulf

Islands, to follow in the footsteps of his political ancestors and to

take a second look at this piece of legislation. There can be no harm

done by taking a second look, but there can be irrevocable harm done by

proceeding with this piece of legislation at this time. That is the

reason why I speak in support of this amendment and ask the minister to

read it, at least. It says very clearly that the failure of the

government here is in its failure to consult. The local representatives

called a meeting; the minister admitted that. He attended the meeting

and listened to their recommendations, but he was not moved. He has

decided to proceed with the debate on the floor of the House.

On this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the

position of the local representatives. We are suggesting to the

government that it call a meeting with the local representatives; that

it start to consult with them; that it start to cooperate with them;

that it start to treat them as though they are real partners; that it

start to recognize their autonomy and their right to make decisions

about a community that they have done such a good job of preserving.

[12:00]

You compare the Gulf Islands with other regions of the province in

terms of development, and there is not a question that the development

in the Gulf Islands has been thoughtful and carefully implemented. You

don't find used car lots scattered all over the Gulf Islands. You don't

find the kind of irresponsible development that you find in other parts

of the province. Do you think that that occurred by accident? It

didn't. It occurred by design, by the design of the residents and the

locally elected representatives who, very carefully and with a great

deal of respect for the islands, ensured that its development should

always be in the best interests of those islands.

I notice that the Speaker is beginning to look hungry. Mr. Speaker,

as a person of deep compassion for the Speaker's needs, I would like to

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada