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)

FRIDAY, MAY 24, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6281 ]

CONTENTS

Members' Statements

Censorship. Mr. Macdonald –– 6281

Hazardous chemicals. Mrs. Wallace –– 6281

Hon. Mr. Pelton

Long-term care. Mrs. Dailly 6283

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Rural electrification. Mr. Howard –– 6285

Hon. Mr. Rogers

School Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 35). Committee stage –– 6286

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. MacWilliam

Third reading

Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 30). Committee stage. I ––

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Williams

Third reading

Income Tax (Small Business Employment Tax Credit) Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 5).

Committee stage –– 6296

Mr. Williams

Mr. Stupich

Third reading

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 18). Committee stage –– 6297

Third reading

Royal assent to bills –– 6297

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome a

young lady in the gallery today, the sister of my executive assistant,

Miss Josephine Wearing.

MRS. DAILLY: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a friend of mine who lives in Port Moody, Mrs. Margaret Kirk.

Members' Statements

CENSORSHIP

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a statement

pursuant to the rules on the subject of censorship, because we live in

a censorious age. Canadians, in my opinion, are going down the

dangerous road to censorship. There are too many Canadians who want

laws to impose their own morals or opinions on other people. We have

angry, self-righteous groups that denounce alternative lifestyles. We

have economic pressure groups that try to make dissenters conform, or

try to suppress their right to speak out.

There should only be one limit — one limit only — to the right of

individuals to express and conduct themselves freely. No democratic

society is justified in suppressing opinion or censoring conduct unless

there is a clear and present danger of breach of the laws. That limit

was defined by former Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the United

States Supreme Court. Of course, he was simply echoing the ringing

words of John Stuart Mill in the same tradition.

Toward the end of the last century, John Stuart Mill put it this

way: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over

any member of a civilized society against his will is to prevent harm

to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient

warrant."

My statement deals only with democratic societies and rules, Mr.

Speaker. I'm not talking about totalitarian states where art is

tongue-tied by authority, because to me those states are beneath

contempt. I give some illustrations among many in our anxious paranoiac

society.

There is a lot of pressure today for more show trials, even under

the infamous

section 177 of the Criminal Code, the spreading-false-news

section. The accused that we have seen may be simply, for the time

being — but maybe not in the future — fanatics, psychopaths,

eccentrics. Nevertheless, free speech is the victim. Moreover, show

trials and investigations reopen old wounds rather than heal them. Even

the Code sections against inciting hatred against an identifiable group

should be used with restraint, and only when there is a clear and

present danger of harm to others.

The Keegstra case gives him a national forum in which to expound his twisted

views. Better he had been tried for incompetency as a teacher by a school board,

which must have known about his kinky teachings over those many years. We have

forgotten the words of John Stuart Mill: "If all mankind minus one were

of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would

be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power,

would be justified in silencing mankind."

People and papers can also be silenced or intimidated because of the

spiralling costs of libel suits. They may well settle up or retract

when faced with heavy legal costs, with the right or wrong of what was

said not coming into it. After that they weigh their words too

carefully, and there is less candid speaking out. The multimillion

dollar libel suits of General Westmoreland and Sharon have the effect

of muzzling investigative reporting. Of course, each of them should,

have had a fair opportunity to present his version of the truth in the

media, with an appeal to a press council if necessary. Press councils,

if they must err, should err on the side of free speech. Libel judges

should do the same.

Mr. Speaker, if we can be told what we can read or see, it follows

that we can be told what we can say and think. There are new puritans

today who would restrict what others find harmless or entertaining. The

old Puritans, wrote Macaulay, banned bear-baiting not because of the

pain inflicted upon the bears, but because of the pleasure given to the

spectators. In the Victorian age there were condign laws against

blasphemy, obscenity and sedition, but Victorian morality rested upon

the exploitation of two million prostitutes. Should we ban Agatha

Christie for fear someone might act out one of the ingenious murders

depicted in her books? Life without fantasy is like a meal without wine.

I have to hurry, Mr. Speaker. Some inoffensive souls want great

books removed from libraries and schools because they are now held to

be racist or immoral. That's posthumous censorship. The Merchant of Venice and Huckleberry Finn

are common targets. Those who try to obliterate history are obliged to

they find chauvinistic. Politically powerful interest groups check free

speech in parliaments and legislatures, because politicians do not want

to affront powerful voting blocks or powerful economic interests.

Everyone can think of the examples that I shirk from naming. Money can

make us conform, as well as laws.

I conclude by saying that our Charter of Rights has a right for

everyone except the right to be left alone, and no charter can imbue us

with tolerance. That's up to us. Without tolerance, we tie freedom of

self-expression to the stake.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there being no response, the member may conclude his remarks, or at this time we would go on to the next speaker.

[10:15]

HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

MRS. WALLACE: I am a bit shocked that even though the

Attorney-General is in the House, he has no comments to make on my

colleague's very thoughtful remarks regarding censorship.

My topic is quite different. I thought it would be interesting to

know if the members of the Legislature know what PCBs are. Perhaps it

is time to reintroduce or review just what they are. They are

polychlorinated biphenyls. They are a man-made liquid, they are highly

stable, non-corroding and relatively non-flammable and they possess

excellent insulating and thermal properties.

They were first synthesized back in 1881, Mr. Speaker, but they

really didn't come into commercial use until about 1929. Of course, the

most prominent use has been as an additive to insulating oils in

electrical equipment. They are

[ Page 6282 ]

also used, though, in printing inks — or were used in printing inks.

Once they are in the environment, that PCB contamination is passed

up the food chain from fish to animals to humans. What do they do?

Well, they have been proven to be associated with liver damage, with

skin disorders, with cancer and with birth defects. The federal

government did have a study going on to update and analyze the

information that they had on polychlorinated biphenyls, but that was

cut last November. So that study has ceased.

The use of PCBs has been banned on all new industrial equipment. We

became sufficiently concerned about their hazards to ban them on new

equipment, but the problem is that there's a great amount of them still

around. Back in 1981 the fact that PCBs were used in electrical

equipment was discussed in this Legislature. As long ago as 1981 there

was a concerted move to remove them from schools and from public

buildings — to get that equipment out of those areas.

B.C. Hydro, of course, was the one most severely affected, and in

fact what they had been doing prior to that time was simply burying

capacitors that had PCBs in their oil. In 1972, in fact, at the Kennedy

substation, they buried quantities of those capacitors. In 1977, when

it was realized what the problems were, they dug them up. They stored

them on pallets at the Kennedy substation. That substation is very

large, that storage area....

AN HON. MEMBER: Whereabouts is it?

MRS. WALLACE: It's at the Kennedy substation, at Mackenzie, north of Prince George, Mr. Member.

They stored them just on pallets in the open air. There's a lot of

snow at Mackenzie. On May 7 of this year we found out that there was a

leak. The statement said that on a routine inspection of the site, the

ministry staff noted an oily substance leaking from unused electrical

equipment in the storage yard.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that B.C. Hydro officials have known about

this leakage for some time. In fact, it's my understanding that when

the capacitors were moved, one of them was pierced with a forklift and

simply stored on a pallet; it was not stored in any safe or secure

area. I would suggest that there is not one leak but more like 50 leaks

in that substation.

As far back as 1983, B.C. Hydro advertised for tenders for their

disposal. In a letter from Mr. Goldie to the Environment minister, he

said: "B.C. Hydro will be in a position very shortly to advise you if

we intend to proceed with a call for tenders for disposal of the

material or, alternatively, if it will be necessary to proceed with the

construction of interior storage facilities for the Kennedy PCB

capacitors." That was 1983, and to date nothing has been done. On April

24 a letter was written to Hydro from one of the tenderers, with copies

to the minister responsible for Hydro and also to the Minister of

Environment. The bottom line of that letter was that a suggestion was

made to B.C. Hydro that they wait to do anything until a facility was

available at Swan Hills, Alberta, for disposing of PCBs.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that while Hydro continued to insist that

the company had been pursuing avenues of disposal, and the ministry of

Environment has been aware of the lack of progress, nothing has been

done. In fact, what they have done is simply follow the suggestion of

one of their tenderers, who was not able to quote, and ask if it would

not make sense to delay deciding upon the final disposition of B.C.

Hydro's PCB waste until such facilities are available. Mr. Speaker, we

know what has happened: there have been some horrendous leaks and some

severe problems.

HON. MR. PELTON: I appreciate the member for

Cowichan-Malahat's concern with regard to this very difficult and, for

want of a better word, exasperating problem. As the member is, I am

sure, quite well aware, before my tenure in office the ministry

expended a great deal of energy and expense in pursuit of some

satisfactory method of dealing with special wastes in the province. I

think most everyone will agree that we must resolve the threat that

PCBs and other toxic wastes pose to the health of our people and to the

welfare of the environment as well. The ministry has recognized this

problem, with its social and economic implications. We know that the

technology is available now for the treatment of this material. The

technology is available; there's no question about it. But it's the

facility in which to put it that is causing the problem now. We've

tried very hard to bring forward a solution, but the social and

economic barriers that are placed in front of us make it extremely

difficult, particularly to resolve such matters as in whose back yard

any type of facility is going to go and who is going to put up the

money to cover the high costs. I have stated publicly before, and I

state again today, that I believe that those people who generate these

wastes should be the ones prepared to pick up the lion's share of the

cost.

Insofar as the PCB issue at Mackenzie is concerned, I suppose it

would be easy to blame somebody else for the problem. But I think it

would be a little bit unfair to say that Hydro has not tried to do

something to safely dispose of or store their unused electrical

equipment which contains PCBs. I believe they have, in good conscience,

tried, made a reasonable effort, to do something about the problem — I

mean in the past. Originally, as a matter of fact, I understand that

they attempted to shift these things to Hudson Hope, but there was such

a row raised by the people of that area that they backed away from that

plan. Then they undertook to see if they couldn't export the problem

somewhere else, out of the province, but that didn't work either. They

are currently working with Ontario Hydro, and I will be.... This is on

a pilot project to look at the thermal destruction of these wastes. I

will be attending early on Monday morning a demonstration of this new

system over in Surrey.

In the meantime, as you will recall from my statement, they have

agreed to provide the funds with which they will build a suitable

structure at the Kennedy capacitor station to house concentrated PCBs

and contaminated oil; also the cans and earth that might be

contaminated, and any other material that's been contaminated with

PCBs. This structure will be made to conform with the requirements of

the Ministry of Environment.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention at this point in time that the

cooperation that I have received from Hydro latterly has in great part

been assisted by my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who is also the minister

responsible for B.C. Hydro.

I have already stated those other actions which Hydro has agreed to

take in the case of the PCBs, but none of this alters the fact that we

must do everything we can to prevent these things from happening, so

that corrective actions are not necessary. That is my goal.

[ Page

6283 ]

MRS. WALLACE: I hope that Hydro is cooperating now, because my information

certainly leads me to believe that the cooperation was not so great earlier

on. After all, they were ordered prior to December 1983 — sometime early in

1983 — to either get rid of those PCBs or to store them properly. They ignored

that, deliberately ignored that, because of the costs involved. They stored

them carelessly, with known leaks, in an open yard, draining into the earth,

so we have contaminated earth; we have contaminated water. The people of that

area first learned about it on the radio. They didn't even have the courtesy

to tell the elected officials in that town that this had happened.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think Hydro needs to be taken to task for this, and I think the

minister responsible for Hydro has been a bit remiss in letting this

happen, because he did know of it. He was advised that they were

planning to delay, or were thinking about delaying; that they didn't

carry out the order that they were instructed to carry out. If this

points to one thing, more than any other thing, it points to the need

for the Minister of Environment to get on with the business of

hazardous waste disposal in this province.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Where — in your riding?

[10:30]

MRS. WALLACE: If it's a destruction thing, there is no

problem in getting that to happen. It's the storage — when you don't

store it properly; that's the problem. If you have the equipment to

destroy PCBs and to destroy the other hazardous contaminants, you will

not have the concerns, because you destroy them. With portable

destruction units you can destroy it onsite.

That's the route we have to go. As the minister says, the technology

is there. I agree with that. As the minister says, the polluter should

pay; the person who produces the material should pay the costs. I agree

with that. But the government must take the lead, and it must be

through a Crown corporation or under government jurisdiction that this

is done, or we have the same thing that happened even under Hydro,

which is a Crown corporation.

That should never happen under a Crown corporation, Mr. Speaker.

That's a disgrace to have that kind of thing happening in a Crown

corporation responsible to the people of this province. To have two

ministers sit idly by and let it happen to the state where we now have

the people of Mackenzie concerned about how long they have been

drinking contaminated water, about whether there will be birth defects,

cancer and skin diseases occurring among that population because of

that.... That is not a humane or reasonable way to approach our

hazardous waste disposal.

LONG-TERM CARE

MRS. DAILLY: My statement today is on the topic of long-term

care. I think most of us in the Legislature are well aware of what that

means. It means not only the care of senior citizens and the aged, but

it can also of course include people who are permanently in need of

care, no matter what their age, until the end of their lives.

Most of us in this room and those in the gallery listening may be faced with

this inevitably ourselves someday — some form of long-term care — or we will

have someone very close to us that we are going to be responsible for in their

latter years. So it is a subject which touches all of us.

Mr. Speaker, my concern in bringing this to the attention of the

Legislature today is that I think there are areas of the long-term care

in our province which today under the restraint program of the Social

Credit government leave much to be desired. I want to deal with some of

that.

The care of the aged, of course, goes back in society to the very

primitive forms of society who of course kept their old with them —

even among the nomads — until a time when the old people were no longer

productive and useful and were banned or just sent out on their own to

die. Then, as the years advanced, most agrarian societies found ways

and means of not being so barbaric and cruel in the handling of the

aged and those who needed permanent care, and set up institutions.

By and large, since the advent particularly, I believe, of medicare,

we have found that in most industrialized countries today the care of

our senior citizens, particularly in long-term care facilities, is

something that we can all feel is fairly well done. But I am very

concerned that today in British Columbia we are seeing an erosion of a

system which showed some very positive signs of good development, in

the care of the aged particularly.

Before the advent of government care institutions — proper ones;

long-term care facilities for the aged — we had situations.... For

example, in Britain, a book which I was recently reading talked about

the workhouse homes for the seniors and the aged before — and this was

not that long ago — we had a national health insurance scheme in

Britain which took over and cleaned up many of those homes. It's rather

sad to read about the situation as it existed prior to a complete

overhaul of the long-term care homes. I want to quote from a report

which was done at that time, back in 1971, just before the health

insurance was brought in. It says — and this is referring to one of the

long-term care workhouses:

" ...rows of tidy beds with bedclothes carefully

tucked in, producing the foot deformities so well known to the early

geriatric physicians. Bed rest led to protein depletion with muscle

wasting, bone rarefaction and contractures. More important, it led to a

state of apathy or contentment which was later to prove to be the

mortal enemy of rehabilitation."

Well, we've come a long way, thank goodness, from those days when

patients who were in need of long-term care were looked after in a

basically humanitarian manner, but just tucked into their beds, with no

treatment, no physiotherapy and no human contact. In British Columbia,

we can be proud of the fact that we have a structure now where we have

good long-term care workers in our hospitals, and by and large we have

some very fine hospitals.

But my concern is that if the restraint program on our hospital

finances continues, we are going to find that the long-term care

facilities themselves are going to suffer. That means that the senior

citizens of our province who have ended up in these long-term care

facilities — and there are many — are not going to be getting the care

that they should.

Now I would like to read to you three or four statements which I

have picked up in talking to people who work in longterm care hospitals

in the province. I will just quote:

"In the last two to three years, the residents at our hospital have suffered a lot of things that they used to

[ Page 6284 ]

have and don't have anymore because of staff cuts. Number

one, the staff used to have the time to talk to them on a one-to-one basis.

Not anymore. The staff used to walk the residents every day, play cards with

them. Don't have time to do that anymore because of the staff cuts. We now

only have two activity aides to do this for the total number of residents. It's

simply not enough time to keep the activities going for our seniors in the home.

We don't have time to take them for the walks we used to. The residents

used to be able to have more than one cigarette" — now whether we believe

in smoking or not, we know by the time you're in your late eighties or late

seventies, if you want a cigarette, it has become your lifestyle — "sometimes

one every two hours. Now they have been told that they'd like to see them

all stop smoking. Some of the residents need supervision when smoking, but the

staff are all too busy, so therefore the residents that can't be supervised

are told they can't have a cigarette."

This may seem minor to some people, but when your whole life is

spent in these places, these are the little things that gradually erode

your enjoyment of your last years. I am very concerned that the

restraint program of the Social Credit government is gradually eroding

away some of these basic humanitarian, compassionate programs that were

evolved. If I may give an example — and this is not particularly to do

with restraint — it is because of the lack of skill of the proper type

of staff being put into long-term care homes.

Am I finished? Well, I have much more to go. Maybe I can follow up later.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Without trying to appear cynical, it sounds

as though the member for Burnaby North is parroting statements which

have come our way from the nurses' union.

The member made mention of the long-term care facilities. I think we

in British Columbia have every reason to be particularly proud of our

network of long-term care facilities. The program began in 1978 as a

government program, and we have established some wonderful facilities

throughout the province. The treatment and care of the elderly — for

the most part elderly — I think is very high.

The member mentioned these humanitarian and compassionate programs

that some people claim are being neglected, and offered some examples —

and I'm not making light of the examples: playing cards with the

patients, taking them for walks, offering certain supervision and so

on. Not a problem at all. We have literally hundreds of people in the

province who are willing, able, and who have indicated their

willingness and ableness, to do precisely that in all of these

facilities. They are called volunteers, and they are quite prepared to

assist the senior citizens in these facilities, to take them for walks,

recreational activities, to play cards with them, in some instances to

assist some of the senior ladies with some basic cosmetics.

However, we have a slight disagreement with those people who provide

service. The disagreement centres around whether a volunteer should be

doing such activities in these facilities; whether volunteers should

take a senior for a walk, or perhaps for a stroll in a wheelchair if

they're incapacitated; whether such volunteers should enter these

facilities and be involved in recreational pursuits with these people,

and other humanitarian and compassionate programs. We have no

disagreement in allowing the volunteers to do so, but there is a

disagreement. We had a great furor in Prince George when two volunteers

wished to do precisely that. They were told: "You cannot come into this

facility and offer that type of volunteerism. You have to hire someone

to come in and do it. They must be hired, put on staff to play cards

with the seniors, take them for a walk, and so on."

So I think the member is correct. I think these small things, as she

mentioned, are very important to the lives of these citizens. I think

we should encourage them, and I think volunteerism is well worth

pursuing. I'll take it up with the long-term care operators and if

necessary do what we have to do to make sure volunteers can provide

that type of assistance to these people. I think it's fair to suggest

that a highly trained skilled nurse really should not be spending a

great deal of her professional time in such pursuits. There is a role

for volunteers.

Just one quick comment. The member would be aware that a study by

two Californians has given our system of health care for the elderly

absolutely top marks based on a two-year study in Ontario, Manitoba and

B.C. Rosalie Kane, a social worker, and her husband Robert, a

physician, offered nothing but praise for British Columbia's system of

care for our elderly.

I agree with the member on these other points, and I think the

answer is with our volunteers. I'll be more than pleased to start

organizing them to take care of that.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MRS. DAILLY: I regret that the minister had to once again

suggest that I was parroting the nurses' union, instead of looking at

the actual facts I was bringing to his attention and saying: "Yes, I

will look into those." As a matter of fact, no particular union was

being parroted. The comments I made are from individual staff members

who were concerned. I wish the minister did not have to take that kind

of sardonic approach to my comments.

As to the matter of the need for.... He wants to suggest now that

volunteers are the complete answer. I agree with the minister...

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Good.

MRS. DAILLY: I have not finished my sentence.

...that to a certain extent the volunteers can contribute, but they

are not the complete answer. Let me give the minister an example.

I visit these long-term care facilities. I go in to visit people I

know, sometimes just to walk around, and the situation today — this is

for the minister's benefit — is that because of staff shortages, many

of those old people are lying there with no attention. Volunteers come

and go, but there is no consistency. The point is that government still

has a responsibility to be sure that days and days don't go by when

some patients have no one to sit with them and talk to them and care

for them. Volunteers are only part of the answer.

Some of the facts I've brought to the minister's attention I would

be pleased to give to him and tell him the institution, so perhaps

together we can do something about it.

[10:45]

[ Page 6285 ]

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, Rosswood is a relatively small

community about 30 miles, or perhaps 45 kilometres, depending on what

measure you're using, from Terrace. There are about 120 or 125

residents there, 35 or 40 families. The community is on the road

northward from Terrace, which will eventually be black topped all the

way through to the Nass Valley and will become a major highway rather

than just a side road. It's black topped now to Rosswood, although

there have been some recent difficulties with the maintenance of the

roadbed. Some of the area that has been black topped has been sloughed

off because of the topography there, but that's fixable. More people

will be, and are being, attracted to move to that community and do

their business and send their children to school, as they do now, in

Terrace.

One of the concepts that existed when B.C. Hydro came into existence

— the old B.C. Electric Railway Co. becoming absorbed within what was

the B.C. Power Commission — was that the high-density electricity

consumers in urban areas, where the cost of providing the electrical

energy was lower per customer than it would be in rural areas.... One

of the principles was that B.C. Hydro's income from the high density,

high-income areas would be used to offset the higher costs of providing

electrical energy to rural areas. At one time, out of general revenue,

there used to be an amount — I believe it was $5 million — granted to

B.C. Hydro for its rural electrification program. That has been

discontinued as a matter of public policy, but B.C. Hydro itself does

have a rural electrification program of sorts.

I think the fundamental point that needs to be looked at is that

residents in communities like Rosswood, but particularly in Rosswood

from my own point of view now, are just as entitled to electrical

energy service from B.C. Hydro as are the people who happen to live in

Vancouver South, the riding represented by the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers). But it is not the

case. I've had correspondence with B.C. Hydro with respect to this

community. The latest word I've received from the chairman of B.C.

Hydro, Mr. Johnson, is that each customer in Rosswood would be required

to contribute approximately $19,000 to bring electricity to their

property line. Then, of course, because it's a rural area, they'd pay

extra to bring it to the buildings and into the house.

So it isn't so that there is equal opportunity and equal access to

the electrical energy produced by the Crown corporation, which the

people of this province own. It is a disparate availability. If you

happen to live in a more urban setting such as Terrace, electricity is

easily available. If you happen to live in the community of Rosswood,

it is not available, except if you put up $19,000 per customer to

obtain it. If you happen to live a few miles northward from Rosswood,

in the Nass Valley, the same B.C. Hydro provides electricity on a

readily accessible basis, because they have a power line running up the

valley. I don't know its capacity, but it carries electricity from the

Skeena Valley through the Kallum up into the Nass River. So right

alongside the community of Rosswood is B.C. Hydro. Whether it's

possible to step that down, and what that would cost, I don't know. But

I'm simply saying that there is not equal access to the electrical

energy produced in this province by B.C. Hydro as between people who

live in rural areas and those who live in more urban settings. A

principle of equity and equal opportunity, of equal availability of the

electrical energy produced by that corporation which the people

themselves own, needs to be established.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the member has had

correspondence with the chairman of B.C. Hydro on this particular

subject, and he and I have both seen a copy of the letter. I'm reminded

of the difficulty we have in rural electrification, which doesn't

always seem quite so far away from downtown Vancouver as you might like

to have it be. Several of my constituents have properties on Bowen

Island, to which they are going to retire from their businesses or

professions. At night they could see from their residences there the

lights of B.C. Hydro headquarters, and they could not get electricity.

So the frustration wouldn't just be for people who are living some

distance from the major electrical grid, but also for people living in

any remote area.

I guess we have to draw the line somewhere in terms of how we supply power

to people who want to live in or do live in remote areas. In some remote communities

we supply diesel power at great subsidy, and that subsidy is paid for by the

people who are on the electrical grid. We also supply power in rural areas under

the rural electrification grant. There is a grant available for people who are

living in permanent homes in rural areas. Now when people live in the situation

that I was referring to on Bowen Island — those were recreational homes until

they got power, at which point they became permanent homes — they have to pay

the whole cost. In one particular instance in this case it was $35,000 — a pretty

steep price to pay, shared among four families.

I wouldn't think that the people who live in Rosswood could afford

to pay anything like that kind of money, nor, I suspect, could each

household afford to pay the $11,000 — depending on how much work they

are prepared to do themselves. A lot of this wire has to be put in by

helicopter. The holes that would have to be dug for the placing of

transmission lines alone are prohibitively expensive — just under half

a million dollars, and all to serve 35 homes. I think the other

residents of the province who live in areas a little more accessible

have some responsibility — or we have some responsibility — in ensuring

that the cost is fairly evenly borne. If you want to look at this

particular community and say, "How many other Rosswoods are there out

there?" there are a lot of them, and if moneys were available under

rural electrification to extend power to every place that people chose

to live in, then Hydro would be perfectly prepared to do that. But they

have a mandate to try to supply power as inexpensively as possible to

the majority of the people of the province, and not to run power lines

at great cost out to anybody who chooses to live or has traditionally

lived in some remote area.

This particular community is a traditional community, not some new

bunch of people who have gone out and settled a new area. If the

population does grow with the improvement in the highway system — if

the highway to the Nass Valley does attract more traffic, and if more

people come to the area — then I think that sometime in the future this

thing can be considered. But at the present time REA has to be applied

evenly provincewide. The subsidy that's available is available to this

community, but there would be a requirement for each individual

householder to meet. In this case it's approximately $11,000 per

household, which, I would suggest, is probably more than they're

prepared to pay. In the meantime, this community and others like it —

there are

[ Page 6286 ]

probably 100 or so in the province — just have to continue as they have in the past.

MR. HOWARD: Obviously the principle of equal opportunity

doesn't prevail. That was the point I was making. I suppose it would be

interesting to find out how many communities there are and how many

people in the province are involved with this sort of thing. There are

a considerable number who are partly disadvantaged because B.C. Hydro

spends such a tremendous proportion of its income dollar from

residential electrical services in paying interest on the debt —

something in the neighbourhood of 40 percent. Out of every $10 bill

that a Hydro customer pays to receive electricity, $4 of that goes to

pay interest on Hydro's debt. And a great deal of it goes across to the

United States. That's one of the problems: there has been an

inappropriate approach on the part of B.C. Hydro over the years,

forcing people in the province to carry an excessive amount of the debt

load.

The minister mentioned something about $19,000 per customer. The May

17 letter from Chester Johnson to me says: "Thus each customer would be

required to contribute about $19,000 to bring electricity to their

property line." The $11,000 is what the rural electrification fund

might provide.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by saying that the

minister's last sentence or other was to the effect that he thought —

and I think I quote him correctly.... I think he said: "I think that

electricity will come to Rosswood in the future." I have to correct him

and say I know it will come to Rosswood in the future, regardless of

the obstacles placed in the way by a government that doesn't recognize

what equal opportunity is all about.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 35.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

[11:00]

section 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair is easy on this one.

Section 3 includes a schedule, and I presume that's what we'll be discussing.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm easy too, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me

that in this

section the appropriate way of dealing with it is to deal

with the entire

schedule in one shot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's my position as well.

MR. GABELMANN: I just want to ask the minister, first of all,

whether or not he agrees that with the exception of West Vancouver,

every school district in the province had either reached an agreement

or was well on its way to reaching an agreement in respect of layoff

procedures and Bill 3 exemption .

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the information which had

been conveyed to the ministry is that there were 21 school districts

which had not reached an agreement. I know West Van, that school

district, was bandied about a fair amount yesterday. All of the

information which we have would indicate that there were 21 districts.

Some of those districts had agreements for the first six months of '85

— that's a transition period — and many others had worked in to a

period from July 1, 1985, up to June 30, 1986. Because of that, and

because we're talking about the

schedule in its entirety right now, one

of the concerns which I have.... I will be putting forth an amendment

to the one

section in the schedule: instead of having the date under

section 4, near the end, under the transitional period.... Under the

transitional provision,

section 4 of the schedule....

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that's in

section 4 of the bill, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Just a minute. Let me get this clear.

Pardon me; you're correct. The comments which I was going to make with respect to that proposed amendment I'll make....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's right. Really, I thought that's what you were getting at.

There were 21 school districts. I'll repeat what I said yesterday.

We were in a position where the school districts — and through the B.C.

School Trustees' Association — had requested that an amendment be made

to the School Act. As a matter of fact, it was something which members

opposite, including the member for North Island as well as the member

for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), had recommended be done. How it is

being done is the issue. But there were 21.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister

whether he had representation from any school district other than West

Vancouver asking him to bring in this particular legislation. The

answer is yes. Through the BCSTA, do I understand?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: From individual school districts as well as the BCSTA.

MR. GABELMANN: May I ask the minister why, assuming he needed

to bring in this kind of legislation, he didn't bring in something

similar to agreements that have been negotiated in....? Pick any one of

the 54 that have been negotiated; Central Okanagan's a good example,

but there are many others. Why would the minister not bring in a

schedule similar to agreements that have been reached, which are

relatively similar around the province in their application — and, I

might note, Mr. Chairman, approved by Ed Peck under the process

required in the Public Service Restraint Act, the Bill 3 exemption

process, all of which had been approved by him? I think in the course

of all of this procedure there has only been one referral back to the

parties in respect of Bill 3 exemptions, and that was agreed to after

it was referred back and then Peck approved it. If the layoff

procedures negotiated appear to be satisfactory to the employer, to the

employees and to the government's agent, Mr.

[ Page 6287 ]

Peck, why wouldn't those kinds of agreements be satisfactory in this legislation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the legislation before the

House today was drafted keeping in mind a number of those agreements to

which the member has referred. In addition to that, we used people from

school districts to assist in the preparation of this legislation. And

these were districts who had agreements. As I said yesterday, a number

of these points are not particularly new. In a number of school

districts they do make reference to a number of the provisions that you

find within the schedule. I thought by using the counsel of people who

were responsible for negotiating these types of agreements in the

field, as between boards and local teachers' associations, we could

learn a great deal from them. I think we have, and I think it is

reflected within the schedule.

MR. GABELMANN: The reason that yesterday I described this as

a political bill still holds. Obviously the minister, by the way he's

couched it both today and yesterday, is not going to tell us who these

people were who helped him. I'm not asking that you do. But it's clear

that they were not people who were involved in coming to agreements

with their employees in various districts. Or if they were, they were

people who took to those negotiations a particular position which then

didn't hold in negotiations. Because clearly the

schedule is an

ideological schedule. It's a

schedule that sets up a procedure designed

not to have an amicable relationship and a clearly understood procedure

for terminations, but rather one that is open to political

interpretation, and one that is going to lead to confusion and to chaos

in the system, because people will not know by looking at the schedule,

if it's imposed in their district, how it works and how they're

affected by it.

In the negotiated agreements I believe without exception there are

definitions in respect of ability,

definitions in respect of

qualifications, and

definitions in respect of seniority, which become

really very complicated, and you require some carefully worked out

language to make it clear. That language does not exist in this

section. I've always, I think, been fair in my characterization of

legislation, whether I think it's designed for the purposes stated or

whether it's political. This is clearly political legislation, designed

to attempt to get the government back into the driver's seat in terms

of the popularity of its education policies. That's all it's designed

to do: to attempt to drive a wedge among people in the education

community. That's what it's designed to do. Otherwise the minister

would have sought advice from people who had successfully reached

agreements which were approved by the government's own agent, Ed Peck,

which was done in, I think, 54 cases and, I gather, was well on its way

to happening in another 20 cases.

In fact, the political intransigence of the West Van board, egged

on, I suspect, by its member of the Legislature, is what has led to

this particular bill, because the government wants a political handle.

The minister shakes his head. Otherwise there would have been.... The

schedule is something that affects two parties. The minister has not

consulted two parties in terms of what the

schedule is to say. The

minister hasn't even adopted a position in his

schedule that is

reflected by either party anywhere where they've reached agreements.

Having made that political statement about a political bill, let me

ask the minister how the

definitions under

section 5 of the

schedule

are going to be determined.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the member has asked a

number of questions. First of all, it's interesting to note that some

of those areas where we did receive counsel were areas where, in fact,

there are existing agreements. I think we should also remind ourselves

that with roughly one third of the school districts that did not have

an agreement, something had to be done. We also have to remind

ourselves that the demands which were being made by the local teachers'

associations with those districts were such that they just could not

accept them.

I am advised: never mind the official line which is being taken by

certain members of vested interest groups; the unofficial position of

teachers is that they are quite supportive of this particular bill. The

member may not have heard what I said, and I'll repeat this. The

demands which were being made by the districts that had not negotiated

agreements were such that the school districts themselves could not

accept them. They just could not accept the demands which were being

made. Other school districts not only could not hammer out agreements,

but they even hammered out agreements which made reference to a number

of the items which are within this bill.

Now we have gone to considerable length to ensure that the dispute

resolution mechanism is most fair. I cannot displace from those who

wish to advance the view that this is a political bill and that it will

be used by boards for political purposes, because I can assure you that

my experience, after traveling the province as extensively as I did,

was that school districts in general are really administered at the

political level by people who are generally reasonable. I won't say

entirely, but for the most part they are usually quite balanced in

their views. They are very much interested in the promotion of good

industrial relations with their staff. Any board which takes the

position that it is going to use this piece of legislation to achieve

some political end is going to find themselves in hot water. We've made

sure by the due process provisions that an aggrieved party will have

every opportunity....

Now reference is made to

section 5 and why there is not an extensive

definition for each of these sections. I don't think it's the function

of government to put in a definition for every section, as if this is

the way it's going to be. Why I don't believe that the government

should be in that position is that every district has its own way of

addressing each of the issues of seniority, qualifications and

demonstrated ability. That is clear even upon reading those agreements

which are in existence at this time. Many school districts have never

even addressed the issue, but many other school districts, which I

believe are leaders in the field, have done so. It was our decision,

our policy, to put the words in the statute and allow them to work out

their own agreement. That seems to me to make eminent sense. It gives

the benefit of the doubt in all cases to the people who have to

negotiate the agreement.

[11:15]

MR. GABELMANN: Do I understand from that, Mr. Chairman, that

boards and their teacher-employees can negotiate

definitions to

section

5 of the schedule?

[ Page 6288 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that most

school districts — I would hope all — would enter into bargaining in

good faith. We can't turn around here.... The member knows that you

can't legislate every conceivable item which you may wish to have in an

agreement. If they fail to negotiate something, then the

schedule will

prevail.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me just try again. Obviously the desire is

that everybody negotiates an agreement and the

schedule doesn't come

into play. That's my desire and I trust it's the minister's desire. My

question was, if they don't reach an agreement and the

schedule does

replace or become their agreement, can they then negotiate

supplementary provisions to this schedule, defining the undefined

language in the schedule?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I go back to my original statement. The

language contained in

section 5 is direction only. I would think and I

would hope.... Not only that, they have the ability to put in their own

agreement, their

definitions as to what current demonstrated ability

will be within that district. I repeat and go back to the example which

I found in the Greater Victoria School District agreement, where there

are a number of sections involving definition of qualifications.

Definition of seniority — a number of sections involving that. I would

venture to say that every school district will do exactly the same, and

they're free to do so.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay, let's leave that point for now.

Let me ask the minister another question. In effect, as I read

section 4 of the schedule, teachers who for one reason or another — and

there are several reasons — are not paying into the superannuation fund

will not have their time teaching while not paying counted for

seniority purposes. Is that a correct

interpretation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If they don't make contributions to their pension plan, then it would not count towards seniority.

MR. GABELMANN: The world knows I'm not an expert at this

stuff, but as I understand it, teachers aged 55 or over who are on

appointment, or teachers working less than half-time, which is an

increasing phenomenon now in the school system, or full-time teachers

who have taken a reduction in assignment down to less than half-time,

are not required to pay into the superannuation fund. And if they don't

pay into the superannuation fund, as I read this section, their time

teaching would not be calculated for seniority purposes.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The points made by the member are correct,

but that doesn't preclude them from making their contribution to the,

pension fund, does it?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Then it's their choice.

MR. GABELMANN: So we're adding a dimension here. Clearly,

people who are employed in jobs who have an option may choose for some

reason, particularly if they're over 55 and teaching on appointment,

not to pay into the fund because the economics of it may be ridiculous.

That's an option people have: not to pay into the fund. They're now

going to be required to pay into the fund if they want to protect their

seniority. It's a small point, a technical point, but it seems to me to

be.... I don't believe that the minister really designed this to have

that effect.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I think the point has been amply made by my

colleague. However, I would disagree that it's a small point. I think

it's a fairly significant point. The wording in

section 4 is:

"...'service seniority' means the length of service with the board with

whom the teacher is employed, during which contributions are made under

the...." It's very clear, and it seems illogical that the minister is

attempting to tie in seniority to contributions to the pension plan. It

seems inequitable. Even the seniority of members of this House is not

tied into pensionable contributions. We have a choice of whether we can

opt for a pension plan later on in service if we wish. That has no

tying agreement onto our years of service.

It doesn't seem equitable, and I ask the minister why he has tried

to tie in the seniority to the pension plan, because it's unfair.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm advised that the rules and regulations

were extensive involving.... It's really a mixed bag for determining

seniority. Now it seems to me that tying it to payment towards pension

has made it much clearer, and I don't really know why the argument

against contribution towards a pension should be such a considerable

issue. If teachers 55 and beyond, who have been in the system

presumably for a number of years.... If they started at 25, there's 30

years of teaching. After 35 years for the maximum contribution.... It

seems to me only reasonable that somebody would want to maintain his

pension credits and make his contribution. Now what is unreasonable

about that?

MR. GABELMANN: Let's just use the other example the teacher

working part-time, half-time, and choosing as a result of that not to

pay into the superannuation fund. There often are good reasons. MLAs

who expect to be here less than two terms don't pay into their fund

either. There are good reasons sometimes for not paying into a fund. I

paid in and took it out and then repaid. The point is that for teachers

who are interested in protecting their seniority you are compelling

superannuation payments where before they were voluntary. They are

still voluntary if you don't mind losing your seniority, but if you

want to protect your seniority you will now have a compulsion to pay

into the fund.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Just in furthering that argument, I think the

case that my colleague and I have both presented in terms of members of

this very House and the fact that they have a choice of paying in

immediately to a pension fund or at a later date.... That choice

certainly does not affect their years of service in the House in terms

of length of service or seniority. It just seems inequitable, and as

mentioned earlier it seems to penalize those teachers that are working

on a part-time basis, perhaps a half-time equivalent teacher or

somebody working three-eighths of the full-time equivalent. It doesn't

seem logical to penalize these individuals by forcing them to

contribute to a pension plan in order to justify their conditions for

seniority. I cannot see why we need to do this — why instead we cannot

simply tally the total length of time

[ Page

6289 ]

of that individual who's teaching; for example, an

individual teaching on a half-time FTE would take two years to get one

year's service in. It seems reasonably logical. You don't have to tie

it into a system of penalizing those individuals. I would suggest that

we reconsider this

section of the bill.

Section 3 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members,

section 3 was the schedule, and it is deemed to be passed. Thank you.

section 4.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to file an amendment.... .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Move.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: ...on

section 4, entitled "Transitional."

The reason is this. It's

section 4(b), where you see the date December

31, 1985. I would like to submit an amendment to make that June 30,

1986. The reason for that is that there are now a number of agreements

which are coming in, and they are considerable. They go past the

December 31, 1985, deadline, and they are going to June 30, 1986. I

don't think it would be fair on our part to pass a bill which in fact

would frustrate a contract which has just been hammered out in filing.

So I would like, Mr. Chairman, to file an amendment to

section 4. It

reads as follows: "Delete phrase 'December 31, 1985' and substitute

'June 30, 1986."'

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

That preserves the contracts which have just been negotiated or are

in the process of being negotiated for the full school year 1985-86.

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 35, School Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

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

Leave granted.

Bill 35, School Amendment Act, 1985, read a third time and passed on division.

[11:30]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Committee on Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Ree in the chair.

section 1.

MR. BLENCOE: Here we are again. It was our desire and our

hope that the government had seen some wisdom and had agreed to rethink

and relook at this particular piece of legislation. There has been

virtually no support for this legislation. The islanders and the Trust

have indicated quite clearly that they cannot support this legislation.

Indeed, I think there are members on the government side who wonder why

this legislation is before us.

The Trust, as we all know, has been in existence for a number of

years and has successfully managed to do, I think we all have to agree,

a terrific job on behalf of the islands and British Columbia. We still

cannot understand why this minister wishes to introduce this

legislation. If he wishes to do what he calls housekeeping, he can

accommodate that desire without directly neutering the Trust's planning

and the setting of direction for their own planning process. That is

quite possible. A simple mechanism can be introduced.

Unfortunately, it would appear that there is something else

happening with this legislation, that there is indeed a hidden agenda.

The minister's little slip at the end of debate on second reading,

"While we don't plan any changes in the Islands Trust at this time..."

may have been the foreshadowing of the real implications of this

legislation.

It's incredible and most unfortunate that a government that is

supposedly.... The minister and the Premier and a number of others have

gone around this province talking about partnership with local

government, about trying to build trust with local government. At the

same time we have this piece of so-called housekeeping legislation in

front of us which is basically a power grab of local government, of a

local institution, the Islands Trust. It is simply a blatant power grab

— nothing else. Unless the minister can indicate otherwise, it is going

to be seen as a deceitful, disruptive piece of legislation and

centralization by this government, once again, into local autonomy,

local control and local planning vis-à-vis the islands.

You know, the minister said during the debate that he really had not

consulted the islanders on this particular piece of legislation and

that he was going to take the opportunity to consult. I don't know if

he has done that. I don't know if he has been to the islands. I don't

know whether he has talked about partnership on the islands. But I

would like to hear if the minister has indeed entered into a real

consultation process with the Islands Trust to try to find some

resolution of what the minister desires and what the Islands Trust

wishes to do in the long term. I think that's only fair. Otherwise Bill

30 will clearly be just a betrayal of the principles of local

government autonomy. It will be a betrayal of the real principle of the

Islands Trust in terms of....

[ Page 6290 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. In committee debate

must be strictly relevant to the

section being considered. The Chair

does leave a little bit of leeway for members to develop argument

towards that section, but the Chair is having difficulty finding

relevancy to the

Section in your debate.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, the relevancy in terms of my comments is

that this legislation, although it only has two sections, has strong

ramifications for the Trust. Of course, I have to discuss those

ramifications.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is provided for in second reading, hon.

member. That is where the general ramifications are relevant, but here

we are dealing with the specific section.

MR. BLENCOE: This is a very important piece of legislation to

the islanders. It shows the real respect that that government has for

the Gulf Islands, Mr. Chairman, that it can't even bother to listen —

as usual.

The point I'm making is that when a minister "may assign

employees...to assist the trust in carrying out its duties, " that

takes away the opportunity for the Trust to set its own direction. This

government has talked about wishing to develop partnership with local

government; not confront local government, but try to develop plans

with local government that are done in consultation, in a conciliatory

kind of manner.

It's our view that this bill is totally confrontational, and it's

not necessary. The islanders indeed do not require it; the minister

doesn't need it for his housekeeping. Simply, it is one of the most

blatant pieces of power grabbing by this government, to do, I can only

assume, what they want with the islands. The minister's little slip in

second reading: "At this moment I don't intend any changes to the

Trust."

Mr. Chairman, we believe that the Trust has to remain intact. They

should be allowed to set the direction of their own staff and to assign

their own staff. Indeed, what they have done since 1974, which is to

protect those islands, should continue. I would like to ask the

minister: who wants this legislation? Who is promoting it? The Islands

Trust isn't. As far as I know, Mr. Campbell isn't. As far as I know,

very few members on the government side have indicated that they

understand what it is for. We certainly have seen no defence of why

it's needed and who wants it. Is it a power grab?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, it is not a power grab. You should know

better than that. The record of this ministry does not indicate so, and

it will continue to indicate that that is not a desire. Also, the Trust

will remain intact. They have been assured that indeed they will be

left intact to carry out their responsibilities.

As you know, the present legislation gives the Trust the authority

to appoint only. The employees are a part of the ministry staff, part

of the BCGEU, they contribute towards the pension plan, and it's

necessary that that be cleaned up. All this does is provide a logical

staffing situation and give the ministry the legal authority to assign

staff in a proper manner. I would suggest that what that member should

do is spend a little more time reading, studying, understanding present

legislation. He will then see quite clearly that this legislation is

indeed necessary in order to clean it up.

I have met on several occasions with the Trust, and have given them

my assurance that they will be assisted in carrying out their mandate

and that the Trust will stay intact. I have been in communication with

a number of islanders, and having had the opportunity to explain it,

those who are interested in the welfare of the islands and not in

straight politics are satisfied that there is no danger to the Trust.

Yes, I have accepted invitations to visit the islands, and I intend to

do that as soon as time permits, hopefully before fall.

So we are simply looking at a logical way of dealing with the

staffing for the Trust, and the member does have my assurance that they

will stay intact.

MR. BLENCOE: In spite of what the minister says, he knows dam

well that the Trust thinks otherwise, and that the citizens of British

Columbia and Saanich think otherwise. I can assure you that the

Minister of Finance is going to hear about this from now until the

election. We certainly haven't seen that eminent minister stand up to

defend this so-called housekeeping legislation. Where is that member?

Why isn't he telling his constituents or the islanders that it's a

tremendous piece of legislation? Where are you? You haven't said a word

to your constituents or the islanders about this so-called housekeeping

legislation. Have you met with the Islands Trust? Have you met with Mr.

Humphries? Have you consulted with them? No, of course not. You know

what a devious piece of legislation this is. You know that. It's about

time you consulted with...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BLENCOE: ...your constituents on the Islands Trust...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: ...about this piece of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. Comments should be directed through the Chair and not directly to other hon. members in the chamber.

MR. BLENCOE: It's a shameful day, Mr. Chairman, when the MLA

who represents that riding and those islands hasn't had the decency or

the guts or the determination to stand up in this House and tell his

constituents and his islanders why this legislation is necessary, why

this power grab is essential for so-called housekeeping. He hasn't done

that, and it's time that he did. His constituents demand it. He has run

from this House consistently when the legislation has come up, and

today is the first time that he's had the guts, it would appear, to sit

and listen to this debate. I'm hoping he will get up and tell us and

his constituents why this legislation is essential. Let him defend it,

because it's in his riding.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The member has

clearly imputed cowardice, with respect to a piece of legislation, and

I consider that to be completely unparliamentary an offence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Victoria would withdraw any comments of impropriety or deficiency.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, if the Chairman will be specific about my comments....Which specific comments are

[ Page

6291 ]

you referring to? As Chairman, I ask you that. Which comments are you referring to? The minister knows darn well...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BLENCOE: ...what this piece of legislation is all about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the member for Victoria implied any cowardice to the minister, would the member so withdraw...

HON. MR. CURTIS: Withdraw!

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...or acknowledge no such imputation.

MR. BLENCOE: Listen to the cries over on the other side.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please withdraw or acknowledge he did not imply such...

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, if I indeed referred to the minister as a coward and that is unparliamentary, then I will withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will consider that acceptable. Would the member for Victoria...

MR. BLENCOE: What I said, Mr. Chairman, for the...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, while the Chair is speaking.

Would the member for Victoria continue strictly relevant debate on

section 1 of Bill 30.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I finally got the Minister of Finance to

stand up and say some words about this legislation. It's about time.

Hopefully he will participate and tell us how he can defend this piece

of legislation in terms of the islanders.

He can't. He knows what it's all about. He knows it's a deceitful

piece of legislation, that it's not housekeeping, that it's a power

grab of the Trust that he supposedly has supported all these years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: He participated on the committee that struck the Islands Trust, Mr. Chairman.

[11:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. This would be the

last time. The Chair should point out to the member

section 61(2) of

standing orders: "Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly

relevant to the item or clause under consideration." The question of

debate to now has been basically that of second reading. The debate of

the committee should be strictly relevant to the section. We are

dealing with

section 1 of Bill 30, on which the minister responsible

for the bill should be answering the questions.

MR. BLENCOE: I think we'll leave it there in terms of the

Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, but I think the people of his riding

and the islanders have seen through why he is not defending this

legislation and why he runs from it. It's about time he said some words

about it.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister again: where is the

direction coming from? Where is the request for this legislation?

Because I've already indicated, and the chairman of the Islands Trust

has indicated, that if you wish to accommodate housekeeping you can do

it quite simply, ' I will indicate I have an amendment that will call

the minister's bluff, that would allow him to do what he wants to do,

at the same time allowing the Trust to maintain its operation and

direct its staff. That amendment will do what the minister wants. If he

just wants housekeeping, then he will endorse this amendment and this

whole debate will disappear. We can get back to running those islands

properly without this controversy and this confrontation, and we can

have, I suppose, real partnership. At the moment we don't have anything

like that because we have a minister who clearly, if he doesn't accept

my amendment, is prepared to take over the operation of the Islands

Trust.

I'd like to ask the minister who will manage the staff. They have a

manager now. Who will manage the staff? Who is going to manage it?

Currently they have a manager. Who will manage the staff?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, there are no details worked

out at this moment in respect to staffing, and until such is done, if

it's going to be done, I'm unable to say who would be appointed to

manage six employees.

Mr. Chairman, to respond to another question when I'm on my feet, in

respect to who is asking for this legislation, that member has to be

excused because of his lack of knowledge and obvious failure to study

procedures. But usually legislation is the result of a various number

of things. Problems are identified in the field that may require some

legislative amendments, procedures, etc., so there are a host of

reasons that usually go into legislation, the need for legislation or

legislative changes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. We are dealing with

section 1 of the bill.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That is the reason for

section 1, Mr. Chairman. So I hope that that satisfies the member's....

MR. BLENCOE: So again we don't know who will manage the

staff. That's good planning; that's good management. It's typical, I

suppose. How will the duties be assigned? May I ask that? Who will

assign them?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, first of all I said six

employees; rather it should be seven employees. We have a bank of

expertise in our ministry. We have people highly qualified in all areas

required in the operation of the Trust. The Trust indeed, as today,

will have at their call all of the professional assistance and

direction that they will require.

MR. BLENCOE: No answer, because the minister doesn't want to

tell this House what really is happening here. We know dam well the

minister and his, I suppose, political agenda and those who carry it

out for him. That's what's

[ Page 6292 ]

going to happen. It's going to be the assignment of his political agenda for the islands.

I'd like to ask the minister what the trustees' role will be in the

day-to-day operations of assignment duties and priorities. Currently

they set the priorities for the planning staff. How are they going to

fit into this, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Again, Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal

of repetition taking place here, but the islands are represented by 26

trustees. Those trustees will continue as they have done in the past.

They will continue to develop policies, and they have been assured of

that. They will continue as a trust, they will be respected as a trust

and indeed assisted to carry out their responsibilities as a trust.

MR. BLENCOE: How can the trustees set the priorities and

direction of their own staff when you control those staff and you set

the assignments? Tell me how they're going to do that, Mr. Minister.

Can't tell me? There again, we know what it's all about.

In developing this administrative system which he hasn't thought of

yet, yet he's got legislation that is changing the whole administrative

system for the islands.... Can the minister tell me that, in developing

the administrative system, the Trust will have any say in those

arrangements — the trustees? Will they be partners in developing the

system?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the minister and the ministry

will continue in their usual cooperative partnership approach to doing

things throughout the province; have no fear.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I resent that remark, Mr. Chairman. As one

who immigrated to this country over 34 years ago, I resent publicly

being criticized and having my language criticized by that person. Mr.

Chairman, I would expect an apology. That, in my opinion, is

discrimination against one who chose this great land to come and raise

a family in, and I would ask that member to withdraw that remark, which

I consider to be discrimination.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm quite confident the member meant nothing

untoward, because a number of the members of the chamber have accents

differing from others. I'm confident all members of this House respect

each other.

MR. BLENCOE: I just wanted the minister to try and tell us

exactly what he was saying, because I don't think anyone understood

what he was referring to.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, I just want to suggest that the accent displayed by that member is not superior to others.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes that all accents are equal, although not necessarily sounding the same.

MR. BLENCOE: All I am trying to do is ask the minister who is

supposedly the minister talking about partnership with local

government. If I asked him a question, maybe he could try and answer

it. Will the Trust be a part of the decision-making process that puts

the new administrative system in place? Or will you be doing it from

Victoria and your office? Can the minister answer that? The minister is

not prepared to answer that. Well, again, clearly it would appear that

everything's going to be done by the minister from Victoria, with his

senior bureaucrats. It's unfortunate. It's very unfortunate and a very

sad day for local autonomy. I think we can at long last see what this

government means by partnership with local government: "Do as I do. If

you question, well, you're in trouble and we'll basically take you

over." That's what we have with this legislation.

I'll try to get some more questions answered. The Campbell report,

which is supposedly on the back burner or somewhere around.... The

minister will remember an open letter to all residents in the Islands

Trust area. It says:

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

"My ministry is conducting a review of all regional

districts. After completion of a number of reports, some weaknesses of

individual regional district operations have been identified. This

review is under the direction of Mr. Dan Campbell. I have concluded it

will be useful for both the ministry and the residents in the Islands

Trust area if this review also encompassed the Islands Trust. You are

therefore invited to forward written submissions to the undernoted

address in respect to the operations of the Islands Trust."

And they were to be submitted to Mr. Dan Campbell. The date — well, this was from the Vancouver Province of September 23, 1984. It has "Bill Ritchie, Minister of Municipal Affairs" on the bottom of this ad.

Here is supposedly a process asking the islanders for comments about

their future and what should happen — planning, I presume. I've seen

many of the letters that have come in; many have been copied for me.

Putting the islanders through a process that I suppose, you know.... It

looked honest, forthright and reasonable and like the minister wished

to consult with the islanders. Well, we've never seen any of that

consultation process before us. Mr. Campbell has not given us any

indication of what the response has been. On the other hand, we have

this legislation before us circumnavigating that process. Really, how

can this ministry be trusted? How can this government be trusted when

you have a process here of asking for views and, before we even know

what those views are and what people want to see for the islands, you

bring in legislation which basically neuters the Islands Trust in terms

of setting their own direction. It's hypocrisy. Can the minister answer

that?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It was at my direction that that procedure

be followed so that everyone would have an opportunity to voice their

opinion. They did, and it was overwhelmingly that the Islands Trust

remain intact. That's the reason for this decision. The Islands Trust

will remain intact for two reasons: one, that is the wish of the

people; and two, we believe that they have a responsible duty to

perform and they are doing so. We are going to assist them to do it

better. Lang mae yur lum reek.

MR. BLENCOE: Will the staff you assign be independent? Will they report to the Trust, or will they report to you?

[ Page 6293 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That member continues with his repetitive

questions, Mr. Chairman. I've already indicated that there have been no

details worked out. But I can assure you that we will be conversing

with the Trust and I think that that member should be satisfied that

indeed until we do have some details I'm unable to give him the

specifies that he would like to have at this time.

MR. BLENCOE: That is totally unacceptable. How can you expect

a group of people who are dutifully elected to accept such a

wishy-washy answer? There's no answer there at all.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: In terms of the hidden agenda, maybe you're

right. The minister cannot tell this House or the Islands Trust what

role the Islands Trust will have in assigning responsibilities, or the

administrative system. Can you tell me he hasn't thought about that? He

can't tell me who the planners or the municipal staff will report to?

He can't tell me that? Who are you trying to kid? I think you've told

everybody, including the media, what this bill is really all about.

You've got an agenda, Mr. Minister. You've got some friends backed up

for development on the islands.

[12:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Mondo-condo legislation is going to be before us. That's what you said today....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. That was an improper imputation, and I will ask the member to withdraw that remark.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BLENCOE: Which remark was that, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The remark the Chair found offensive. Please withdraw, or withdraw from the chamber.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, exactly which remark was offensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was an imputation made against another

hon. member of this House which the Chair found offensive. The member

can withdraw the remark or withdraw from the chamber.

MR. BLENCOE: You're making it very difficult. I'd like to know what remark you're referring to, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It was an offence to another hon. member of this House, and I will ask the member to withdraw it.

MR. BLENCOE: Obviously I don't want to get kicked out of this

House. And obviously I'm not going to be told what was offensive.

Therefore....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, "friends."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please withdraw.

MR. BLENCOE: I withdraw the remark "friends, " Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

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

The minister will come to order. The member will come to order. And we

will continue debate in committee on

Section I of Bill 30 — relevant

debate.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A withdrawal was heard, yes. Please proceed.

MR. BLENCOE: I withdrew the word "friends." I suppose that's

appropriate, because this government has very few friends left in the

province of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. BLENCOE: No friends left at all.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Minister, how can you seriously tell this

chamber, the people of British Columbia and the Gulf Islanders that you

have a piece of legislation that neuters their work? You will appoint

the employees, and yet you tell us you don't know how the Islands Trust

is going to participate in that new system. Is that good management?

I think the people of the Islands Trust are entitled to know exactly

what is going to happen to them after this legislation passes.

Unfortunately we're not going to get the answer, because we know why

this legislation is before us. We're going to see some dramatic changes

to those islands in the next few years. There is going to be a

tremendous battle on those islands. This government won't get its way.

You want to do a Waikiki mondo-condo on the islands. Mr. Chairman,

there will be a fight on those Gulf Islands.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're beyond the

section now.

The

section clearly discusses only the assignment of employees, which,

I might add, is permissive in the section. To the section, please.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm wondering if the minister can tell us when

the Campbell report on the Islands Trust will be before us — the

Campbell report from the process that was supposedly to allow the

islanders to participate in the future of their islands. When will we

see that report?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Whenever I am ready to release the report.

Mr. Chairman, that review has been underway now for quite some time.

The record speaks for itself. The

[ Page 6294 ]

reports are delivered to each regional board, and

will be to the Trust in due course. The ministry will continue with

that policy, and that report will be delivered directly to the boards

and explained. Whenever that time comes, I'm sure the member will

receive his copy like anyone else.

MR. BLENCOE: The process, indeed, has been underway for some

time. The ad that I referred to appeared in September of '84. Can the

minister answer: has Mr. Campbell finished his review of the Islands

Trust?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes.

MR. BLENCOE: Wouldn't it be the honourable thing, the correct

thing, to bring that report forward before this legislation? Perhaps

the minister can respond to that. Why don't we have that report first,

and allow all those people who participated honestly and sincerely in

the process....allow their participation to have some meaning? Or is

there something in the Campbell report the minister doesn't want us to

see?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Absolutely not. We don't think that we

should treat any regional board, or the Trust, any differently than the

others. We think they all deserve equal treatment. I'm sure the member

wouldn't want me to single out the Trust from the other regional boards

and get them all upset. The reports are delivered to the boards, and

will be to the Trust; most times I'm present to do so and discuss it.

Again, the report has been completed by Mr. Campbell. It has not yet

come to my office.

MR. BLENCOE: One of the concerns being expressed by this

minister and, I think, by some members of government is that the Trust

is not prepared to work with the government, and they're not prepared

to look at their community plans and try to accommodate the

government's views in terms of development.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, the content of the

debate which the member is conducting is perhaps appropriate in second

reading, but in committee — as I understand it, and I haven't been here

very long — debate is to be relevant to the section. As I understand

it, the

section has to do with employees and the assignment of

employees, and I would ask that perhaps you would assist the hon.

member, who is a new member here, to keep his debate relevant.

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

has indicated on numerous occasions now that we must be relevant in

committee and debate each clause specifically, and be relevant to that

clause. The clause specifically deals with the assignment of staff,

it's permissive, and that is the essence of the debate that is allowed

in discussion of this section.

MR. BLENCOE: A good point made. Unfortunately, we only have

two clauses but the impact of those clauses is draconian and dramatic,

and the points that I have to bring up as parts of the impact of those

two clauses are indeed widespread. I do apologize for having to go

beyond perhaps what might appear to be the actual wording of the

clause. But my view is that the assigning of Municipal Affairs staff by

the minister, or with the Trust, has a tremendous impact on all aspects

of the islands, and that's the point I'm trying to make. I think the

minister knows that.

Again, I'd like to ask the minister, given that he will be assigning

employees to the Trust.... I'm wondering if the minister is aware of

the Trust's — and particularly Mr. Humphries' — offer already to work

with the minister and his staff. I suppose they're the assigned staff

that are going to be given to the Trust. But Mr. Humphries has

indicated they are quite prepared to look at streamlining the operation

and the procedures of the Trust and their community plans. They've

offered to strike a special committee and work with this government,

which may be one of the reasons why we have the so-called housekeeping

legislation before us.

Is the minister aware of those overtures by the Islands Trust to

work with the government and try to accommodate some of their concerns?

Why is the minister not utilizing that olive branch, that offer of

assistance, that true partnership? Why is he spurning it? I ask the

minister those questions.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The member asks a question that's really

not necessary, because he himself became politically involved and was

chairing a meeting at which I was in attendance, and he knows that at

that meeting those proposals were discussed. So why he should be asking

that question now is beyond me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 1 again, and with strictly relevant debate, please, the second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: I think the Trust, in trying to answer this

particular section, has responded adequately to try to meet the

minister's concerns and have him withdraw this particular piece of

legislation. Again, I can only surmise that there is a hidden agenda

and there's another reason why this legislation is before us.

Perhaps the minister can answer this question, and it is related to

staff. If the Islands Trust was prepared to pay the full cost of all

staffing, and not your ministry — which supposedly is the reason why

you want so-called housekeeping, because you do pay them, therefore you

think you should control them.... If the Islands Trust was prepared to

pay for the whole operation, including staff, how would you respond,

Mr. Minister?

"Hypothetical question, " I hear whispered over here. Well, I think

it's an extremely good question, because the minister has made it clear

that one reason he wants

section 1 is that he pays the cost, therefore he should

have control and assign. I believe that can be done and the trustees can still

set the direction. I've already said I've got an amendment to accommodate

him on that. But good question: if they will pay the whole works, everything,

take it out of your hands, you'll still have the control under the Municipal

Act or whatever you want.... Their plans will have to be approved by you

as they are now, but they're prepared to pay the whole works. How would

that change things?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We're not discussing dollars and cents in

this section; we're discussing efficiencies, improved services,

staffing procedures. So dollars and cents don't enter into it at all.

MR. WILLIAMS: You call it efficiencies and that sort of stuff, but the member for Victoria is pretty clear and I think

[ Page 6295 ]

reveals what the agenda really is. The minister

says he hasn't worked it out. There's got to be discussions in terms of

who bosses who. It's pretty clear who's going to boss who. It's pretty

clear the minister wants control, and he can assign. If the wrong

person goes there who's too sympathetic to the views of the Trust, they

can be replaced. Somebody else will be sent next time. That's what the

operation will be. So what the minister wants in the islands will be

conveyed by the kind of staff he sends. That's clearly what the agenda

is. He intends to send to the Islands Trust the staff that he wants to

send. That could well mean there would be somebody who has very

different views than many of the islanders. So it's a chance to insert

himself into the operations in an interesting, insidious way: that is,

to lay his views on land development onto the people of the islands.

That is what is intended here.

This administration has laid its views on the islands many times.

The member for Saanich clearly has. Nowhere else in British Columbia do

they get free sewers landed on them; only in the Gulf Islands. So here

we go again, you know. And for the minister to pretend that there's

going to be discussions when he has the club — he's only kidding us. He

clearly has a program in mind. The program is to control the staff, and

once you control the staff you'll make sure the right people are sent

and the right message delivered. You can be sure it will be from the

right, from this minister.

So we needn't kid ourselves about this one. This is the minister

inserting himself directly in the decision-making process within the

islands. He wants to send his envoys there. That's the intent of this

legislation. To pretend that it's housekeeping.... If that's all it

were, if it were really just housekeeping, then these matters would be

resolved. The minister could get up in the House now and say: "Yes,

I've worked out arrangements. Yes, I've met with Mr. Holmes. Yes, we've

resolved it and the pattern will be thus and so."

[12:15]

This legislation has been around for quite a while. The minister had

been talking about it for quite a while before the House actually sat

this year. So we're talking about a half year at least when the

minister could have at least settled the operational methods here. But

instead, there's a bit of a smokescreen: no, it's still to be

discussed. It's not to be discussed. The minister clearly has a program

in mind, and the program is one of inserting himself into the

development process on the islands. That's what it's all about.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, we're not getting any answers, and

clearly we're not going to get any answers because we know once and for

all why this legislation is before us. The member for Vancouver East

said it extremely well. We're going to have political interference.

It's going to be the minister setting his desires on the islands, and

the Islands Trust will be neutered.

I indicated earlier that I have an amendment to put forward. If the

minister is being straight, if the minister's statement is accurate

that this is housekeeping, then this amendment will carry out his

housekeeping. At the same time it will allow the Islands Trust to set

the direction and accommodate their concerns, and everybody will be

happy. I would propose that the bill be amended by striking out clause

(1) and substituting therefore

section 13 of the Islands Trust Act,

RSBC, 1979; and amended by adding the following subsection (4):

"Persons appointed pursuant to subsection one shall be deemed employees

as defined by the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Pension

(Public Service) Act." Also that clause (2) be struck, Mr. Chairman,

but we'll get to that later. That's my amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is out of order, hon. members. It is a direct negative of the

section before us.

section 1.

MR. BLENCOE: That's most unfortunate. The amendment which has

been ruled out of order was meant.... I think everyone knows it would

have accommodated all sides on this particular issue. Unfortunately

there is to be no compromise on this, and the government is going to

pursue this legislation all the way down the line.

I believe that the employees of the Islands Trust could be deemed to

be employees of Municipal Affairs by simple housekeeping legislation,

and also the appointment process and assignment of duties and

responsibilities could be left in the hands of the elected officials of

the Trust. There is no question that those two things can be done; no

question at all. Mr. Humphries has indicated a process. I indicated

one, which unfortunately has been ruled out of order, for whatever

reasons. We have the ability to resolve this issue so that both sides —

or both partners, if you will — can feel that their interests are

protected and enhanced.

I guess we have tried diligently, and hundreds of others have tried

diligently, to indicate to this government that this is not necessary.

You don't have to do this to the Trust. Unfortunately we have a

government that is determined to centralize, determined to control as

many aspects of local government.... We've seen it with the Vancouver

School Board; we've seen it....

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

MR. BLENCOE: We've witnessed it in many areas, and here again

we see a blatant power grab by this government. We had hoped, in the

time that we've had since second reading, that the minister would have

consulted, would have come up with a compromise, and would have tried

to meet with the Islands Trust on the theme he's talking about in

British Columbia — partnership and respecting local government. Well,

it's not happening. It's sheer hypocrisy. The minister knows about it.

And, of course, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is going to

hear about it for a long time to come. We still haven't heard from that

member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Goodbye, Hugh.

MR. BLENCOE: This is "Goodbye Hughie" legislation.

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

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance will come to order.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, we feel that this legislation

really shows up what this government means by partnership. They cannot

be taken seriously, cannot be trusted. If you were to be trusted, you

would have worked out a solution with Mr. Humphries and the Islands

Trust. You would have

[ Page 6296 ]

sincerely sat down and found that there is a way to

accommodate your desires and the concerns of the islands.

Unfortunately, that hasn't been done, and we have a really, I think,

unfortunate and unnecessary piece of legislation before us.

I obviously cannot support

section 1. It takes away all aspects of

planning by the Trust — to ever set their own direction. We can't

accept that. We believe in local autonomy. We believe in

decentralization. We believe in the residents in an area making their

own decisions about their own lives and their own environment. We

cannot accept this incursion, this erosion of local government by this

minister, who has no compunction about continuing to centralize on

behalf of a government that has gone crazy and berserk in the province

of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: We are consulting with local government all

across this province, and they are listening to us, because they know

their local government is tired of what this government has done to

them.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: And that minister makes.... I wish the Chairman would....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will withdraw that remark.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I'm still waiting for that Minister of Finance to speak on this legislation, and I certainly know his constituents are.

Section 1. Well, here we are: no compromise, no consultation, no

real partnership, no conciliation. Just a government that is prepared

to centralize and take over the Islands Trust for its own purposes.

It's a blatantly political piece of legislation. For your own purposes

and your own ends you introduce a piece of legislation that grabs power

from a dutifully elected group of officials. No one can accept that.

Every study and every analysis indicates that people respect and

believe they get their most value from locally elected people. They

believe in that. They do not support centralization. They do not

support this particular

section that the minister will assign and have

the power to direct the Islands Trust staff. It's like walking into

Vancouver or Victoria, or any city council, and saying: "All right

folks, I'm here. I'm going to appoint your staff and your planners, and

I'm going to assign them their responsibilities for your community."

That's what it's all about.

We've said it many times and we will continue to say it: we will not

support such centralization and takeover of local government.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I call committee on Bill 5.

INCOME TAX (SMALL BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT TAX CREDIT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 5; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. WILLIAMS:

Section 1 is the primary

section of the bill,

as I understand it, Mr. Chairman. It deals with an employment tax

credit with respect to businesses up to a set amount. It would be

interesting to know what various studies were carried out, other than

the minister's travels through the province, with respect to this. It's

appreciated that there are significant costs to small business in terms

of maintaining various reporting procedures for various levels of

government, but in terms of genuine employment impact, it's a neat

question in terms of whether we have anything here and whether the

funds might have been applied in a more productive way.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the second member for

Vancouver East, I won't refer to the tax tour, but I will point out

that a discussion paper was prepared prior to the tour that analyzed a

number of business types in various jurisdictions. I'm convinced that

as it becomes known and comes into effect it will have a significant

employment-generating effect.

[12:30]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder what discussions the

minister's had with Revenue Canada. I can see giving up provincial

corporation tax revenue, but when it gets to the point where you're

giving a grant beyond the provincial tax, might Revenue Canada look on

that as income? Has that been clarified?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the best of my recollection

that matter is being discussed with Revenue Canada. I have had some

communications with the Minister of National Revenue, and also I've had

a conversation with the Minister of Finance for Canada with respect to

the administration of the act, and will do so again in the course of

the coming days.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

[ Page 6297 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 5, Income Tax (Small Business Employment Tax Credit) Amendment

Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I understand the

Lieutenant-Governor is near or about to enter the precincts. Perhaps we

could have a brief recess.

MR. SPEAKER: My understanding is that he is about ten minutes away. Possibly you might wish to carry on, Mr. House Leader.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 18; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 18, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the

Lieutenant-Governor will be here in a few moments. Perhaps we could

recess until his arrival.

The House took recess at 12:34 p.m.

The House resumed at 12:42 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Income Tax (Small Business Employment Tax Credit) Amendment Act, 1985

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1985

Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1985

School Amendment Act, 1985

British Columbia Transit Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985

Medical Service Amendment Act, 1985

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:45 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada