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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5529 ]

CONTENTS

An Act To Declare British Columbia A Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (Bill M203). Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading –– 5529

Critical Industries Act (Bill 31). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 5529

Oral Questions

Workers' Compensation Board. Mr. Cocke –– 5529

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 5530

Expo 86 exhibits. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5530

Mr. Lauk

Growth rate forecast. Mr. Stupich –– 5531

Low Interest Loan Assistance Revolving Fund Act (Bill 27). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 5531

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 11: minister's office –– 5532

Mr. Lank

Mr. Williams

Mr. Davis

Mr. Rose

Mr. Mitchell

On vote 12: ministry operations –– 5538

Mrs. Wallace

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Lauk

On vote [4: corrections –– 5540

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Mitchell

Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 30). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 5540

Mr. Blencoe –– 5541

Ms. Sanford –– 5549

Mrs. Wallace –– 5551

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today — I can see

by the numbers sitting up there that B.C. Ferries have done a great

business today; I saw a number of them earlier this morning — there are

some people from the islands I would like to introduce: first of all,

Mr. Ozzie Sexsmith from Gambier Island, Jean Jamieson from Bowen

Island, Stuart Jamieson from Bowen Island, Inga Nykwist from Bowen

Island and Luz Budzinski from Bowen Island. I wish the House would make

them welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Royal City we have guests in

the House today: Bob Osterman, who is a school board member in New

Westminster, and his wife Marion. I believe their son is with them, but

I'm not quite sure. In any event I'd like the House to welcome people

from the great Royal City, where our capital should still reside.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce to

the House today my assistant from the constituency, Miss Chris Haley.

With Chris is our new secretary, Angela Zenzen. Would the House please

welcome these two ladies.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in the gallery we have, with a number of his

friends, Mr. Mike Humphries, the chairman of the Islands Trust, whom I

met with today. Would the House please welcome Mr. Humphries and his

guests.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are guests from Nanaimo. Will the House please welcome Ed Kisling and John Cook.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, other Gulf Island residents who

are in the gallery today include Sue Hiscocks, Geoff Gay and Robert

Burbridge of Saltspring Island, George Morrison of Mayne Island, and

Nick Gilbert of Saltspring. Would the House make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I would like

to generally welcome all those people from the islands today,

particularly those Islands Trust members, and Mr. Mike Humphries, the

chairman of the Islands Trust board. We met with them today and had a

useful meeting.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Leslie

Dunsmore of Denman Island, Kathie Snook and Glen Snook of Denman

Island, Elmer Bichel of Thetis Island, David Fraser of Denman Island,

Edward Harrington of Denman Island, Amelia Humphries of Lasqueti, Nora

Laffin of Hornby Island, Harnish Tait of Denman and Carol Martin of

Hornby Island. I welcome all those people to the House today.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a

long-time friend of mine, Mr. Hank Hofsink from Smithers. Would the

House please make him welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to extend a special welcome to Elmer Bichel

from Thetis Island, Thetis Island being the one Gulf Island in my constituency.

MR. SPEAKER: With the number of introductions today, could I

encourage members to, if possible, get the names to Hansard for correct

spelling, as that is now the responsibility of members and not of

Hansard.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO DECLARE BRITISH COLUMBIA

A NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in two minutes I want to say this

about the bill. I don't think that deterrence is not an important

factor in maintaining world peace at the present time. But the extent

of the madcap, escalating nuclear arms race should give concern to

every thinking human being, wherever he may be found. I am not

suggesting that British Columbia should not do its share by devoting

resources to the problem of world peace. Nor is it anti-American in any

sense, because I'm sure there are many Americans who would applaud what

we are doing. It is like New Zealand making a protest against the

dangerous extent of the nuclear buildup throughout the world. The

overkill possibilities of the nuclear arms race are such that civilized

life cannot survive if a few missiles get through. I hope the

Legislature will say by this bill that enough in nuclear buildup is far

too much.

Bill M203,

An Act to Declare British Columbia a Nuclear Weapons Free

Zone, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

today.

[2:15]

CRITICAL INDUSTRIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Critical Industries Act.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would like to make very brief remarks, and

I'm looking forward to longer remarks at the time of second reading

debate, when it is called.

This bill establishes a commissioner for critical industries and

creates a mechanism to restore and enhance the competitiveness of

business enterprises in the province. Members of the House will note

one particular

section which speaks to the principle of the bill: that

is, the need to balance the interests of the business enterprise,

interested parties and public bodies concerned in a fair and equitable

manner by sharing the burden of restoring and enhancing the

competitiveness of the business enterprise.

Members might also be interested to note that the bill is a sunset

bill. It has a two-year life; it terminates two years from introduction.

Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

Oral Questions

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

MR. COCKE: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. The provincial government has reduced

[ Page 5530 ]

services and benefits to injured workers. The

workers' compensation system has a severe backlog; it is a bit of a

disaster. Has the minister decided to arrange a full public inquiry

into the operations and policies of the Workers' Compensation Board?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the

member that the provincial government has created the backlog; workers'

compensation is independent of government. Over the course of the next

several weeks, I will be consulting with a wide range of British

Columbia constituents on ways that we can eliminate the backlog. It is

a serious problem, and I thank the hon. member for his question.

MR. COCKE: I'm pleased that the government has nothing to do

with that creature of government. In any event, serious concern exists

over problems of health and safety in the workplace as well,

particularly for farmworkers. What action has the minister decided to

take regarding workplace health and safety?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, Rome wasn't built in a day,

and it's only a month ago that I took over the portfolio. As I said

earlier on to the hon. member, I will be consulting with a wide range

of British Columbia constituents on ways that we can improve accident

prevention and eliminate the backlog in the appeal process.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question for the Minister of

International Trade and Investment. Last year in March, and again in

November, the minister said, in effect, that every conceivable

eventuality is covered by the contracts with the Japanese in respect to

northeast coal; that if the Japanese make a commitment they stand by it

— their word is their bond. He said later in November that there is no

room in the northeast coal contracts for down pricing in terms of the

price per tonne paid by the Japanese. Can the minister advise us

whether he's made inquiries with respect to his staff or his advisers

in terms of being mistaken in both March and November of last year, in

view of the fact that there has been down pricing, and on a significant

scale?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to advise the member that these details will be answered in the fullness of time.

MR. WILLIAMS: And we may wait for more than a full moon.

The minister did indicate earlier, Mr. Speaker, when he made an

error in judging that coal royalties were 3 percent of $10, amounting

to 3 cents, that he was going to report back after confirming with his

staff what in fact 3 percent of $10 is. Maybe he could let us know

today whether his staff have advised him that 3 percent of $10 is in

fact 30 cents, not the 3 cents he thought it was.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's

question, I said that I would be advising the House, and I will in the

fullness of time. But it's far from the $108 million that the member

erroneously tried to advise the general public of in British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister prepared to reconsider his

statement that their word is their bond and there can be no downpricing

on coal from northeast British Columbia?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, when you're dealing in

the international marketplace, responsibility, awareness of your

customers and building up a reputation are very important. It's

something that member will never have to worry about, because he'll

never have it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I notice Prime Minister Nakasone

made a statement yesterday with respect to international trade people

dealing with Japan and indicated how unhappy he was that none of them

spoke Japanese. Could the minister advise us whether he has taken

Japanese, and arithmetic lessons as well?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, all I

can say is thank heaven for the people of British Columbia and the

general public that that member is not dealing with the Japanese.

EXPO 86 EXHIBITS

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have a question for the Minister of

Tourism. Late last month Expo unveiled plans for a $4 million sculpture

of a four-lane freeway 217 metres long which will have to be torn down

once the fair is ended. Has the minister checked with his colleague the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) to see whether

any permanent roads costing $4 million might be needed elsewhere in the

province and thus provide us with a more permanent benefit?

In the absence of an answer to that particular question, I ask a

supplementary question, or a new question. Has the minister therefore

determined why an American consultant was hired to design the $4

million temporary highway to nowhere, when there are in fact plenty of

British Columbians willing and able to design useful projects which do

lead somewhere?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the exhibit that the member

speaks of is exactly that: one of the exhibits at Expo, not intended to

be used after the fair is over. It is not "a piece of highway" that

would concern my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

It is an exhibit of technology, a temporary exhibit, as are many

hundreds of others at the fair.

Tenders went out for the design of the Highway of the Future, as it

is called, and many were submitted from all over North America. The

design chosen was a firm from New York, but the member failed to read

the remainder of the press release, which said that although the design

was from a New York firm, $3.65 million of that $4 million will be

spent in British Columbia.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Does the minister advise the House that the

spending of $4 million for an edifice that will later be relegated to

rubble represents a judicious use of our hard-pressed revenues?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just to refresh the member's memory, there

are hundreds of millions of dollars of exhibits at Expo that will be

used for the five and a half months to

[ Page 5531 ]

generate $3 billion in economic activity and 60,000

person-years of jobs. To refresh his memory further, four buildings

will remain at the conclusion of the fair: the CPR roundhouse, which

will be a legacy, the British Columbia Pavilion, the Expo Centre, and

of course Canada Harbour Place. The rest has all been designed to be

taken down when Expo is finished.

MR. LAUK: Aside from the millions of people who are going to

flock to Expo from all over the world to see this sculptured highway or

sidewalk, one of the buildings that will be left is the Expo preview

centre — that's the dome — which I understand cost $24 million. Is that

correct? Just nod your head.

Is there anybody home over there, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Recent reports have it that it has sprung a number

of leaks, and it's endangering the expensive viewing screens and

equipment within the structure. Will the minister advise, first of all,

what money has been spent on this structure? Am I correct in assuming

it will be a permanent structure? And if these leaks continue, will it

then become an indoor pool for Expo?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Perhaps it isn't the only dome that has

sprung a few leaks. One we can do something about, the other one will

take a little longer.

The member's figures on the costs are reasonably accurate.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the minister could reply. Has it sprung

leaks? How serious are the leaks? My information is that it's

endangering the very expensive equipment within the building. What

action has the minister taken?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the dome has indeed

sprung a few leaks, and experts with far greater knowledge than I are

working diligently to correct this problem.

MR. LAUK: Are they the same experts who built the building in

the first place? Are they the same experts who built the building that

has the leaks? Is that who are plugging them now? Would the minister

respond by indicating what estimated extra costs there will be to plug

the leaks?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of what

it will cost to correct this design problem or construction problem,

but I can assure him that I can find that out for him from the firm

that built it, Cana Construction of British Columbia. If the member

wishes I will find out what the extra costs are and bring that back to

him.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: If any, yes.

GROWTH RATE FORECAST

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Finance, who today introduced a bill with a two-year sunset clause. The

Royal Bank of Canada's Trendicator

forecasts British Columbia will have the lowest growth rate in Canada

over the next decade. The Premier says this is not a criticism of his

government. Does the minister regard B.C.'s expected performance as

satisfactory?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, is the member for Nanaimo referring to the publication Econoscope ? Or Trendicator ?

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Trendicator he said? Okay.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is Econoscope ?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: When the member finds out which journal he's quoting, I could perhaps respond. Seriously, Mr....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Royal Bank.

[2:30]

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Royal Bank. Mr. Speaker, I have made a

point during my short time as Minister of Finance to not respond to

specific isolated forecasts, whether they are good or bad, depending on

one's point of view. I like to see, rather, the trends — whether it's

Conference Board, then two or three banks, then the B.C. Central Credit

Union or others, as an example — and then we start to see particular

forecasts and particular trends, which I think are more meaningful than

one which is above or below a trend line.

To answer the member's question, I was in Toronto last week meeting

with a number of investors, present and potential, in British Columbia.

I met with a number of banks and with a number of insurance company

representatives — senior people in the insurance business. After the

four days of the visit, I came back from Toronto very, very optimistic

about how the rest of Canada views British Columbia — having gone

through the difficulties of the recession — and confident that our

growth is going to be very good in the balance of the 1980s and into

the 1990s. If I had any mild doubts or uncertainties before I went to

Toronto, Mr. Speaker, I can assure that member for Nanaimo and the

members of this House that those were very quickly erased on the basis

of my meetings last week.

Introduction of Bills

LOW INTEREST LOAN ASSISTANCE

REVOLVING FUND ACT

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Low Interest Loan Assistance Revolving Fund Act.

Bill 27 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

[ Page 5532 ]

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

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries is an old friend,

Mr. George Whiten, who was my counsellor a few years ago when we were

both social workers. He is here today with the Islands Trust

delegation, I believe. I ask the House to make him welcome.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 11: minister's office, $223,385.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, last time my colleague, the member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), asked the Attorney-General for the

leases and other documents surrounding the jetfoil contracts, and I

wonder whether over the Easter break he's been able to gather some of

those documents together.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I told members that when the

leases have been finalized and duly executed, I will make public the

terms of those leases, and that has not occurred. That should be done

later this month, I would think.

MR. WILLIAMS: I note that the Marguerite

will be sailing in early May and the jetfoil on April 19. Can the

minister advise us what studies he undertook when he made the decision

to change the date by one week rather than the two weeks originally

recommended by staff? And knowing the date of April 19 for the jetfoil

commencement, why might he not have entertained a longer time period

for the Marguerite's operations?

HON. MR. SMITH: Unlike the hon. member who asked the

question, I don't conduct studies for the making of all decisions. The

appraisal that was made was that a promotional period of reduced-fare

operation a week earlier than the starting season that had been set

would be an advantage to the service, and that decision was made. It

was certainly not made with any firm knowledge by me of the starting

date of the jetfoil, because I am not the minister in charge of the

jetfoil, even though through the forum of these estimates.... All the

negative points of view from the other side and the anti-competition

sentiments have been expressed through these estimates against the

jetfoil, but I do not take responsibility for the jetfoil.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, again, before the House broke for the

Easter break, Mr. Chairman, the minister was asked whether he had

reviewed internal studies that indicated significant losses for the Marguerite

from allowing the jetfoil to make use of their facilities. Could the

minister advise us whether he has had time now to review those internal

studies

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I am not aware of internal studies. No

doubt every time some pal of the member puts something to paper, that

might be considered to be an internal study; I don't know. But the

evaluation that we did of the service, Mr. Chairman, indicated to us

that there was room in this city for both services.

You know, I don't understand the negative point of view of the

opposition or the spokesman on this issue, because, just to go through

the history of it a little bit, since it continues to be raised by the

member for Vancouver East.... Originally, the jetfoil service sought to

be located down by the Air B.C. terminal on that side of the harbour.

That was where they wanted to go. The city of Victoria had a policy

that they wanted to locate enterprises such as this in a designated

Inner Harbour transportation zone on the south shore of the harbour. So

it was at the request of the city that the location on the south side

of the harbour was examined.

On October 25, 1984, the city council of Victoria passed the

following motion: "that council agrees to locate the jetfoil in the

Inner Harbour, subject to compliance with all city bylaws." Then on

November 4, 1984, Victoria Alderman John Cooper, chairman of land use

and planning – you probably have met that individual at some time, hon.

member — clearly stated the position of the city in a letter which he

wrote to the newspaper, in which he said.... And this is a member of

the city council of Victoria who is in charge of land use and planning

— Alderman Cooper, not a notorious supporter of this government. This

is what he wrote:

"Victoria city council enthusiastically endorses jetfoil

service to the capital city. At present, this extensive, publicly owned waterfront

transportation zone" — that's where the Marguerite is — "is under

utilized. Does it not make good sense for the jetfoil to vigorously pursue

once again the use of the underutilized Marguerite facilities? Victoria city

council thinks so. We have taken the initiative on behalf of Island Jetfoil

and formally requested that the B.C. Steamships board of directors give favourable

consideration to an Island Jetfoil application for use of their Belleville

Street site."

Then, following that motion by council and that statement by

Alderman Cooper, Mayor Pollen and Alderman Cooper met with my

predecessor, the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A.

Fraser), who was then in charge of the Marguerite ,

and urged him in the strongest terms to go back to the board of the

B.C. Steamship Company to see if they would not reconsider, in view of

the city's policy of having transportation developments on the south

side instead of the north side of the harbour, and go ahead and review

this and change their policy. That is what was done. So, Mr. Chairman,

the people in this town who wanted the jetfoil included the city

council of Victoria and the chamber of commerce, and we had

endorsements from a number of people who supported this project.

Indeed, one correspondent wrote to my predecessor, the Minister of

Highways, as follows: "I have just read the correspondence from Island

Jetfoil Corp., and I do hope that you are able to give them the

approval they required by this date." This gentleman wrote on November

30, 1984. He said: "Any improvements in service for the travelling

public would have a positive effect in building our tourist industry. I

am most impressed by the fact that they are not looking for financial

help."

Who would that have been? Who would that observer? Who wrote that letter, who would that friend of Jetfoil, have

[ Page

5533 ]

been? Can anyone venture a guess, Mr. Chairman, as

to who that would have been? Well, I have a letter which I am going to

file from the hon. member for Nanaimo, Mr. David Stupich. You know,

maybe it is of significance that the member on the other side who is

the critic on financial matters and who examines these things from the

standpoint of financial implications instead of from the standpoint of

political implications would, having studied this, be all in favour of

the jetfoil and be first off the mark to give his written endorsement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Documents referred to to be tabled must be

tabled in the House and not in committee. That can be done later, Mr.

Attorney, when the House is in committee.

MR. LAUK: Well, moving right along, Mr. Chairman, there is

another aspect to the jetfoil problem that bothers me. I understand

that the SeaBus facility.... I notice the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is here, and she would be interested as well. The

SeaBus facilities in Vancouver have been earmarked and arranged for

this jetfoil service as well. The implications of that are horrendous

from a safety and traffic point of view in Coal Harbour. A cursory

investigation has indicated to me that the traffic there is already

horrendous. The SeaBus had already been asked, some years ago, to

reduce its speed because of wave damage to flotillas of moored private

yachts and smaller commercial vessels, and they did so. The action of

the jetfoil moving under the bridge and into the harbour in a very

high-traffic area presents a very real safety and noise pollution

problem, which I'm not sure has been addressed. Has the minister

addressed the problem? Have the jetfoil people addressed it? How are

they going to deal with the anticipated negative reaction of the people

living around the shore and using that harbour today?

MR. DAVIS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member

who has just sat down is asking questions of the Attorney-General, who

has, admittedly, the responsibility for the operations of the Marguerite ,

but he is not the federal Minister of Transport, who is responsible for

navigational rules and regulations in the port of Vancouver, and he's

not responsible for transportation in the general sense. The hon.

member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser) is, and he might otherwise be the

recipient of questions of the nature he's addressing to you, Mr.

Chairman. I repeat: he is not on the subject, he's not on the

minister's estimates, and he's wasting our time.

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

Attorney-General has responsibility for the B.C. Steamship Company, and

that really is the extent to which we can discuss the administrative

actions of his ministry during these estimates. The questions posed

previously by the second member for Vancouver Centre, as pointed out by

the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, are not relevant or in order.

MR. LAUK: Well, I don't blame the Attorney-General for ducking that question...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...and hiding behind the former federal Minister of Transport

to do it...

AN HON. MEMBER: Fisheries.

MR. LAUK: ...or Fisheries, whatever; it's the same thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the estimates, please.

[2:45]

MR. LAUK: What disturbed me over the break.... I can well

understand why the hon. Attorney-General wanted his vote concluded

before he rushed off to Vancouver and made some rather alarming remarks

about the government's attitude toward the charter and the new

provisions —

section 17, I think — that will be brought in later this

month. The attitude expressed by the Attorney-General is a bit of a

dog-in-the-manger attitude. It's not an attitude that I did not share

at one time, but now that we have the charter passed and we are dealing

with this hybrid American-British system, is not the Attorney-General

being rather incautious, as the chief law officer of the province, in

expressing a rather dog-in-the-manger attitude towards the new charter

provisions? In particular the minister intimated that he was pleased

that there was this opting-out provision in the charter. He gave the

impression to some at that meeting — not all, but some, and perhaps he

could clarify this — that the government would be using that provision

to opt out rather more extensively than he had first thought. If that

is the case, could the Attorney-General indicate in what areas of the

administration of justice and the equality provisions the province is

intending to opt out?

HON. MR. SMITH: The statement that I made on the charter and

the opting-out provision was to a national seminar on the Charter of

Rights that was organized at UBC the week before last. It had a number

of distinguished speakers on the charter, including Jean Chretien and

Paul Weiler from Harvard University. There were quite a few academic

experts, people who tried to envisage — indeed, guess — where the

charter might take us in a number of court decisions.

My speech was on the issue of the supremacy of parliament, and my

long-held view that in the final analysis parliament or the legislature

has to be responsible for social and economic change, and that that is

not a matter we can consign to the judiciary. In my speech I pointed

out the bad record of the judiciary in the United States of America,

which has an entrenched charter of rights, since time immemorial. Under

decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the nineteenth

century and through into the twentieth century.... Their entrenched

charter of rights did not safeguard the rights of workers, did not

allow legislation to protect children from long working hours in the

mines, did not uphold the New Deal legislation of Franklin Roosevelt,

and so on. So the first point I tried to make was that a charter,

through the courts, is not necessarily going to either protect human

rights or provide us with the social and economic policies that we wish

in this country at any given time. Therefore, in their wisdom, the

framers of our new constitution included in the 1981 accord a provision

which was as much a part of the constitutional changes and the Charter

of Rights as the freedoms themselves, and that was the provision for an

override.

We must now get away from the notion, popular in some trendy

circles, that it is wrong or somehow unjust or illiberal to talk about

ever using an override to override a

section of the

[ Page 5534 ]

charter in relation to some given matter. I was

simply trying to banish that mindset and prepare people for what I

believe is going to be the reality of the next five years — that is,

that we will be forced to confront issues where the override must be

used.

In the province of Quebec, as the member is probably aware, where

they don't recognize the constitutional accord — didn't sign it and

didn't agree to any of it — they have nevertheless used the override in

a blanket way, in attempting to exclude whole areas of their provincial

legislation from the effects of the charter.

I also said in my speech that I felt our position in British

Columbia would be to use the override judiciously and sparingly, in

appropriate cases and probably after the courts had spoken. I mentioned

one major area, which comes to mind, where the override will have to be

considered. I think it's commonly agreed across Canada that an issue

that will be before us as soon as the equality rights

section comes

into play in several weeks' time is compulsory retirement. But a whole

host of issues were addressed at this conference which might give rise

to an override. The field of pornography is one. Another area involves

various union security clauses and closed-shop provisions, which the

labour movement is extremely concerned about in light of the Charter of

Rights. All of those are considerations that each legislature in Canada

— indeed, the Parliament of Canada — will have to look at in relation

to an override. We haven't used or threatened to use an override in a

specific case. Our approach has been to try to let the courts speak

first and to consider the effect of court decisions. If we had a court

decision that appeared to offend public opinion in some area of social

and economic policy, then and only then, in my view, would we give

consideration to using the override. But there might conceivably be

cases involving fundamental issues of policy where we would want to

pass legislation overriding the Charter of Rights right from the outset.

MR. LAUK: I think that the Attorney-General's

characterization of the American experience is a little bit harsh. I

would guess, from his comments, that he's probably not that much aware

of what the Supreme Court of the United States has done with

interpretation of its constitution, particularly since the Warren

court, and so on. The United States Supreme Court has been a model of

judicial restraint over the years, until the Warren years, with respect

to the

interpretation of the constitution and in deference to the

legislative branch of government. I might point out that the only

time.... Remember, Earl Warren was appointed to that court as a

conservative appointment by President Eisenhower, to pull back the New

Deal appointments — Douglas and Black and so on — from judicial

activism and creating legislation from the bench. What Earl Warren did,

though, was to react to a rather negative attitude on the part of the

legislative and executive branches. If it wasn't for the Earl Warren

court, the McCarthy era would have been much worse than it was. If it

wasn't for the Earl Warren court, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

— which virtually brought in desegregation of schools in the south of

the United States — would never have occurred if left to the

legislators in Congress and to the executive branch. There are other

criminal law decisions of that court, like Gideon and others, which,

although there was a controversial view of those decisions, brought in

their view of the administration of justice and imposed an impost, if

you like, upon the government there to provide counsel to everyone who

was appearing and was charged with criminal offences.

So I don't think that the Attorney-General's characterization of

that court is an accurate one. I caution that the Attorney-General

plays the nineteenth century role of legislative arrogance, if you

like, in relation to this charter. He might well encourage the kind of

judicial activism he's trying to avoid. I am relieved, however, when he

says that he's going to wait, at least, to see how the courts deal with

it. We can analyze their decisions before he makes decisions about

overriding provisions of the charter.

As I say, a number of people at that distinguished conference

expressed concern to me about the Attorney-General's attitude toward

the charter, which is getting off on the wrong foot. At least this

afternoon the Attorney-General has clarified it to some small extent.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a few words about

the plight of victims of crime but first, if I may, add a few words re

the charter. I'm one of those who is in favour of a Charter of Rights

and Freedoms. We've had a bill of rights. We've had the Bill of Rights

which was passed in the thirteenth century in England. We've had the

Bill of Rights of John Diefenbaker of the late 1960s. We've had the

common-sense

interpretation of the rights and freedoms of individuals

embodied in many of our laws. So in that sense the charter isn't really

new. It makes more explicit some of the rights and freedoms that

Canadians believe they enjoy.

But the Attorney-General mentions the sanctity of parliament — that

parliament must rule. I think the essence of the charter is that the

individual is more important than any legislature or parliament. The

bill of rights and freedoms, however described in the United Kingdom,

in the United States and in Canada, sets forth some basic parameters,

and if legislators legislate in contradiction to those basic rules the

laws fall to the ground. I think that we've long since needed a bill of

rights and freedoms which was explicit in that regard.

Moving on to the rights and freedoms — but particularly the rights —

of the victims of crime. I think the public generally feels that the

victims of crime have been overlooked and are in fact being seriously

overlooked. One of the reasons for this is the rise of the state, of

government — the rise of both legislators and administrators — into the

seats of power. Originally the courts dealt with disputes between two

individuals, one offended and the other presumably the offender. With

the exception of actions where the king was involved — and the king

presumably could do no wrong — the courts adjudicated between these two

individuals and eventually came to some conclusion as to what was the

right thing to do. It was individual versus individual. But as the

concept developed that the public at large had certain rights and that

the state had certain interests, the Crown became involved in cases.

Increasingly it became a matter of the individual against society or

society being somehow hurt by the individual. The attorney representing

the Crown — presumably in later times really representing the

government and enforcing laws for the protection of the public in

general — began to occupy the attention of the courts more and more.

Increasingly it was the state versus the individual. That, as I

understand it, is the nature of criminal law. It's the individual in

contradiction of some law propounded by a legislature — by parliament.

So the two parties became quite different; not

[ Page

5535 ]

an individual versus an individual but the state versus the individual.

[3:00]

The state has taken over the territory of murder, for example. An

individual who has suffered in respect to murder is forgotten. It's the

state that picks up the cudgel. It's the state that tackles the

offender — the murderer, presumably. The contest is continued in the

courts. The lawyers representing the people, the state, the Crown, are

paid out of the public purse, and the lawyers representing the

individual who has presumably committed this offence are paid by that

individual. The contest is finally concluded and the individual who is

the offender is either found guilty or not guilty. But ignored,

forgotten totally in this process, is the victim. The victim isn't in

the court; the victim is rarely present. The victim may indeed be

called as a witness, or the victim's relatives, but they're forgotten.

And when the ruling finally comes down, the penalty is levied on the

offender; the penalty may be incarceration or a sum of money paid over

to the Crown, but the victim is sitting there, hopefully waiting for

some resolution which will help overcome the anguish or the hurt, but

is ignored. So the state has really assumed the role which formerly was

the role of the individual or group which rose up to make sure that

this wrong was offset or somehow made right.

Increasingly we have this concern about whether the individual who

has committed a criminal act — murdered someone or stolen something

from the public — is treated properly, whether he is incarcerated for a

sufficient length of time and then whether he can get out early enough

for good behaviour and so on. The preoccupation is with that one

individual, the offender or presumed offender, and not with those who

are hurt. I think the public at large is groping for some answer. What

about the other party which was hurt in this process — not the state,

which obviously can look after itself, but the other party to this

action, this theft, this physical act of violence, whatever it was?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Now to the south of us in Washington state we have one or two new

institutions developing. Interestingly enough, the state has been

calling for tenders for private firms to operate some of their

institutions, some of their prisons and so on. The idea is that the

inmates who presumably committed some crime be employed in these

institutions, that the products of their labours be sold on the market,

that there be an income, and that some part of that income go to the

victims of those criminals. I think the Attorney-General and this

government would be well advised to look carefully into that

development to the south. As an aside, the principal interest would not

then be on getting some of the criminal element out of the jails as

soon as possible, but to have them in there engaged in productive work

and paying off some of the hurt which they have imposed on other

individuals.

I would certainly like to hear the Attorney-General comment on this

broad question of victims of crime, where our system has gone wrong

over the years, why the innocent parties are now hurt in our society

without compensation or with little assistance or aid from the Crown,

and indeed no aid whatsoever from those who committed the offence.

Also, if the Attorney-General feels he can comment on the developments

in Washington state I'd appreciate hearing from him.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I don't feel that I can comment, and

having a knowledge of them.... But I will say that in addition to

trying to emphasize the importance of the victim more, which we are

doing through establishing a victims' services steering committee, and

by having a coordinator of victims' services — Miss Linda Light — we

are making recommendations and taking

part in a federal-provincial

working group which is looking at amendments to the Criminal Code, a

number of which would place much greater emphasis on restitution, on

the accused person's doing things to try to pay some debt more directly

to society and to the victim. That, of course, in relation to some

offences is probably impossible, but it certainly is in offences that

deal with property.

I should also mention the wife-assault policy in British Columbia,

which I believe pays more cognizance to victims than has hitherto been

the case and is very positive. It is receiving a great deal of support

from the community groups and agencies that in the past have been left

to bear the burden of wife assaults that have not been acted upon or

have been met with counselling and urgings for the wife to go back to

her husband or stay with her husband.

I do believe that we are becoming more cognizant of the importance

of the victim in the justice system. I totally agree with the member's

main thrust that the victim has been unjustly forgotten in the system

for a number of years, but I do believe that major strides are being

made in this province to try to treat the victim differently and, at

every level, to be more sensitive and attuned to the needs of victims.

MR. ROSE: I wanted to return to something, the thread of

which has probably been lost now because of the other subjects of an

intervening speaker. Of all people in the House, I'm probably the only

one that was there, as part of the development of the Charter of

Rights, and served on that committee — the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms committee — and I still have the scars from all the

controversy, federal and provincial, to prove it. So when I hear the

Attorney-General, even by word of mouth or second-hand.... I apologize

to my colleague the member for Vancouver Centre for offering a

second-hand opinion about a speech that the Attorney-General made, but

when I hear something that might appear to threaten that charter, it

worries me.

What particularly worries me was the inference, not very explicit

but perhaps implicit.... The Attorney-General said that the courts

would decide. He felt that the courts should speak first, and that's

when the provinces, or a province, might intervene with an override or

notwithstanding clause. I'm thinking of a number of things that are

happening. Suppose the Attorney- General doesn't like a court case,

whether we're dealing with native land settlements or the matter of

equality provisions — an action that the Teachers' Federation might

launch: if you didn't like the answer from the courts, it was then that

the province would move in. In other words, a court case could be won,

and the province then could move in and change the rules. That's really

what frightens me.

I well recall the lengthy debate with the provinces, particularly

the western provinces, all during that period when Prime Minister

Trudeau said he would go it alone because he couldn't get provincial

approval. He went it alone until a supreme court decision said that in

points of law the federal government had a perfect right to go to

London and have that charter patriated, but that under matters of

convention, they

[ Page 5536 ]

didn't have that right. According to convention, it

wasn't the practice, really. That brought the provinces back into it

again four-square.

The reason the western provinces signed the deal — because of a

kitchen debate between the Ministers of Justice of Saskatchewan and

Ontario, and the federal Minister of Justice — was override. The

override was granted during that conference as bait, if you like —

syrup — to get the western provinces to agree. So we could agree on a

package; as a matter of fact, it got everybody including the official

opposition to agree.

That wasn't an extension of freedom. That was permission for the

province to limit freedom; if a province didn't like a freedom granted

under the charter, test it in the courts. Then they could say: "No,

notwithstanding everything that's been said, we don't like that. We

don't like that decision."

I find it worrisome that the Attorney-General says: "Yes, we intend

to let the courts decide first. Then we'll come in and maybe we'll

consider a notwithstanding clause." I would be much more comfortable if

the Attorney-General would declare first what charter clauses he finds

worrisome or that he might be prepared to override. I would think that

that would be better than having everybody go through all this costly

exercise of going to the supreme court, and then saying: "Oh, no, we

don't like that decision. Therefore it's our intention to change that

notwithstanding clause or to add a notwithstanding clause to that

point."

I know there are all kinds of other rights that could have been

guaranteed. We heard a lot of screaming about property rights, and this

House expressed itself on that subject, but there are all kinds of

others that could have been added: the right to a job, for instance;

the right to a clean environment; the right to decent housing. Those

things weren't mentioned.

I would like some reassurance from the Attorney-General as to what

he actually meant there by talking about letting the court speak first.

In what instances does he foresee that he might consider recommending

an override to this House?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think that right at the outset, Mr.

Chairman, we're beginning to see an attitude on the part of some

distinguished Canadians and parliamentarians, including the member who

just spoke, who had the advantage of dealing with the matter

nationally, as I did in 1981, that somehow the override is.... He

described it as syrup, bait for the provinces. My point is that it is

as much a part of our constitution as are the fundamental freedoms that

he's particularly interested in. It is there to be used, not to be

admired and looked at as something that will never be used, or to be

put on the shelf and threatened to be used but never used. It's there

so that parliament can sometimes speak instead of the lawyers.

Those of us who were involved in the parliamentary debate knew that

the Charter of Rights was going to be a cottage industry for

litigation. There will come times when the courts are not able under

the Charter of Rights to reflect the contemporary views of society, and

the legislature and parliament will have to intervene. The member for

Vancouver Centre gave me a constitutional lecture on American

experience, but I was talking about the pre-Warren court days. I was

talking about that era from the dreaded Scott decision in 1857 up to

the decisions on the New Deal in 1930, when the court....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm sorry, but I consider court decisions in

the United States during that period as judicially reactionary. The

courts were then really unable to protect freedoms and liberties. After

the Warren court came into vogue in the 50s and 60s, many in the United

States thought that the court was then too liberal.

All you can conclude is that the court is never going to please

everybody; it may not even please the majority. The court is no better

an arbiter of contemporary social and economic values than are people

elected specifically to deal with that. I am saying that ultimately

elected people have to deal with these issues, and the override is a

mechanism whereby they can. I think it would be quite irresponsible of

me to lay out some kind of blueprint in this House as to which measures

I would recommend an override for, or when, or anything else. I think

they all have to be dealt with on their merits.

I have been preaching two things: one, that the override is there,

and must — and should — be used; and two, that it should be used

sparingly and responsibly. I don't say that it should only be used,

hon. member, after there is a court decision. There may be some cases

where the process of going through the courts — the delays and expense

and so on — are such that an override should be used immediately. One

other thing which I'm sure you're aware of is that overrides are only

good for five years. You have to take the legislative responsibility

for renewing that override every five years. So it's a limited check on

the authority.

[3:15]

But all freedoms don't reside in entrenched bills of rights. All

freedoms are not guaranteed by courts. Freedoms are also guaranteed by

Parliament and the legislature. You don't have to stretch your

imagination very far to imagine that our citizens are going to be

somewhat distressed by decisions under the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms. They would be somewhat distressed, I'm sure, with the

decision handed down by the federal court of appeal in the Luscher case

two weeks ago, a decision that wasn't appealed but was legislated away

by Parliament last week when they changed the customs tariff. I think

that was the fastest and best way of dealing with that, and not through

the courts. It probably can be dealt with by Parliament without the use

of any override.

MR. ROSE: The Attorney-General, with his usual eloquence and

diplomacy, charged my colleague with preaching or giving him a little

lecture on the history of American jurisprudence at the supreme court

level, and I get a reciprocal lecture from him about the fact that

charters of rights do not necessarily guarantee personal freedoms. But

I'm sure the Attorney-General would be quick to agree that there's an

extra reinforcement of those freedoms in the fact that we have a

written charter. It may not have appealed to the provinces who have

been reluctant to give up any kinds of powers at all in this federal

state, far more than exist in any state of the United States federation.

However, those are our traditions. If we have a tradition of liberty

and common law, then I think the charter buttresses that and makes it

stronger. What does concern me is if a particular province with a

particular ideological mindset, either to the left or the right,

doesn't like a particular part or clause of the charter and

deliberately, because a majority seeks to override it, limits freedoms.

It doesn't expand freedoms. It may be convenient in a number of cases,

and

[ Page 5537 ]

politically expedient, for the provinces to step in

and establish an override for some particularly sensitive area. I'm not

satisfied, but I feel somewhat reassured in that the minister said he

felt it should be imposed on the rarest of occasions.

MR. MITCHELL: I didn't want to change the tenor of the debate

— I would quite enjoy listening to debate on the charter — but I would

like to get back to the more practical end of the Attorney-General's

responsibility and deal with something that I normally don't like to

get involved in, especially in the Legislature, and that is the labour

problem in the armoured car service.

The Attorney-General is fully aware of the responsibilities laid out

in private investigators legislation for those employed in the armoured

car service. Why I say he's aware is that this is one group of

employees that carries guns in the community. We are all aware that a

police officer has to have ten weeks of training before he can carry a

gun. My worry right now, Mr. Speaker, through you to the

Attorney-General, is this problem of the armoured car service. It's

been dragging on in a labour dispute. One of the tactics being used is

harassment of the management versus the employees. There is a danger to

the public in this continued exposure of disruption in the service of

people who are carrying at times large amounts of money. For anyone who

has worked in security, the last thing you need is a lot of attention

being brought to the situation. I think the Attorney-General should be

working.... Maybe it is a labour dispute, but it is a different type of

labour dispute. It does involve guns. We can't have a continued

disruption in the operation. Not only does it cause a disruption with

the employees, who are endangered, but it is also dangerous to the

public who may be around when something takes place. They may think it

is only a picket disturbance when it becomes the real thing — when

someone is going to rob the armoured car employees or those who are

working — and guns may be drawn and shots may be fired.

I'm convinced that somewhere down the line the Attorney-General must

take some responsibility for what's taking place. We're having a

situation now that they're subcontracting out various vehicles, and

they have their routes. What happens in times of economic problems,

people wanting jobs, with people putting in bids to do the service for

a lesser amount of money, is that there's not the proper training of

the people in that type of security. It's not taking place. We have all

the legislation that says that people must be registered, and people

must be responsible and bonded, but handling firearms, especially with

the temptation of robbery getting stronger and stronger because of the

economic times.... There are more people, not only those employed doing

the work or those who are competing in the anti-union or the pro-union

side of it but also the public, who are going to be the unfortunate

victims if guns start being fired. This is something that I am

concerned about.

There hasn't been any kind of public leadership from the

Attorney-General with the legislation that we have now. I know the

philosophy of the government. Maybe they're branded as being right-wing

and anti-labour and wanting to break the trade union movement, but I

don't think this is a particular industry that we can afford that

privilege of getting involved in a kind of labour dispute. There are

guns involved. There are large sums of money. Temptation is there, and

I think there should be some leadership from the government, especially

the Attorney-General, in this particular area. They should get back to

the bargaining table.

As a citizen, I want to know that whoever is packing a gun is going

to be well trained. The Attorney-General has insisted that the police

officers must have at least ten weeks training before they can carry a

gun, and here we are allowing people coming and going and changing in a

very hostile particular situation. You don't know who's going to be

carrying the gun tomorrow, or who's going to be hired. I think that

someone is going to get hurt. Someone is going to get killed. It's not

always going to be those who are getting paid for it; it's eventually

going to be somebody in the public. I know we had one situation where

there would have been a death if he had not been wearing a bullet-proof

vest. This type of situation occurs at the best of times, but to also

have thrown into that danger the labour turmoil — union, anti-union or

whatever the position is — is something I don't think the public can

afford to get involved with. I think there should be some positive

leadership by the government to get it settled.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would only respond very briefly to the

training aspect of these various security services and of the people

who are required to carry firearms. I think we basically agree that

there has to be more training available. We've started in the last year

at the Justice Institute; we made a beginning with some training

programs. We will be more proactive in developing those programs and

trying to have some better assurance that people who are involved in

this business and carry firearms are indeed demonstrated to be

competent in their use. I think we've probably been slow in moving that

way, but those courses have already started at the Justice Institute —

a beginning has been made.

We have an official who is the chief firearms officer for the

province. I'm sure you're aware of that. He is seeking to introduce

some minimum standards for the employees of armored car companies to

ensure that their annual firearms renewal is not just an automatic

thing, that it's based on some sort of standards and some sort of

training. I think that's the part of the member's message that I'm

going to pick up on, and respond to positively.

I don't wish to inject myself in any way into the Brink's labour

dispute. But I do think that he has merit in what he says about

standards and training in the use of firearms.

MR. MITCHELL: I agree with the Attorney-General. If you have

a stable workforce, if you have a stable employee-employer

relationship, then you can move your employees through the various

training courses. But since November of last year there has been

turmoil in the industry. Right now a certain number of trucks have been

leased out to independent security-type officers. I know that when you

haven't got a job, you're going to bid a little lower to make sure that

there is an opportunity to work, pay your mortgage and keep your kids

going to school. In some of the other trades and professions that may

be well and good. But we have an industry here where guns are involved,

and if you don't have some stability in that particular industry, if

you don't have some stability in the employer-employee relationship —

the relationship of the person who is driving the car to the employer —

and then through the Justice Institute, where they can have proper

training and some monitoring of it.... To issue a person a gun solely

because he has a contract to drive an armored car and pick up large

sums of money creates a very dangerous situation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 5538 ]

If we don't look at it and do something now, something tragic is

going to happen. I agree with the Attorney-General when he says that he

doesn't want to inject himself into the Brink's armored car labour

dispute. But it is a serious situation that is taking place now. I

don't know if you do this behind the scenes or how you get the parties

together, but we just can't afford to wait until something happens and

then all of a sudden we set up a commission and say that someone got

shot unnecessarily. I don't want to see a coroner's report come down

saying it was too bad that the government and the Legislature didn't do

something earlier.

Vote 11 approved.

[3:30]

On vote 12: ministry operations, $237,530,816.

MRS. WALLACE: I am sure that the minister will be aware, when

I tell him I am rising to speak on the matter of the fire marshal's

office, of the two items that I want to discuss with him, because I

think this is the third year that I have done this.

The first issue relates to the inspection of the installation of oil

furnaces. This is presently under the control of his colleague the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty). The former Minister of Labour

wrote me on March 6 of last year that the gas safety branch, which

inspects gas furnaces in homes, has added propane. They do not intend

to have any further extensions to the service in the immediate future.

That was in March. However, on June 20 the Attorney-General wrote me to

say: "With respect to the issue of inspection of furnace installations,

my officials have been in contact with the Fire Commission relating to

this matter. As I indicated during estimates debate" — that was in 1984

— "I share with you the desire to rationalize these types of services,

and I'm hopeful that I will soon be able to report success on that

matter." I'm wondering whether or not he has been successful, Mr.

Chairman.

HON. MR. SMITH: The fire commissioner, hon. member, has been

meeting and is continuing to meet with members of the industry on this

whole matter. I haven't had a report from him as yet that I could give

you, but I'd be quite pleased to notify you and advise you of what his

findings are. He has not reported to me as yet.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, that's what the minister said in

1983 and what he said in 1984. Now it's 1985; how long does it take? Is

it going to help, I wonder, that we have a different Minister of Labour

now, who may be prepared to make this change? It has gone on a long

time. In the meantime, we have this situation where the fire marshal

simply does not have sufficient staff to do the inspections. We do have

gas inspectors travelling around the area who, it seems to me, could

well handle the inspections of both oil and gas installations.

The other issue that I want to raise relates to the Ministry of

Attorney-General and the Ministry of Finance. This has to do with the

removal of sales tax from fire apparatus purchased by volunteer fire

departments. Again, in 1983 and in 1984 the Attorney-General assured me

that he agreed with me. He wrote to me on June 20 — the same letter,

from which I have already quoted — on the issue of sales tax applicable

to fire apparatus: "I have similarly initiated discussions with both

the fire commissioner and with my colleague the Minister of Finance. I

will advise you further when our review has been completed."

I was very interested to see that the Minister of Finance had added

some new items to the exemptions in his budget which he just brought

down, but lo and behold, there was nothing about firefighting equipment

for volunteer fire departments. It seems very strange that for

something we're sponsoring and supporting in this manner — and we're

raising funds from the taxpayers to assist in this — we have to pay

sales tax on that equipment. I know the minister agrees with me. He

says he's trying to do something about it, but why isn't he more

successful?

HON. MR. SMITH: I did my best. I agree with you on this

issue. We'll just try again. We have been successful in getting

portable fire extinguishers, smoke and fire alarm designs. Smoke and

fire alarms that are purchased for residential purposes are part of the

exemption list. I just happen to agree with you totally on this: that

we should be encouraging volunteer fire departments to get this

equipment and that they should be exempt. I can just urge you to

continue to press, and I will do the same. Maybe in next year's budget

we can achieve two great things: that, and the reduction of that

iniquitous increase in tax on tobacco, which I'm still smarting under,

as of April 1.

MRS. DAILLY: Under this vote we have police services. I want to take this brief moment to give some praise to the Attorney-General.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Very straight praise. No caveats. The whole thing.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm designated to do that. Thirty minutes.

The Attorney-General himself referred to this matter earlier; it's

the change which now allows police to place charges in wife assault

cases. I think this has been a very progressive move. I've talked to

women involved in transition houses who say that this has been

excellent, that many women are now able to get away from these tragic

situations because of this move.

I have one question left to ask the minister. Because of the

increase in women going into transition houses for refuge and help, the

financial strain on the transition houses in British Columbia is

increasing. This is not in his ministry, I know, but would he — he

obviously showed a concern about the women who are battered and

assaulted by their spouses — please use his influence with the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) to see that she will aid and

assist with increased financing for transition houses? Because of this

new policy in the Attorney-General's ministry, this has put an extra

burden on their resources. I wonder if the minister would comment on

that, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: Certainly we support them, not with funding,

as the member has already indicated, but it's a resource that's

important, along with a number of other resources that we've harnessed

with our wife assault policy. I

[ Page 5539 ]

would tell the member that we have been running a

series of regional workshops on wife assault across the province. We're

holding one in Cranbrook on April 30 and another one in Nelson on May

1, and these are put on by the Justice Institute in our ministry,

community service centres, and women's organizations in these

communities. We've had a really good response. I think that the field

is now totally supportive of this new approach, and it is having the

effect of liberating a number of women who in the past felt there was

no way out for them, that if they complained they would be dragged back

and more of this would continue. There was no incentive on the part of

the assaulter to do anything about it, because he knew it would be

treated and swept under the rug as a domestic matter. I do appreciate

that support from the member on behalf of her caucus.

MR. LAUK: I have two questions under police services. During

the minister's salary debate I raised the question of a contribution

toward the city of Vancouver's extra costs that they will experience as

a result of the exposition next year. There is a very conservative

estimate of just over $1.5 million; it will probably be close to $2

million with respect to extra police services. I understand the

Attorney-General's ministry has reviewed the estimates of extra police

services and regard them as conservative. Will the Attorney-General

advise whether a decision has been made to contribute extra grants to

the municipality of the city of Vancouver for the police services?

The second question is with respect to the Coordinated Law

Enforcement Unit. Could the minister advise whether there has been any

increase in dollar terms and in percentage terms to CLEUs budget over

the past three years? If so, what are those figures?

HON. MR. SMITH: In answer to the first point on the policing

costs of Expo, it is not contemplated that additional policing costs

would be supported under our budget. If they were to be supported, they

would be under a different budget. I wouldn't encourage the member to

believe that the presence of my assistant deputy, Mr. Robin Bourne, on

this committee has to do with costs. It really doesn't. It has to do

with ensuring that there is adequate policing and adequate security,

particularly in view of the expected presence at Expo of a number of

heads of state. I can't give him any encouragement or support that

there is going to be an additional grant for policing, but it would not

be out of my budget.

Basically, the answers to the questions on CLEU are no, no, no. The

budget for 1984-85 was $3 million and 1985-86 is down to $2.54 million.

I don't have the 1983-84 figure, but it would probably be close to $3

million. It's been stationary and declining slightly this year. In the

operation of CLEU there hasn't been any fundamental shrinking in

responsibility. There has been some curtailment of resources and

personnel, and I guess probably there has been some research

curtailment of a minor kind. The major operations are still undertaken.

We had some reduction in equipment purchases, which accounts for that

reduction this year, and there was some staff reduction as well. But

the fundamental missions of CLEU are still being carried out.

MR. LAUK: I have no doubt that CLEU still has the same

responsibilities, Mr. Chairman, but I do doubt that the

Attorney-General has demonstrated his confidence in CLEU sufficiently

to expand its ability to carry out its mission.

The things that are now filtering through the law enforcement and

administration of justice establishment is that CLEU was a great idea;

it still has tremendous responsibilities; but it's not being given the

tools to do the job. Quite frankly, with that kind of unit one would

expect an expansion of a budget at a time when there is an expansion of

population and an expansion of organized crime within the province.

CLEU's record has been salutary with respect to such high level crime.

It seems to me that the Attorney-General has not demonstrated, nor has

his government in the past three years, the sufficient confidence or

desire for CLEU to be best able to carry out its mission. That's the

first point.

[3:45]

The second point is the Clifford Olsen case and other such serial

murder cases, the Ming kidnapping-murder case and a variety of other

crimes which require a vast strategic component to law enforcement

which did not seem to be required before. In relating similar

incidents, similar allegations, similar crimes, in communicating with

other law enforcement groups in this jurisdiction and outside of it,

and in other provinces, in the States and in Hong Kong and so on....

This requires a lot of resources. It is not enough to say that this is

just one kidnap-killing. The Attorney-General has recognized that this

is the seed of a very serious law enforcement problem that is not going

to go away.

I want to emphasize that the opposition is monitoring the support

that the Attorney-General is giving to CLEU. It's not enough for the

Attorney-General to stand in the House and say he's ordered everybody

to do a good job, when the budget continually decreases for CLEU. Sure,

he could say their research components are down, that the employment is

down, that we don't need the same equipment. Nonsense. Other

jurisdictions, smaller cities in Canada and the United States, are

expanding this strategic component of law enforcement at the same time

that I would say the government in this jurisdiction is treating that

very strategic component in a very myopic way, to the extent where we

are going to be disadvantaged. We won't even be able to fit into the

advanced law enforcement strategies of other jurisdictions, because we

won't even understand them unless we keep up this aspect of CLEU. I'm

not aware of any other group that can do the same kind of coordinated

strategic law enforcement approach that is being done by CLEU in this

jurisdiction which would fit in and be complementary to the similar

bodies in other jurisdictions. If you analyze the budgets for other

jurisdictions, they have steadily gone up. Qualified staff have been

sought and acquired, computerized equipment and a maximum of that kind

of hardware has been acquired, and law enforcement efficiency against

high-level crime and serial murders and other such things has

increased. I wanted to put that on the record so that when we roll

around in this same situation next year the Attorney-General will have

that before him; he'll know what my comments will be the next time that

question is raised.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't think the member needs to fret that

by that budget figure we're cutting back on CLEU in the field sense or

in the operational sense; we're not at all. What is happening is that

while the budget is remaining static, CLEU is expanding its work

through the use of seconded municipal and RCMP personnel who are not

part of the police budget.

When CLEU started, it filled a vacuum. There was no coordinating facility of any kind in the police community.

[ Page 5540 ]

There was no organization that could bring together

police expertise on Vancouver Island or in Vancouver to meet the threat

of organized crime or to assist in the solving of matters like the Ming

killing. It was to fill that vacuum that CLEU was set up.

The big thrust of CLEU, besides running its joint forces operations

which deal with the major organized criminal drug conspiracies and

serious organized crime.... That continues unabated; in fact, that

activity has increased. The other thrust of CLEU is to coordinate and

to use and bring together and ensure that there isn't overlapping in

the various police forces in the jurisdiction, some of whom may be

under police boards and some of whom may be RCMP contract forces. So

while we have fewer functionaries in our office doing research and

secretarial work, we actually have more police personnel on a seconded

basis — not under this budget — who are doing the sort of things that

you're concerned with. So I can reassure you that CLEU is healthy, even

though the budget figures, if you looked at them, might give rise to

some concern that we are standing pat. We're not. I'm also told, hon.

member, that in the past year several American law enforcement agencies

who were consulted and requested to evaluate CLEU and its effectiveness

gave it a very high rating in relation to other agencies in North

America. So I think CLEU is healthy, alive and well.

Vote 12 approved.

Vote 13: judiciary, $14,713,906 — approved.

On vote 14: corrections, $114,872,944.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have a question to do with the

Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act. The area I want to ask

the minister a question on deals with the licensing of the patrol and

security people. We just had a discussion of another aspect by the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell). My question is: why

is the licensing of these people not being enforced? I understand

there's no real enforcement of the licensing of people hired as patrol

and security people. So what guarantee do the citizens of British

Columbia have that these people have been checked out? Why is the

licensing not being carried out? That's the first question.

Also, in the area of locksmiths and who is licensed as a locksmith, what enforcement is there re licensing?

HON. MR. SMITH: There certainly is enforcement in the case of

private investigator and security agencies. They have to be licensed,

and we have a director for that, Mr. Newson. Where there are complaints

that the investigator or his agency are not living up to the conditions

of their licence, they are investigated. Licences are suspended.

Indeed, hearings relating to licences and appeals go on all the time in

this province under that act. If you have a particular complaint, I

would suggest you bring that complaint to me, and I would be quite

pleased to advise you as to how it's being handled and the disposition

of it.

In relation to the locksmith item, there perhaps isn't the same

degree of regulation that there is re the licences, or that the member

would desire. But we do have an advisory committee in the industry that

has been working with the director, Mr. Newson, with a view to having

some standards implemented. We have been proceeding on that with a

voluntary and not a compulsory approach. I would be happy to give you

some more details on that if you're interested. It has been done on an

industry committee basis to date.

MR. MITCHELL: Just one short question. The Metchosin youth

camp has been privatized, and I was just wondering when they set the

standard for the people who qualified to take those contracts. Was

there any consultation with the previous administration, or was it just

a case of who put in the lowest bid for that particular service?

HON. MR. SMITH: It's obviously not just the lowest bid.

Before the contract is awarded, our officials ensure that the applicant

is competent to run the program, because there's no point in us having

a program run by someone who is not qualified and not able to do so,

although they may bid $500 or $1,000 more than somebody else. We can't

afford to have programs run by people who are not qualified and then

have to replace them in the middle of the contract, not only spending

more money but disrupting the program as well. So they consider it from

the standpoint of competence; that would be the primary consideration

and would override everything else.

Vote 14 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Second reading of Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. RITCHIE: In making some brief comments in respect to

this bill.... Actually, what is intended by the bill, Mr. Speaker, is

to clean up some little problems that exist with the present

legislation whereby the Islands Trust Act gives the Islands Trust the

authority to appoint staff in their particular department. However,

they do not have the authority to meet the wages or benefits of the

staff. On the other hand, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs does have

that responsibility. In addition, staff now working with the Islands

Trust are part and parcel of the municipal ministry as far as staffing

is concerned. They are also members of the BCGEU bargaining unit, and

therefore are part of the mainstream of the ministry. However, the

ministry does not have the legal authority to assign staff to the Trust

to carry out their responsibilities. It's with this in mind that we

wish to bring in and have passed this legislation that will clean up

this matter.

There have been some fears expressed as a result of misinformation

through the news media. There has never been any intent by this

minister to remove the Islands Trust. I have stated that publicly on a

number of occasions, and advised the Islands Trust representatives of

that. My critic, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), says he

doesn't believe it. He doesn't believe very much, unless it's what he

states himself. The fact is that I am on record as not in any way,

shape or form giving any consideration to the removal of the Islands

Trust.

I recognize the value of the work carried out by the Islands Trust, and it is with that in mind that I do not intend to

[ Page 5541 ]

make any move in respect to the removal of that

Trust. They have a very important role to play, and no doubt they will

continue to do so. I believe that the tempest in a teapot which we're

beginning to experience is to a great extent being aggravated by some

political byplay. I am really disappointed in that, and further

agitated by the second member for Victoria. However, Mr. Speaker, that

is something that is to be expected, and not at all surprising.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Also, I am not at all surprised by the concerns expressed by some,

because some people — indeed, many people — don't like change at all.

That's something we're dealing with all the time. I have made some

pretty dramatic changes in my own ministry. We have streamlined

staffing and procedures. We have cut the cost to the taxpayer of

operating the ministry, and that wasn't easy either. However, there

wasn't the same political involvement there and it was allowed to

proceed, and things are now running very smoothly indeed. People

recognize that some of these changes are necessary.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, changes are inevitable. I don't think we can get away

from that. At the meeting this morning I was asked by one of the

interested parties if I was open to any suggestions by people from the

Trust in respect to further amendments to the act that would, of

course, enhance that act. Certainly my response to that was: "Yes, I'm

always open to suggestions." I think that the record of this ministry

speaks for itself in that only recently we have, indeed, carried out a

fairly major review of one

section of the Municipal Act that will be

introduced to this House shortly, I hope, and that will be very

beneficial to all municipalities and regional districts and, of course,

to the people that I'm most concerned with, the taxpayers of the

province.

Those changes are the result of the open-door policy of this

ministry — a ministry and a minister who listens. Certainly I admit

that I can't always respond to the things that are being recommended;

for instance, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) or the

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) could come along and

make some suggestions which I may not be able to incorporate. But they

can never accuse me, Mr. Speaker, of not listening. I always listen. I

guess mainly because of my background I do my best to separate the

grain from the chaff, and we do get a lot of chaff in this business,

particularly whenever politics gets into it. Mr. Speaker, I think that

I do have a responsibility to recognize the chaff from the grain and

clean that out. My response to that member this morning was to indeed

accept and give a good hearing to any proposals that would be made in

respect to the Islands Trust legislation that could enhance that. I

assure them that that will be so.

With that, I don't think there's much need to say any more, other than that I would now move second reading of this bill.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the NDP, the

opposition, to make a few I hope cogent remarks about this particular

piece of legislation.

First, let me indicate that it was our hope that after this

morning's meeting, where a number of ideas were expressed by members

from the islands about the possibility of accommodating the minister,

if he is sincere about his housekeeping measures.... Those housekeeping

concepts could very easily be accommodated in a non-controversial way.

I will indeed, during the course of the debate on this particular bill,

indicate how that can be accommodated. If the minister is sincere that

it is indeed just housekeeping that he wishes to see take place, then

he will ensure that that happens and that the autonomy, the work and

the directions set by the island trustees will not be put in jeopardy

by this minister or by Bill 30. In other words, we will suggest the

ways that he can do his job without taking over control and

administering the Islands Trust.

We've said from the start that the Islands Trust is indeed — think, and

our party thinks, and I think many British Columbians believe — an extremely

dedicated, hardworking organization. Since 1974 over and over again it has proven

its worth, not only to the Gulf Islanders but to all citizens of British Columbia.

We have in those islands a very special, unique environment. It's one that

many other areas of the world would give their eye-teeth to have at their doorstep.

We have 2,000 square miles, which the Trust administers, that is perhaps one

of the most unique environments in the world. It is a most beautiful part of

British Columbia.

It's an area that in 1974 — and prior to that, Mr. Speaker.... In

1968 I believe the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, made some fairly

substantial recommendations about land freezes because of the concerns

that the government of the time had about what was happening to those

islands. There has been support, I believe, on all sides of the

political spectrum for those islands — their aspirations, their goals,

and their objectives as a community on the one hand, and also as an

important ingredient and component in the British Columbia society and

landscape.

Time and time again, for a number of reasons, that Trust and those

people and that unique area have come under the gun. So many times

those islanders and that Trust have had to respond — often in a

confrontational way, because they were given no other opportunity to do

so — and have had to react to the government's intentions, particularly

this government.

Here we are once again in this Legislature having to enter into

discussion and dialogue about the future of the islands and how the

Islands Trust will administer and who will take responsibility for the

staff. I categorically state: enough is enough. We have seen too much

interference and meddling and centralization by this government. It is

time they took their hands off local government and let local

government do its job. That's what we need in the province of British

Columbia. Local government and the Islands Trust do a good job, and

they should be allowed to do that job without meddling. How many times

do we have to see this government, in its backward ways in its approach

to local government, usurp the responsibilities of duly elected people

in local government? I indicate now, and I will say it many times: the

Islands Trust has duly elected trustees who have the faith and support

of their electorate to do their best for those islands. Here we have a

piece of legislation with virtually no consultation with those people

and the trustees and their constituents about this particular piece of

legislation. You cannot treat local government in this way. How many

times do we have to indicate from this side of the House that there has

to be a better process, that there has to be a better and fairer and

equal way of treating local government?

We — 100 percent on this side of the House — support the work of the

Islands Trust and of the 14,000 people currently living in the islands;

and they support their trustees, and they support the staff that does

the job for those trustees.

[ Page 5542 ]

The minister has indicated in this House and right across this

province, it is my understanding, that he wants cooperation and

partnership with local government; that he wishes to develop mechanisms

that will improve the lines of communication between local government

and the provincial government. He has spent much time, in various ways,

trying to tell the municipally elected people across the province that

he was interested in entering into a dialogue, into a partnership of

cooperation; that there was a new era emanating from this current

government vis-à-vis their attitudes and the way they deal with local

government. We had all the fancy literature, the television cameras and

the lights at the Newcombe Auditorium to tell the people of British

Columbia and all those elected people that this government was changing

its position and its ways of dealing with local government; that they

wished to enter into partnership; that from now on, before they brought

in legislation that would dramatically affect the daily running of any

municipality, they would sit down with those organizations and try to

work out an equal framework for the orderly conduct of those particular

jurisdictions. Yet one week later, after all the pomp and circumstance

about partnership and cooperation, this government introduces Bill 30,

with virtually no discussion with the Islands Trust. There was some

indication to the main people of the Islands Trust that there may be

some changes, but no treatment on an equal basis, and no opportunity

for dialogue, or trying to come to some arrangement that might

accommodate the government's views about the Islands Trust and the

direction of those islands, and accommodate the views of the trustees

and their aspirations for those islands.

When you are talking about partnership and cooperation, you have to

have respect for the other side who is supposedly your partner. You

must have a sincere belief that you are equal in that partnership and

that cooperation. Here we have a classic example of what this

government really means by cooperation and partnership. What it means

in the province of British Columbia is that if you wish to be a partner

with the Social Credit government in 1985, you take it or leave it; and

if you don't like it, you go away.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, the member obviously hasn't

read the bill. He's mixing up two pieces of legislation. I believe the

bill that he has been referring to, the Provincial-Municipal

Partnership Act, is Bill 25, if I remember correctly. But in any case,

his remarks seem to be off beam. We're on Bill 30, not on the

Provincial-Municipal Partnership Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I guess all points of order are well taken.

The bill before us, as I read the explanatory notes, indicates that the

ministry will be able to provide staff assistance to the Islands Trust.

I presume that members will make their comments relevant to the

principle of this bill, although we must be reminded — all of us in the

House — that second reading does allow some latitude. However, the

principle of this bill would appear to be staff assistance to the

Islands Trust, and I'm sure that the member now taking his place in

debate can make his remarks relevant to the principle of the bill

before us, Bill 30.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, what my

colleague from Victoria alludes to is the question relating to

partnership that the government raised in the throne speech and in the

budget speech. He's using that as his argument. It has nothing to do

with the bill that the minister raised this point of order on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it would also appear, then, if it was

discussed in the budget or throne speech, that that would have been the

point at which to debate it. But we are in Bill 30, and we are allowed

some latitude.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Victoria, I'm sure, could continue, with the principle of Bill 30 in mind.

[4:15]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make.... I

think it's a valid one, given the minister's and this government's

intention or.... The major platform, if you will, of the budget, the

direction of this government and the legislative agenda of this

government, which Bill 30 is a part of, was one of new directions with

local government, cooperation and trying to work out problems before

they come into this legislative chamber — which you can recall I have

given many speeches on in this House in the last two years, to the

point where I'm sure many members don't want to hear it again.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: No, I know, they don't want to hear it again, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

But suffice to say, having come from local government I know how

important it is that we have a working relationship and understanding

between local government and the provincial government. Mr. Speaker,

unless this government is going to stand accused of being hollow and

not meaning their fine rhetoric vis-à-vis cooperation and partnership

with local government, they really must think about this particular

piece of legislation and its implications.

Today we had a fairly fruitful meeting with the trustees and the

minister. I suggested a compromise. I put forward a compromise to the

minister and to the trustees, because I don't think we're that far

apart, unless — and I introduce the theme now — we have in Bill 30

another agenda that the minister and this government are not being

candid about with this Legislature and with the people of British

Columbia. If that is accurate, and there is another agenda for Bill 30,

we would certainly like to hear about it. However, I will take the

minister at his word, Mr. Speaker, and say it is housekeeping.

All right, accept the compromise that was offered this morning. You

can accommodate your wishes by a very simple amendment, and yet allow

the trustees to do their job and retain their staff and the direction

of that staff. Unless you do that, unless you see to that, through you,

Mr. Speaker, to the minister, you will run the risk of not being

sincere in your scheme of partnership and cooperation with local

government.

[ Page 5543 ]

Here you have a fine opportunity to say to me, to the government and

to the people of British Columbia: "We wish to cooperate, we wish to

compromise, we wish to find the balance between the Islands Trust and

the provincial government." If we can achieve that in this debate in

the few days ahead, then I think both sides will be well served, and

certainly the residents of the Gulf Islands and all British Columbians

will be well served.

There is a compromise here which is reasonable and, I think, if it

can be accepted, takes the minister at his word when he says that he

wants just simple housekeeping. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we do indeed

have a hidden agenda, and this move is far more meaningful than is

indicated in the words in Bill 30.

The Islands Trust and the Gulf Islands are far too important an area

of British Columbia to take lightly. I really do today ask for some

reason, for some intelligent kind of analysis by both sides — and by

the minister in particular, because he brought the bill into this House

— to have another look. Try to sit down with the trustees, and in

particular with the chairman of the Islands Trust, because they have

indicated where they think the minister can do what he wants to do, and

let's pull it out of this arena, because it's unfortunate that we are

even here today. Let's find some sensible compromise that we can all

live with, Mr. Speaker.

In my view, the Islands Trust should be enhanced. In my view, their

powers should be extended. In my view, we should be looking at the

Islands Trust beyond just some sort of appendage of the provincial

government, having to depend on the support of the provincial

government of the time to ensure their future. I think we have to

ensure that the future of the Islands Trust is once and for all removed

from political interference by any government. Let them get on with

their job and administer that 2,000 square miles of beautiful territory

in British Columbia.

If it's a matter of budgets, if it's a matter of the minister's

concern about the financial operations, it's my understanding that the

Islands Trust is quite prepared to go to our constituents and say: "We

will fund 100 percent of the operation of the Islands Trust from the

islands. There's no need for municipal support." How about that as a

compromise, Mr. Minister? You won't have any financial responsibility

then, and you won't need your so-called housekeeping. You won't need

the housekeeping measures that are supposedly before us. Let the

Islands Trust be responsible for financing themselves in total for

their operation. There's a compromise. There's a way out for you. So if

I hear the minister somewhere along the line say — and I believe he has

said before — that it's a matter of finances and he's concerned, for

instance, about the manager's huge salary.... The Islands Trust are

prepared to operate this and fund it themselves without any support

from the provincial government.

There is an offer you can't refuse, Mr. Minister. Take it. Run with

it. Let them do their job. If you don't do that and you don't accept

the compromise amendments that I'm going to bring forward, then the

hidden agenda that we suspect indeed will be accurate. This bill will

be called, in the province of British Columbia, the mondo condo bill

for the Gulf Islands. That's what it will all be about.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Then, Mr. Minister, you know the compromise

amendments that will satisfy your needs and meet the needs of the

Islands Trust. Why don't you support them?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Unfortunately this is a political arena and

unfortunately we have been forced into this arena by an intransigent

minister who will not move on this issue, who will not meet with the

trustees and find a reasonable compromise. That's why we're in this

Legislature today, Mr. Minister. We shouldn't be here right now. You

should be meeting with these people to work out a compromise solution

in the framework of partnership and cooperation with local government.

That's what you should be doing.

However, Mr. Speaker, there must be some other motive, unless the

minister will get up and pleasantly surprise us that he is prepared to

take up the very useful recommendations from Mr. Humphries and the

Islands Trust in terms of accommodating his wishes.

I want to move on to another aspect which I think is extremely

useful and one that the minister may indeed wish to respond to

sometime. There has been a process going on in the islands for some

months now. A fellow called Mr. Campbell — we're all familiar with the

name Dan Campbell, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Dan Campbell, the man with all the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he the MLA for Comox?

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, that's the man. The man with the big bills, right? He has been doing a job for the minister.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, once again I wish to see how serious the minister is about cooperation, dialogue, communication and partnership.

Mr. Campbell has been charged by the ministe....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Municipal Affairs will have his opportunity to close debate.

MR. BLENCOE: It's obvious that this bill is very unnerving to

the minister, and he cannot refrain from such personal interjections. I

take those as normal.

I was about to discuss the Dan Campbell process.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I hope the Islands Trust trustees see the minister who's responsible for their future.

Mr. Campbell was charged by the minister to find out the feelings of

islanders about the Islands Trust. I think it was a reasonable process.

It's not unusual that a government looks at a particular aspect of

government and may indeed make some positive and constructive

suggestions for change. Many residents — and I have numerous copies —

of the Islands Trust and trustees in good faith responded to Mr.

[ Page 5544 ]

Campbell's call for their views about the Islands

Trust and the future of the islands, a useful dialogue and a useful

process to go through. When we return to government in approximately

one year from now, we will introduce that process of dialogue and

communication as a matter of norm, a matter of sincerely believing in

that process, and we will listen to the concerns expressed in that kind

of process. Mr. Campbell heard lots of responses and got lots of

letters, lots of ideas and thoughts about the Islands Trust. I would

say that many of those people responded in a non-partisan way. There

were letters from well-known Social Credit supporters. One, which I

will read into the record today, is from a Mr. John D. Runkle of Denman

Island. I will quote what he says about the Islands Trust through the

Campbell process.

"Although I have been a loyal supporter of the present

government, I must give credit to the NDP for creating the Islands

Trust, a vitally important and democratic body. I have serious

misgivings about the intention of the present government when the

Islands Trust is singled out for investigation."

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous other letters, and if time permits I will read some of those into the record.

The important point is that there was a process of consultation

taking place, of acquiring the views of many of those 14,000 residents

of the Gulf Islands. But we don't know the results of that process. We

haven't heard from Mr. Campbell. The islanders, in good faith, sent in

their views hoping for some kind of response or some kind of dialogue

or communication about future direction; that they will be able to

enter into that process other than just by indicating their initial

reactions in a letter. We're still waiting for the end of the Campbell

process and that communication system that was supposedly in place. Yet

we don't know what the Campbell report, statements or even recognition

of these letters will be.

[4:30]

What was the need, then, for that Campbell process? Why put it in

place? Why all the rush to bring this piece of legislation into this

House if it's just housekeeping? I would suggest that just about every

single person — of all political persuasions — who responded to Mr.

Campbell was in support of the Islands Trust and the current management

and staffing of the Islands Trust. They could not wait for those views

to come out, because this government had an agenda that they were set

on.

I hope I'm wrong, Mr. Speaker. I'm hoping that the government is

being honest and candid about housekeeping. But I have to be somewhat

suspicious when I see hundreds and hundreds of letters of support for

the Islands Trust from all sorts of people on the islands, all walks of

life, all professional areas — doctors, lawyers, concerned citizens,

artists, trustees, Social Credit supporters — all indicating that they

really don't want any system of tampering with the direction of the

islands or the trustees' ability to set the policies and the goals, and

to direct their staff.

Why have the Campbell process in effect? Why do Bill 30 now in this

chamber when we don't know the results of the Campbell process? Why

indicate to the islanders that you were serious about consultation and

hearing the views of the islanders? Because Bill 30 makes a mockery of

that process; it throws scorn on the islanders and their input, on

their democratic views. I again indicate to the minister that if he is

serious about cooperation and partnership with local government, he

will give serious thought to what I'm saying today. That cooperation

and that environment....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, this happens to be one of the most

important pieces of legislation in this session. We are dealing with a

very important area, and we have laughing and giggling on the other

side of the House. Shame! Let's have some order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Member. It is the Chair's position to maintain order, not the member's.

MR. BLENCOE: I know, Mr. Speaker, but I get upset.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At this point I would mention that the green light has been on for a few moments.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to you that I will be continuing past the half hour as the designated speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will appreciate that courtesy

among members is a hallmark of members in the House. I would draw to

your attention in the standing orders practice recommendation No. 9: "A

member who wishes to speak as designated member should advise the Chair

as early as possible after the commencement of his or her speech." It

would be appreciated if in the future all members could notify the

Chair so that other members would have the benefit of that courtesy in

timing their own presentations and speeches. Would the member then

continue, but in future possibly remember and consider the courtesy of

recommendation No. 9.

MR. BLENCOE: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I would also indicate to

you and to the other side that we weren't sure whether this piece of

legislation was indeed coming forward today. Two or three times we

expected it to come forward, and then it was cancelled. So our

opportunity to prepare and indicate to the government who was going to

do what today has been somewhat limited too by the handling of this

piece of legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair is not here to argue with members.

Would the member please continue on Bill 30 as designated speaker, and

maintain relevant debate.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I indeed will.

What I'm trying to indicate to the government is that if they were

serious about the input and the consultation process for the Islands

Trust, they would have allowed the Campbell process to run its course,

have a reasonable report come forward, and then some dialogue about the

results with the Islands Trust. Well, that is not about to happen. The

government, for whatever reason, has stepped in and introduced a piece

of legislation before that democratic process could come to a normal

conclusion, and here today we have a piece of legislation that we think

is abhorrent to the aspirations and well-being of the Islands Trust in

British Columbia.

The minister asked me to think positively. I've already indicated

this morning, and already in the Legislature today, that I can indeed

think very positively about this particular piece of legislation if the

minister is prepared to indicate that he is prepared to think

positively in terms of a compromise and finding a resolution that both

sides of the House feel will

[ Page 5545 ]

satisfy both partners in this particular issue. I

again refer to the fact that I think we do have partners here: the

Islands Trust and the provincial government. I'm prepared to be

positive about partnership. I'm prepared to be positive about

cooperation in working out the difficult spots with local governments,

and the Islands Trust in this instance, and trying to find some

resolution to what the government wishes to do. Yet we are once again

faced with legislation that has had very little input from those to be

dramatically affected by the legislation. The minister can say all he

wants that it's housekeeping, but the islanders do not take it as

housekeeping. They take it as a very heavy-handed move to once again

centralize, through staff, authority over the Islands Trust in the

hands of the provincial government.

It's a continuation of what we have seen for the last two years, and

beyond that: this government's continuing erosion of local government

and of local government's responsibility in matters that are

traditionally the responsibility of local government, particularly land

use planning, bylaws, community plans and regional planning. This is

not the first time we have seen a piece of legislation before us that

radically alters the daily operations of local government and regional

districts.

If this government is serious about entering into cooperative

partnership with local government, it must not continue to bring in

pieces of legislation like Bill 30. It can only harm long-term

cooperation between the provincial government and local governments. I

really urge this government and this minister to think long and hard

about what they're saying to British Columbians in their television

ads, which are about to run, about compromise and cooperation and

partnership and what they're doing in reality. This bill is

hypocritical, it's not honest to the people of British Columbia, and

it's certainly not honest in terms of trying to achieve partnership and

cooperation with local governments. I will continue to emphasize that

particular theme.

This government's attitude to local government appears to be: "If we

don't like what you do, if we don't like how you run your

jurisdictions, even though you were elected to operate those

jurisdictions, we'll introduce legislation to take over many of the

things that you do as duly elected people." We've seen that over and

over again in the last few years. Instead of using dialogue and

intelligent and rational discussion, and a compromising kind of

decision-making process, this government continues to take an axe to

local government. Once again we have an axe on the Islands Trust, in

terms of Bill 30 before us today.

I was optimistic in hoping that the process involved in Mr.

Campbell's overtures to the islands, in terms of hearing the views and

the goals and the aspirations of those trustees and their constituents,

was sincere and that the minister was sincere about believing in the

Trust and its work. I think that, unless we see some major changes by

this minister in this particular piece of legislation, that sincerity

has gone out the window.

I want to address a very important aspect of what happens if this

piece of legislation goes through intact. What happens to the Islands

Trust in the future? What's going to happen to those trustees? What's

their mandate going to be? Who are they going to direct to meet the

land use, zoning and planning aspirations of the residents of those

Gulf Islands? Currently the trustees set the direction and set the

policies, and hire staff to work on what the trustees think are the

important ingredients of Gulf Islands life. I believe, and all of us on

this side believe, that those trustees have done a remarkable job over

the last 11 years. They have managed to balance the interests of the

development industry and the interests of those who perhaps don't

always see development as a positive thing, Through their diligence and

their deliberations, and working with all residents, the trustees have

managed to achieve a balance between the development interests and

those of residents who may totally oppose any kind of development.

That's been an important ingredient of Trust life, Mr. Speaker. With

their ability to set their staff to work looking at things that are

required for the islands, to set the priorities and particularly the

planning priorities, the Trust has had a major role to play in the

direction of the Gulf Islands. It's the reason those islands are as

beautiful as they are today, the reason they haven't been ravaged by

the fast-buck merchants that we've seen in other jurisdictions, the

reason that many British Columbians — I think every British Columbian —

at some time will visit those islands and say: "I wish my home was like

this. I wish my community had a board like this. I wish my municipality

cared about the environment and the marine environment, and the quality

of life." What we're dealing with here is something that today is very

special, and that we should be looking at in terms of spreading what

the Islands Trust has done and how they approach their communities.

The people of British Columbia owe much to the Islands Trust and the

trustees that have served over the years. I happen to believe that if a

survey was taken today or tomorrow, and we had a poll of what British

Columbians feel about the Gulf Islands, as to whether their directions

and philosophy should be in any way hindered or redirected, there would

be an overwhelming "no." No, leave the Trust alone; let them do their

work. Don't interfere and don't centralize, because everything this

government has touched in the last few years has just fallen flat. But

I won't go into that. The people of British Columbia are happy with the

Trust, and I think if they saw anything that was going to dramatically

affect the lifestyle, or the maintenance of that beautiful environment

for all British Columbians to enjoy at some time or another in their

lives, I think they would categorically say: "No." Let the 26 trustees

and the various processes that are in effect with their staff carry on.

British Columbians want the Gulf Islands to remain a very special area

in British Columbia.

[4:45]

I know, Mr. Speaker, from my discussions with numerous people, and

from programs that I have done — despite that the minister says we're

trying to stir it up — there is concern out there about this

government's attitude towards local government. What we have is a

situation that's analogous to any municipality in the province of

British Columbia that's duly elected to set the directions, policies

and goals of their municipalities through their staff. Those staff work

for the municipalities; they are hired and fired by those

municipalities. What we have here in Bill 30 is the same as if the

minister — maybe he's planning this, I don't know; who knows? — decided

that, for whatever reason, he was going to take over the planning staff

or the staff of the city of Victoria or the city of Vancouver or the

city of Chilliwack or Abbotsford. That's the analogy. Without any word

or any consultation or any respect for the trustees, this government

has said: "I want control of those staff members. I want to control all

the options, and I want to control the direction of the Gulf Islands in

perpetuity." That's what this government is saying by this bill,

unless...

[ Page 5546 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: Have you read it?

MR. BLENCOE: I wish that member would get serious someday.

...unless the minister is prepared to enter into dialogue and achieve a compromise on this particular piece of legislation.

Why does the minister feel he has to do this, apart from his saying

it's housekeeping? What is driving this government to interfere in one

area of British Columbia that is generally well supported and that

British Columbians feel is well administered and taken care of? Why

does this government feel today, after all the controversy and the heat

and the attacks and the scorn and sometimes the hatred of British

Columbians...? Why now, Mr. Speaker, take on the islands?

These 26 trustees don't get rich, I can tell you, serving their

communities, but every single one of them is deeply concerned about

this piece of legislation. Quite frankly I have to say, because of

what's happened in the past and some of the statements that have been

made by the minister and other members of the government, that there is

a degree of mistrust. I'm not quite sure where all that mistrust comes

from, but there is mistrust. Let's try to eliminate that mistrust. Here

is a great opportunity for the minister to say: "Okay, my bill has been

misunderstood. Maybe the views of the residents and the islanders and

the trustees and the chairman have some validity, and we can take

another look." I know the minister is pouring scorn on the political

process. He says that somehow Blencoe and everybody else is stirring up

a political hotbed. Well, Mr. Speaker, I've heard that in my years —

whenever I take on an issue that I happen to believe in, and that

British Columbians believe in. When the other side gets uptight, they

accuse you of stirring up politics.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Well, Mr. Speaker, the political process doesn't necessarily have to

be controversial, The political process is open for compromise and

meaningful dialogue between all interested parties. Let's use that

political process. It is the democratic process. It is one that we all

hopefully believe in, and it is one that will work, that everybody can

feel they are partaking in, they are part of, and we can achieve some

sort of reasonable compromise and resolution to this particular issue.

Use that political process. Mr. Minister, in this chamber and in this

precinct today we have people who represent those islanders. They

offered you some ideas today, they offered you a compromise. I was

certainly prepared to look at compromise.

Let's use that political process in a positive way rather than a

negative way — another call to the minister, if he is listening to this

side of the House. What is to happen to the trustees? What's to happen

to them?

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I went kite-flying over the weekend with my young son, and I think I stood in the cold wind too long.

Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen to the trustees? We haven't had

an answer. The minister certainly didn't respond to that today in our

get-together, because one of the major.... Any organization that is

going to have a meaningful impact on the area it represents has to have

some degree of control of its staff and be able to set the directions.

Under this piece of legislation the minister may now assign employees

of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to assist the Trust in carrying

out its duties under this act, and the person who was appointed under

section 13 of the Islands Trust Act shall be deemed by this

section to

be an employee of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

With respect to the minister, this cannot really be seen as

housekeeping as it stands now, because what it does is neuter the

operation of the Islands Trust. They will no longer have a mandate to

fulfil, one that they can carry out, because they won't have the staff

and they won't control them, and they won't be able to assign their

responsibilities and their duties.

Is it the intention, in a very roundabout way, to repeal the Islands

Trust? Was it the intention of this government, because they get so

much political heat, not to introduce a repeal act on the Islands Trust

but to introduce Bill 30, which basically means that the Islands Trust

won't be able to carry out their mandate and therefore won't be able to

do their job, and they might as well be repealed? Was that the

intention of this government? Because as this bill stands today, that

is exactly what is going to happen.

People of British Columbia do not want the Islands Trust and its

staff to be neutered or to be compromised or have their mandate taken

away. People of British Columbia, and certainly the official

opposition, believe that the Trust must be enhanced. They must be

allowed to grow and their staff must not be taken away from the trustee

direction.

The minister has to answer this particular aspect. He has to tell

the Trust and the people of British Columbia what the mandate of the

Islands Trust is now. The minister said this morning that he has every

intention of supporting the Trust down the road, but all the options,

all the strings, all the levers of power and decision-making vis-à-vis

the Islands Trust will be controlled by the minister. He will have all

the options. Once this legislation is passed, if it is passed intact,

he will be able to direct those staff to do exactly what he wants. If

he has any hidden agenda for some massive redevelopment of the Islands

Trust or the Islands Trust area or the Gulf Islands, that option will

be totally his, and nothing will be able to stop him, except, of

course, the islanders have to go back on the barricades again and fight

this government tooth and nail.

But the islanders are tired of fighting. They want to be able to do

their job. They want to be able to carry out their mandate in an

effective way. But it's true and accurate that if this bill goes

through intact, all the options, all the strings, all the levers of

power will be in the hands of the minister. God forbid, Mr. Speaker,

the direction and the future of the islands, if ever we are talking....

The minister keeps talking about politics, but if ever there is the

opportunity for political abuse of one of the most beautiful areas in

the world, it will be wide open with Bill 30.

This government's attitude toward pristine areas, toward

environmental issues, toward Meares Island and all those kinds of

issues.... We know their views. This government's attitude toward land

and the land ethic is totally different from that of many people on the

islands. What we have here is a clash between a government that nine

times out of ten, when it sees vacant land, sees it in a monetary

sense. They see it in a development sense. They don't see it as

something that is very special that was given to us.... Well, it wasn't

given to us by us; it was given to us by someone much bigger than all

of us, and we'll all interpret that in our own way.

[ Page 5547 ]

The Trust has been saying for these 11 years that there